The Fine Tuning science Accumulating

17.0 - The case for the existence of a Creator and Intelligent design.

"What is science ? The word science comes from the latin word "scientia" wich means knowledge. But there is something else at work here, it is an assumption. If we search long enough for natural explanations we will eventually find them. Mind, free will, spirit, God and intelligent design, these are all only illusions. This is materialistic science, not empirical science. The natural explanation takes priority over the evidence. Charles Darwin redefined science to exclude design. Well, if data accumulate to show that the Darwinian framework is false, we may experience another scientific revolution and we may find that the definition of science changes once again, pehaps back to empirical science rather than materialistic science."

- Jonathan Wells - investigates Evidence For & Against Evolution.

What has brought me to argue the Case for the existence of a Creator (GOD) and an Intelligent Design (ID) in the universe ? Two things alone:

1. Personal experience and revelations.

2. Science.

This is an Immense topic. It is a topic that have occupied human minds as long as we have existed as a species and many different groups of arguments has amounted more or less certain of their concluded truths.

On my life journey I have at various points on my timeline, adhered to both Atheism and Agnosticism. But no one gave me enogh good explanations for the origins of nature and reason for the unmeasurable informational complexity in the universe, it´s mathemathics, it´s building codes and instructions and/or it´s morfogenes.

I am not an Atheist any more, and this I have experienced and derived from number 1 and 2 above.

I do believe in a creator and not only so, I believe this creator have very good and supportive intentions towards human life, and in fact all life, all that is and has come into being, both in material dimensions as well as in the vast field of energy that we not yet can detect with our senses or instruments.

If we reject the idea of intelligent design and a creational intelligence of all that is, then all processes has to be proven to rely upon random, coincidental processes depending on miraculous mutations, chance, eons of time and evolution to tombola all the complex structures and genetic programming of the universe. Human life, as well as any other life form would only be a temporary excess material, a bi-product or garbage material of natural processes happening by chance. With meaning or whithout meaning – Nihilism as explanation ? Why even exist ? who would care less ?

So, in my case for a Creator and ID, I will put my attention to number 2 and some of the scientific facts and circumstances that should push us all to think deeper and bend our minds further. There are also some interesting philosophical compilations and one of them is the anthropic principle, also known as the "observation selection effect", is the hypothesis, first proposed in 1957 by Robert Dicke, that the range of possible observations that could be made about the universe is limited by the fact that observations could happen only in a universe capable of developing intelligent life.

Then we have this with all the information and data in the smallest to the largest observable material universe. Not to mention the seemingly infinite energy that builds matter and anti-matter. If we then add the limited field of view of man and his ability to perceptually detect more frequencies and dimensions than the material experienced reality, then we can understand the risks of misunderstanding the scope and origin of information itself. We have had a science that stared blindly at the fact that all information must have its origin in the limited material world as this was the only thing that could be detected, accepted and allowed. But that was then, now more modern instruments and technical aids have forced science to look deeper, wider and longer. We now live in the time when the material paradigm will give way to the fact that information, and conscious information, may actually have preceded the material and is its absolute prerequisite for its existence.

So the question becomes increasingly relevant, can non-material frequencies contain information and consciousness? Can the programming of the material computer itself come from intelligent consciousness?

17.1 - The fine tuning of nature and Mathematics as the Code Language.

Can the concept of code and language of mathematics exist without humans or even without any materialisation of the universe ? Does it not, in itself, hold intelligent origin ?

The fine-tuned universe is the proposition that the conditions that allow life in the Universe can occur only when certain universal dimensionless physical constants lie within a very narrow range of values, so that if any of several fundamental constants were only slightly different, the Universe would be unlikely to be conducive to the establishment and development of matter, astronomical structures, elemental diversity, or life as it is understood.

Hugh Norman Ross is a Christian apologist, and old-Earth creationist. Ross obtained his Ph.D. in astronomy from the University of Toronto and his B.Sc. degree in physics from the University of British Columbia. He established his own ministry in 1986, called Reasons to Believe. Ross rejects both abiogenesis and evolution as explanations for the origin and history of life, contrary to the scientific consensus. Ross uses science and its tools to reveal God in science. He also refer to the BIBLE and challenge all to test its validity in regards to written revelations, timelines, history and statements. Ross has written a number of books ex; The Creator and the cosmos, Why the universe is the way It is, Improbable Planet and Designed to the Core.

