The theory of evolution, which is better-supported by multiple converging lines of evidence than virtually any other scientific theory, is not the defining theory of everything. But it is true, and life as we know it HAS evolved from simpler organisms, over hundred of millions of years.

The origin of the universe and abiogenesis are not a part of the theory of evolution.

Our universe may not exist by accident, but human beings, like all other species, DO exist because of two fundamental concepts: (1) random mutation and (2) non-random selection. There is no way around the mountain of evidence suggesting this is true. By contrast, the arguments for “special creation” lack evidentiary support and are logically bankrupt. Unless, of course, you’d like to provide some scientific evidence suggesting otherwise, rather than just obfuscatory references to ‘ecospheres’ and such.

This is true, for example, if the anthropic constraint on the forces means that the universe is “Darwinian”.

And that means that the theory of evolution is defining the theory of everything via these first principles and the most accurate cosmological principle.

So you tell me why any Darwinian would cut off their own willfully ignorant nose?

You should take time and actually read the articles to that I linked because they answer many of your erroneously derived logic.

Besides, this whole discussion is really immaterial. Evolution by natural selection was the topic of the post, and this is supported by mountains of evidence such that there can be no reasonable doubt as to the fact of evolution; you’ll find that virtually all those who don’t “believe” in evolution all suffer from a common affliction: dogmatic retention of one or another idea of the creation of human life, as we see it before us today, by a supernatural being, at some point in the past. The phrase “as we see it now” is the most objectionable part of this dogma, and is the most at odds with demonstrable evidence.

The creation of the universe, and indeed abiogenesis, was not a central topic of my post.

Perhaps we do live in a universe in which carbon-based life is guaranteed in at least one place (and likely far more than this); this does not provide one iota of evidence suggesting that the universe was created as such by a supernatural designer. It may be, as you seem to agree, a DEFINING CHARACTERISTIC of that universe, just as “paper-like” is a defining characteristic of paper.

Not what we see… and that is the whole point that you still miss, because it is not that simple:

Is Our Universe Natural?
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0512148

It goes without saying that we are stuck with the universe we have.

Which, is what you are trying to say justifies our existence.

Nevertheless, we would like to go beyond simply describing our observed universe, and try to understand why it is that way rather than some other way. Physicists and cosmologists have been exploring increasingly ambitious ideas that attempt to explain why certain features of our universe aren’t as surprising as they might first appear.

“Increasingly ambitious attempts” to explain the otherwise “surprising” configuration that is observed are a cop-out on the natural expectation for the structure and evolution of the universe.

In context with an anthropic principle, the most natural expectation would include carbon based life as a specially relevant feature of the mechanism that constrains the forces to the otherwise unexpected configuration that is observed… via… FIRST PRINCIPLES.

There is much that I have not (or, admittedly, cannot) say about theoretical physics and the anthropic prinicple; this is not central to the argument I made in the original post, and this paragraph could be removed without altering the meaning.

My understanding is this: had the physical constants been different, we wouldn’t be here. Perhaps all of the configurations of the physical constants would result in some carbon-based life form. I don’t have the physics background to state this. But this is irrelevant.

My point is that creationists (like Francis Collins…”theistic evolution” my ass!) use this argument all the time to “prove” the existence of a “designer” (god, when he’s at home), and that it doesn’t pass muster when you consider that we are not the only possible outcome, and that there is no reason to pre-suppose that we are in any way more “special” than any other potential carbon-based life.

Of course the universe looks finely tuned for our existence; we exist! What would one expect to see? A universe that looks inhospitable to our existence?

1) Probabilities don’t apply until you throw your hands up to first principles, because there is a most natural expectation for the structuring of the universe that is no where close to what is observed. This is what drew physicists to the anthropic physics in the first place, because the otherwise unexpected configuration that is observed is also extremely pointed toward the production of carbon based life at a specific time/location in the history of the universe.

2) There are very good scientific reasons why carbon based life is expected, whereas “other life forms”, (like silicon based life), are not, and there is also a runaway effect that takes over if any of the anthropic balance points are disturbed. This is a cumulative effect and any sustained deviation causes conditions for life to run so far away from your wildest dreams for what constites condition that are necessary to life that it would literally make your head swim.

The Douglass Adams “shot” is not even close to being a valid analogy of the extreme, pointed, and unexpected physics.

He used the same term as you did… “dogma”.

Let me see what I can say about what you wrote…

What I’m saying is that if these constants HAD been different, we would not be here to ponder our own existence. Perhaps some other “life” form would be pondering ITS existence in our place; or perhaps we’d have a vacuous, lifeless universe. Or perhaps no universe at all.

There are many outcomes to any random situation (like the lottery, or flipping a coin x times). Only when we artifically assign meaning to one or more outcomes is the “tuning” of physical constants an appropriate argument for “design”; I see no reason to assign this meaning to us.