Can you mess with physics at all? (And by “you” in this case I mean God, because I don’t think you meant Giltil.) The claim would seem to be that God could have changed physics so as to change the emission spectra of stars but could not have changed chemistry so as to make different parts of the electromagnetic spectrum have different effects on chemical bonds. Now how does @Giltil know just what God can and can’t do? It is a puzzlement.
Note that this also requires knowing what the universe could have been like and what it couldn’t, with or without God.
An eclectic crew including a skeptical lawyer, Catholic parishioner, and Wicken New-ager descend to a blustery misty moor in Scotland with ancient carvings and sense a terrible presence. This has the makings of a shaky cam found footage horror. It nearly writes itself.
The whole argument also depends on assuming that intelligent life must, in all cases, closely resemble the intelligent life that just happened to evolve on our planet. I see no reason, however, that intelligent anaerobic aquatic organisms that don’t have vision but can perceive thru another sense the entire electromagnetic spectrum could not, in principle, exist. Just to pick one set of parameters at random.
The more general underlying assumption is that there is something specially privileged about a universe that produces “intelligent life.” It might be understandable that beings who consider themselves to be “intelligent life” will also consider themselves to be the pinnacle of creation. But who knows what wondrous things might arise in a universe with completely different physical parameters?
I think that if I blogged my vacations, some sort of strange historical-fiction genre would emerge as fan-fic. We rent ancient houses with lots of sleeping room (Gargunnock House, near Stirling, on this occasion – Kilmartin Glen was a bit of a drive!) and then invite all our old friends to stay there with us. We bribe them to go by covering the cost of the house. So it’s a bit Vincent-Price-y but I look a lot more like Alistair Sim, and because of my propensity for breaking into song at any moment, it’s like a kind of dystopian musical.
The first time we did this, it was just outside Dartmoor, and I pointed out this helpful tourist guide to the moor:
So, you know, the whole supernatural hell-hound thing was pretty well covered in advance. We ate at Hound of the Basketmeals, outside Hound Tor, drank at the Ring of Bells pub in North Bovey, and summoned the spirits at the Scorhill stone circle, then wandered down to the Teign for sacrifices and/or picnic (I don’t remember which, but I think most of the guests came back). Best horror content, I suspect, was the drive from Chagford to Gidleigh, on which one learns that the way to know you are well centered on a Dartmoor road is that the vegetation is hitting both sides of your car equally. When you meet a car coming the other way, there is just a bit of Lasciate-ing Ogni Esperanza.
The EM spectrum doesn’t really bound on the RF side, so there would be practical detection limits based on antenna size requirement. On the energetic side, gamma radiation is disruptive and at some point sterilizing. But any star with a surface temperature between 3,000 K and 10,000 K would produce a spectrum to which life could conceivably adapt. Above 7,000 K the spectrum is moot anyways, as the star is done after a few hundred million years.
Our sun, presently approaching 6,000 K, does strike a nice balance between lifespan and irradiance. Even so, it seems that Earth managed to have come close to entirely freezing over at one point. Solar flux is at the base of most ecology energetics. To have vigorous advanced life, a plentiful source of energy is helpful.
I am not sure I understand your point. It seems to me that you are denying that the fact that the tiny fraction of the EM spectrum that is of utility for beings like us also happens to be the fraction emited by the sun is not a true coincidence. But according to Denton, it is indeed a genuine coincidence because « the laws of nature that determine that light photons have just the right energy levels for photochemistry and that radiation in the IR region has just the right properties to warm the Earth have nothing to do with the laws which determine that star of surface temperature close to 6000•C will emit radiation in these same two vital bands ». But okay, you are not convinced. However, Denton lists many other coincidences. For example, the fact « that the gases of the atmosphere which are necessary for biological reasons let through most of the useful light radiation emitted by the sun to the Earth’s surface, where it enables photosynthesis, while absorbing a fraction of the IR radiation to raise the temperature of the Earth’s surface into the ambiant temperature range ». Isn’t this a genuine coincidence, considering the fact that « the law of nature which determine the physical absorbance properties of the gases have no connection with their chemical properties which determine their utility to life ». And Denton to go on: « In the case of photosynthesis, 3 of the key atmospheric gases whose physical absorption properties are of such critical importance (letting through the light) in enabling the process of photosynthesis to proceed are also chemical players in the process of photosynthesis itself. And these gases aren’t just peripheral players in the process — they are the major reactants! IOW, it is the 3 major reactants CO2, H2O and O2, which ensure — by their collective absorption properties in the atmosphere — the availability of the vital light energy necessary to drive the reaction to completion ».
