Finer-Tuning

The previous article explored the extent of fine-tuning to make life possible.

This section delves much deeper.

Life is not merely about existence or survival: in favourable conditions, we find life to be enjoyable, purposeful, dynamic, and fulfilling. But why is that?

Could the evolutionary belief in the "survival of the fittest" provide for the diverse and complete natural comforts and pleasures of human life?

Nervous System Routing

Consider this: Did you know that the human body contains so many pervasive microscopic nerve fibres, that if you were to take the interconnections in the brain alone and lay them all out end-to-end, they would encircle the earth more than four times over — and that's just one brain in one person!

The central nervous system

Nerve fibres measure from a microscopic 0.2 to a cool 20 micrometres in diameter.

A micrometre is one-millionth of a metre.

Did every millimetre of our nerve fibres grow by accident during this long evolutionary process? How did these 100,000 miles (160,000 kilometres) of fibres happen to navigate, micrometre by micrometre, into every part of our bodies where sensitivity and information feedback are required?

On the contrary, was every limb, branch, and node of the nervous-system-routing meticulously planned? (See the article 'Fingertip Sensitivity — Calibrated or Fortuitous?')

What alternatives are there to the two options of arrival by planning, or arrival by accident?

The evolutionists' explanation of "natural selection" can only work if there are features already available for selection! — Evolutionist Richard Dawkins, in his book The Selfish Gene offers a solution that lies somewhere in between "intentional" design and "accidental" arrival of design features. However, there is no empirical evidence for his belief.

By contrast, every invention and design ever produced by humans, offers empirical evidence of intentional and purposed design, which is what we see everywhere around us — as the opening statement on the Home page of this website puts it:

"The human capacity for unlimited creativity and design is evident in what we have achieved and can achieve; and this capacity mirrors what we observe around us"!

Why are there no humans who, by genetic coding, lack essential sensitivity, and feedback routing, somewhere in their bodies? If, at some point in the distant evolutionary trail, sections of this system were missing (an extremely likely scenario given the enormous quantity of fibres — more than 100,000 miles in total length for one person), how would evolution intentionally fill the gap and commission additional required growth?

And these same questions can also be posed with regard to our extensive and vital blood vessels. (See also the article 'Multiple Distinct Laws — One Function'.)

One Hundred Thousand Flavours!

But now consider this:

The body’s nervous and digestive systems are remarkably balanced for maximum efficiency, comfort, and quality of life!

At one end of the digestive system, the mouth, there are highly sensitive taste receptors that enable us to really enjoy the many diverse flavours of delicious food — scientists believe that our senses can detect and distinguish more than 100,000 different tastes!

By contrast, at the opposite end of the digestive system, this sensitivity is, thankfully, considerably toned down; even so, our bodies can nevertheless detect precisely when it is time to evacuate waste, even conveniently distinguishing between air, solids, and liquids — but that is the extent of the sensitivity, namely exactly what is required and no more!

And while our bodies automatically manage these processes for our comfort, we continue enjoying our lives in greater freedom.

Precise Calibration

Another contrast is found in between these locations, within our abdomen, where the sensitivity is lowered even further so that we do not (thankfully), under normal conditions, feel the discomfort of the food passing through our internal organs.

How ghastly that would be!

The entire 7 metres (22 feet) length of the digestive system, then, features multiple regions with varying degrees of precisely calibrated sensitivity that ensure maximum comfort and even enjoyment, while retaining necessary sensitivity to pain. And all this, while we go about enjoying our daily lives.

Did evolution plan this? Or did these multifarious attributes arrive by chance?

The Goal? Quality of Life

Also, consider this: Why do creatures actually have bladders and rectums? It may seem like an odd question, but consider the facts: We could live without these organs, but we would experience significant discomfort, as we would be forced to expel waste continually every few minutes. But would this be fatal?

Not so pleasant, though, when you're trying to enjoy some sleep!

But would a blind, purposeless process of evolution "care" about that?

Would a creature that has survived because it is the “fittest” and “strongest” care if it expels its waste constantly? And even if it did in some way "care," by what means could it intentionally commission the growth of extra organs to bring about the required comfort?

It is significant that the existence of such convenient systems is replete throughout the animal kingdom. And the quality of life is thereby enhanced considerably.

The Value of Partially Developed Organs

A question not often seen when evolution is under scrutiny is: Where is the evidence for partially-developed body organs and their successful functionality? Supporters of evolution emphasize their belief that changes took place gradually over considerable time.

But how did body organs provide adequate functionality on behalf of the body during every stage of this long process?

So the study of gradual changes in body organs, and their usefulness at every stage, is certainly a key question!

There are many theories involving this; but where is the empirical evidence?

Textbooks that teach evolution often showcase images of creatures from different classes with very different anatomies, claiming that these illustrate evolutionary changes in organ functionality or major anatomical shifts.

However, these examples represent significantly differing examples and do not provide evidence of gradual transitions.

Where is the evidence for gradual transitions?

Take into account the requirements for the human body's digestive system and its associated organs:

mouth
tongue
teeth
jaw
throat muscles
oesophagus
stomach
liver
pancreas
small intestine
large intestine
rectum

. . . to name the major ones in order of functionality. How could all of these organs function adequately, or at all, if they were only partially developed or, as evolutionists put it, "in a transitional state"?

All of these organs rely on each other for the entire process to work! And there are other systems not mentioned; for example, the salivary glands produce a substance that is vital for our enjoyment of food. But it also helps break down the food in our mouth, facilitating the digestive process.

Did they really arrive gradually, or was the body's ability to obtain nutrition planned?