- Is it an uncreated eternal universe, or is it an uncreated eternal God ? If we detect advanced complex structures and mathemathical code in the macro- and microcosmos, could they be the result of chance or coincidental origins ?

Dr; Ross puts forward that there is almost infinite design in the universe that makes our existence possible and the question is always: Who designed the designer if it is not processes in nature itself within space and time that must be responsable for the design ? Who created God ? Ross argues that this question might be a cathegory error. Any entity constrained to a single dimension of time that can not be stopped or reversed, must have a beginning, must have a creation event along that single dimension of time. But the one that created time is not so constrained. Everything in the universe, all life in the universe, is constrained to a single dimension of time. From this we must be designed and created. But the one that created space and time is under no such constraint. This is also something that is unique with the Bible, in comparison with other religions, it says "No beginning – No ending – uncreated". It would mean that God (the all encompassing spiritual consciousness and intelligent non-materialistic mathematician/engineer) is outside of space and time. So somehow God consciousness formed outside material constraints not dependent on space or time.

Some scholars still hold the steady state theory as a valid model for the Universe. Many philosophers has upheld concepts as Time and Space as eternal and this is also a common theme in Eastern religions. In the Bible, space and time are not eternal. God creates space and time when he creates the Universe. This is a major fact that separates the Bible from the non-biblical religions and many philosphers. In the 1960:s and 1970:s, physicists in Britain and South Africa developed the first of the Space-Time Theorems. We now have over 30 of these Space-Time Theorems and they are based on 2 fundamental assumptions;

1. The Theorem is true if the Universe contains maths.

2. The equations of general relativety will describe the movements of massive bodies in the Universe.

In the 1960:s, Astronomers could only prove that to be correct to about 1 or 2 % precision. Nowadays we can prove that this is correct to better than 15 places of the decimal. So the reasons for doubt these 2 conditions has drastically decreased. What the Theorem states that Space and Time has a beginning. Space and Time are created, wich implies that there must be a causal agent outside of matter, energy, space and time that creates our universe of matter, energy, space and time.

Mathematics exists regardless of whether man exists or not, and it is thus not excluded that mathematics existed as a programming language before the first formation of energy and matter in the universe. It is conceptual and can only be understood by a conscious entity. But it does not need any material, energy or any created universe, it only needs an intelligent programer (mind). The Genesis of the Pre-Space-Time event.

Mathematics runs as a common thread through all branches of science such as, Physics, Chemistry, Astronomy, Cosmology, Biology and all its subcategories. It is also very present in the first branch of history whose task it is to bring together all branches of science in order to attempt to compile the overall picture of the universe and the role of man in it; The Philosophical Branch.

Hugh Ross has used mathemathic calculations to establish numbers of the degree of finetuning that is necessaryfor the tiny margins of conditions for the possibility for life to exist in the universe. The variables, factors and conditions used for these calculations can be observed on the educational site "reasons to believe". As always when choosing variables, each one has to be questioned for its accuracy, validity and applicability. Feel free to control the variables. Now to some of the deductions and calculations made by Hugh Ross:

1. The recognition, that of the 92 elements we can see of the Periodic table, all but 2 of them are extremely anomalous in terms of what we see in the crust of the earth relative to what we see in rocky material elsewhere in the universe. The 2 elements that are more of the norm is manganese and Iron, everything else is anomalous and in some cases extremely anomalous.

2. The crust of the planet earth has 630 times as much Thorium, 340 times as much Uranium as what we see in rocky material in the universe up to this day. It is thanks to that super abundance of Thorium and Uranium that allows earth to have a long and lasting hot liquid Iron core that when being circulated has enabled our planet to have a strong magnetosphere enveloping us that allows us to be protected from deadly solar- and cosmic radiation. It also prevented the atmosphere and the oceans of the earth from being reduced and eliminated by the particle radiation from the sun. The planet earth contains highly anomalous elements that exists in much larger deposits than what we can detect elsewhere in the universe today. In relation to other planets in our solar system we are abundant on average by a factor of 60 times in Aluminium, 90 times in Titanium (wich enables us to construct aircraft an other exotic engineering endeavors). These are wery strong light weight materials and highly anomalous both in existence and ratio in our cosmic sorrounding.