Shouldn’t we be awed at these wildly improbable coincidences, and by « the teleological web of fitness and the quite unparalleled parsimony in the compression of so many critical elements of natural fitness within the properties of the four primal gases (O2, N2, CO2, H2O) »?
OTOH, you’ll recall when they found life in the deep ocean at thermal vents; and then subsequently other life forms at vast depths and not necessarily near the thermal vents. What I’m trying to say, most inarticulately, is that life has evolved AND flourishes in places where there is no light nor warmth, at extraordinary pressures, etc, etc.
You said the magic word-“Energy”. So long as there is a source of energy, life can and will flourish.
I think you have forgotten what the term “coincidence” implies and I don’t think Denton would say this considering he is trying to show that something is really going on behind the scenes.
This is just embarrassing. Seriously, if you don’t understand why IR radiation must have the properties to warm things, you don’t understand physics well enough to even have this conversation.
It’s like you’re saying two dice were rolled. One die controlled what radiation the sun primarily emits. Another die controls what wavelength of light is most conducive to photosynthesis.
What I am disputing is that they are independent variables. I don’t buy the claim that X “has nothing to do with” Y.
If you roll one die, the outcome affects the other die. In fact there isn’t two, there’s just one. You can’t roll the “suns radiation profile” die without that also affecting the “what wavelength of light is most conducive to photosynthesis” die. Or even worse, if you mess with nuclear fusion in such a way that stars begin outputting way more in short wavelengths, do they still produce just as many(or any) of the elements of which life are made?
What physical law, or constant, are you going to start dialing the knob on such that our sun starts putting out way more radiation in microwaves and/or x-rays, and way less in the visible part of the spectrum? And yet this does not affect how organic molecules interact with light? What are these laws and constants, specifically? I don’t buy this on Denton’s mere assertion.
Blackbody radiation is a basic feature of our universe. Why is it surprising we should find organisms using higher energy photons to drive chemical reactions on a planet that orbits a star that produces those higher energy photons? What is it about blackbody radiation that Denton finds so fascinating?
What about Venus? Is it really that stunning that life exists on Earth and not on Venus?
Why should we expect @Giltil to be any smarter than Michael Denton? Or, at least, any smarter than Michael Denton seems to think he and his fellow creationists are?
Life does indeed, which is why I qualified my statement as “advanced life”. It is probably inadequate to rely on thermal gradients, and necessary to populate land, to progress to being technologically adept. Under the favorable conditions of earth, life has persisted for billions of years absent any real degree of civilization, and for most of that time the planet hosted only microbial life. By far, the greater part of earth’s biomass depends on solar energy, and even with that abundant input, we have only just arrived.
Thanks for the clarification. That’s what I thought I understood.
Not being a physicist, it is not clear to me what are these laws of nature that determine that stars of surface temperature close to 6000•C will emit radiation precisely in the two tiny bands that are vital for beings like us. Maybe some physicist can help here and tell us whether or not these laws have something to do with the physical laws that dictate which wavelengths are suitable for photochemistry.
The wavelength of light emitted by blackbodies is determined by the electromagnetic force. As electrons drop down from higher orbitals they emit a photon related to the difference in energy between higher and lower orbital. Temperature is what determines how energetic that drop is, hence the wavelength of the photon that is released. As temperature goes up you get more energetic photons at shorter wavelengths. It’s the same process that causes metals to glow red to orange to yellow to white as they are heated.
It’s the basic laws of chemistry that determine the activation energy needed to drive an unfavorable chemical reaction. Photons of different energies can supply this activation energy, depending on what the chemistry is. Photosynthesis would be an endergonic reaction. The release of energetic photons would be an exergonic reaction.
The big problem here is that we don’t know that other wavelengths are not suitable for photochemistry. We haven’t had the opportunity to examine life in environments where those other wavelengths are available instead.
Hot things must emit IR radiation. As they get hotter, they emit shorter wavelengths. That starts with visible light. This light carries energy able to drive chemistry, and the shorter the wavelength the more energy provided. Stars must be hot, meaning they must emit light in IR and shorter wavelengths. This light then must be able to drive reactions. There is no way around that. You would need a completely different system of physics from what actually exists for stars to not emit light usable by life.