More Quality of Life

Did you know that the human body does not require all of its organs to sustain life? Take the gall bladder, for instance. While it is not essential for survival, it does significantly enhance the quality of life (as I can personally attest). So why would evolution, with its "survival of the fittest" mantra, "care" about that?

Another example is the stomach. Without it, we could still survive, but we would then need to continuously eat small amounts of food. The inclusion of a stomach enables us to enjoy a hearty meal, followed by relaxation, while our bodies get on with the task of digestion and assimilation without any further intervention from us.

Does that indicate thoughtful planning to you?

Could We Live Without Them?

And of course, time and web space would fail me if I continued at length with other similar arguments, including numerous aspects of the world around us that enhance the quality of our lives; but here are just a few additional thoughts:

Why do you suppose we have eyebrows? Are they essential? Similarly, why do we have eyelashes, neatly arranged along the edges of our eyelids? Could we not live without them?
Why are the tear glands ideally situated in the top outer corners of our eyes for maximum cleansing efficiency — and the receiving tear ducts perfectly placed in the inner lower corner? Why are they even there at all? Are they essential for survival?

The advanced construction of the human eye

Why would you say we have fingernails? Yes, they serve some creatures well when digging for food among other uses, but we could easily remain alive without them! And again, if some early ancestors figured out how useful claws or nails would be in their food forays, how would they manage to alter their own anatomy — and their DNA — to grow and maintain the intended enhancements?
Why do we have an outer ear? We can function very well without it. But the quality of the sounds that we hear are considerably enhanced, and so much more pleasant, with the convoluted configuration of the outer ear and its ridges of skin and sound-channelling grooves that trap sound, betraying a "knowledge" of the laws of acoustics!
Could "natural selection" have provided the outer ear? Suppose creatures' lives were slightly more vulnerable because they were missing an outer ear ... How would evolution design the procedures necessary to effect these enhancements and construct this intricate arrangement of the ear?
Could such "enhancements" really arrive by "natural selection"? If so, they would first need to grow or mutate by chance, so that they are then available for "selection"! For example, with regard to claws and nails, digging and scratching may cause calluses on the fingers, but they could not account for the elegant shape and design of our convex, neatly positioned, useful (appropriately hardened to the required degree), and attractively proportioned nails.
With regard to the outer ear, did random appendage growths present many variations of shapes for the outer ear before natural selection "settled" on a specific shape? How was this particular selection determined? And would this not result in an abundance of failed configurations ? Where is the empirical evidence for this kind of growth?
The arrangement of nails on the tips of our five fingers, each ideally fashioned with identical useful properties with the above-mentioned consistent form and arrangement, is evidence of purposeful design, not chance! (Compare the discussion on the arrangement of teeth in the section 'Pearly Whites — Superlative Design, Placement, and Function'.)

The advanced construction of the fingernails

Why do you reckon we have opposable thumbs? Could we not manage to survive without them? And note especially that humans are the only creatures on earth to have this feature!
Why do all humans normally have precisely five ideally balanced fingers on exactly two hands, and precisely five perfectly balanced toes on exactly two feet? Did evolution not "select" from undirected appendage growths of any random quantity?
If natural selection produced this arrangement, this would result in significant quantities of unsuccessful appendage configurations! However, the evidence for the abundant alternative bone structures in the fossil record does not seem to support this?
Furthermore, any additional appendage growths would require all the combined features to be included along with them: muscle, bone, skin, cartilage, lymphatic vessels, blood vessels, nerve fibres, etc. All of these would need to grow in the appropriate configuration to match the existing configuration.
Also, after the "random appendage growths" for the hand enabled the "selection" of these five fingers, how did evolution calculate the convenient positional requirements of the knuckles, and likewise for the joints of our toes? How were the developments of the bones, skin, etc., commissioned and organised?
How did evolution work out the convenient, precise sensitivity variations of the fingertips, compared to other, less sensitive, parts of the hand? (See the article 'Fingertip Sensitivity — Calibrated or Fortuitous?')
And lastly, why is the human body so carefully shaped, balanced, and equipped for walking, which happens to be the most energy efficient means of getting about?

And we have not yet scratched the surface of similar considerations, nor have we barely begun to venture out to nature around us, to the earth, the sun, galaxies, along similar lines of reasoning, from the marvels of the human body to other objects. (A small sample of these considerations is discussed under the heading 'Disparate Components — One Function'.)

But one final example: the earth seems to fulfil some of the criteria for a living, breathing organism: it regulates its own temperature, protects itself from most (surviving) meteors and from harmful solar radiation and magnetic storms, it uses and replenishes energy, it also recycles everything it uses, and continually repairs its skin and its water systems.

Earth is most certainly an ideal environment for life!
(Ideal, that is, until "intelligent" humans arrived and have by now virtually ruined it!)

And so on. . . .

All of these considerations — too many to list in practical terms — underscore the intentional precise tuning of the universe, of the earth, and of life.

An Exceptionally Fine Balance

Which brings us to the above image, and the favicon associated with this website. Each sphere in this illustration is delicately balanced, and any slight adjustment can influence the entire arrangement.

Similarly, altering any of the 'finely-tuned' elements discussed here, and in the previous article, could so easily have led to a universe incapable of supporting life, or especially one where life is unbearably uncomfortable.

Having read the above, take another look at Richard Dawkins' six buttoned machine as discussed in the article A Universe Fine-tuned For Life.

And finally, the universe and the natural world, the earth and life upon it, all share one overriding and striking characteristic: beauty...

FINE-TUNED FOR LIFE