3. Other numbers are on the contrary significantly less in ratio, enabling life and human industrial capacity to thrive. Earth has got 60 times less of sulfur wich enables us to grow food in abundance. The level of sulfur is much more common on ex; the planet Mars and in the observable universe up to this date.

4. 22 of the elements on the periodic table are what we call "vital poisons". If they exist in the crust of the earth at too high abundance levels it will kill us, and if it is to low in abundance level it will also kill us. We have to have just the right amount of molybdenum in the crust of the earth, just the right amount of Iron, just the right amount of arsenic (there are life important proteins in your body that needs arsenic in just the right portion to uphold the process of life continuancy). If you get above that tiny amount of life upholding arsenic it will kill you. All of those 22 elements of "vital poisons" are extremely anomalous in the abundance level on the planet earth and we do not see it anywhere else in the universe up to this day. Atheist scientist would rather trust the assumption that nature itself through chance, time, physical material and electro-chemical processes could be reponsable for such delicate engineering, rather than the assumption that it could be the result of an actual mathematician, engineer and designer not constricted by the time- space dilemma.

5. Astronomers discovered how the early solar system formed in a gigantic cluster of about 20 000 stars that existed much closer to the center of the galaxy than the solar system exists today. In that dense cluster of stars the early emerging solar system got exposed to 3 different kinds of super-nova eruption events, it got exposed to neutron stars merging together to make black holes, were the super novas and the neutron star merging events happened at exactly the right time and the right distance from the earth so that the earth was not destroyed but on the other hand got sufficiently enriched in all necessary elements and sufficiently depleted regarding the elements of "vital poisons". When all that enrichment and depletion was accomplished we got kicked out of the birth cluster and driven to a distance twice as far away from the center of the galaxy. What kicked us out ? It was a gravitational sling shot were our solar system was interfacing with 4 to 5 very massive stars that slung us out of the birth cluster and when we got to a more "ideal" place for the development of advanced life, we then engaged with another 4 to 6 stars that halted our movement . We were born in the most dangerous part of our galaxyand we ended up in the safest part of our galaxy, but only after we got properly enriched and depleted (balanced) with the right amount of elements to support the very narrow parameters for the prerequisites for life.

6. It is also true that the planet earth is anomalous compared to all the other planets and asteroids we see in our solar system. That is because our earth formed in a way very much different from the other planets. The other planets formed by gravitational creation and our solar system began with 10 planets not 8. 5 gas giants and 5 rocky planets. 2 of those rocky planets, the proto-earth and thea collided with one another when the earth had oceans thousands of kilometers deep. That very deep ocean cushined the collision so the earth was not totally destroyed. Instead most of the mass of Thea got absorbed by the earth so the earth became bigger, more massive and more dense, There is a debre cloud around the new formed earth that kondensed to make the moon. So we have this relatively small planet orbited by gigantic moon. This stabilizes the tilt of earths rotation axis. It ensured that at the right time for human beings we have our rotation rate slowed down to 24 hours. The fifth giant gas planet got kicked out by a gravitational interaction with Jupiter and Saturn and that gravitational interaction basically slimmed down Mars from being a planet of about twice the mass of earth down to a planet of only 1/9 the mass of the earth. This was among scientists called "the small Mars problem" and it took 20 years for astronomers to determine how Mars got to be so small. We now recognize, if it was not for that transformation of Mars, there would be no possibility for advanced life on planet earth. Finetuning or coincidence ?

7. We are orbiting a star that is unlike any other star. The lumosity stability of our sun is unique. In comparison with the second most lumosity stabil star in our milky way galaxy that we observed, our sun is 5 times more stabile than the second best star. If it was not for that extraordinary stability, human life would not be possible. 34:23

Hugh Ross compiled list for life dependant factors within narrow margins.

Linked from "Appendix C" in Why the Universe Is the Way It Is Part 1.

Fine-Tuning for Life in the Universe by Hugh Ross © Reasons To Believe, 2008

For physical life to be possible in the universe, several characteristics must take on specific values, and these are listed below. In the case of several of these characteristics, and given the intricacy of their interrelationships, the indication of divine "fine-tuning" seems compelling.

1. Strong nuclear force constant

2. Weak nuclear force constant

3. Gravitational force constant

4. Electromagnetic force constant

5. Ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant

6. Ratio of proton to electron mass

7. Ratio of number of protons to number of electrons

8. Ratio of proton to electron charge 9. Expansion rate of the universe

10. Mass density of the universe

11. Baryon (proton and neutron) density of the universe

12. Space energy or dark energy density of the universe

13. Ratio of space energy density to mass density

14. Entropy level of the universe

15. Velocity of light

16. Age of the universe

17. Uniformity of radiation

18. Homogeneity of the universe

19. Average distance between galaxies

20. Average distance between galaxy clusters

21. Average distance between stars

22. Average size and distribution of galaxy clusters

23. density of giant galaxies during early cosmic history

24. Electromagnetic fine structure constant

25. Gravitational fine-structure constant

26. Decay rate of protons

27. Ground state energy level for helium-4 Part 1. Fine-Tuning for Life in the Universe 2

28. Carbon-12 to oxygen-16 nuclear energy level ratio

29. Decay rate for beryllium-8

30. Ratio of neutron mass to proton mass

31. Initial excess of nucleons over antinucleons

32. Polarity of the water molecule

33. Epoch for peak in the number of hypernova eruptions

34. Numbers and different kinds of hypernova eruptions

35. Epoch for peak in the number of type I supernova eruptions

36. Numbers and different kinds of type I supernova eruptions

37. Epoch for peak in the number of type II supernova eruptions

38. Numbers and different kinds of type II supernova eruptions

39. Epoch for white dwarf binaries

40. Density of white dwarf binaries

41. Ratio of exotic matter to ordinary matter

42. Number of effective dimensions in the early universe

43. Number of effective dimensions in the present universe

44. Mass values for the active neutrinos

45. Number of different species of active neutrinos

46. Number of active neutrinos in the universe

47. Mass value for the sterile neutrino

48. Number of sterile neutrinos in the universe

49. Decay rates of exotic mass particles

50. Magnitude of the temperature ripples in cosmic background radiation

51. Size of the relativistic dilation factor

52. Magnitude of the Heisenberg uncertainty

53. Quantity of gas deposited into the deep intergalactic medium by the first supernovae

54. Positive nature of cosmic pressures

55. Positive nature of cosmic energy densities

56. Density of quasars during early cosmic history

57. Decay rate of cold dark matter particles

58. Relative abundances of different exotic mass particles

59. Degree to which exotic matter self interacts

60. Epoch at which the first stars (metal-free pop III stars) begin to form

61. Epoch at which the first stars (metal-free pop III stars) cease to form

62. Number density of metal-free pop III stars

63. Average mass of metal-free pop III stars

64. Epoch for the formation of the first galaxies

65. Epoch for the formation of the first quasars Part 1. Fine-Tuning for Life in the Universe 3

66. Amount, rate, and epoch of decay of embedded defects

67. Ratio of warm exotic matter density to cold exotic matter density

68. Ratio of hot exotic matter density to cold exotic matter density

69. Level of quantization of the cosmic spacetime fabric

70. Flatness of universe's geometry

71. Average rate of increase in galaxy sizes

72. Change in average rate of increase in galaxy sizes throughout cosmic history

73. Constancy of dark energy factors

74. Epoch for star formation peak

75. Location of exotic matter relative to ordinary matter

76. Strength of primordial cosmic magnetic field

77. Level of primordial magnetohydrodynamic turbulence

78. Level of charge-parity violation

79. Number of galaxies in the observable universe

80. Polarization level of the cosmic background radiation

81. Date for completion of second reionization event of the universe

82. Date of subsidence of gamma-ray burst production

83. Relative density of intermediate mass stars in the early history of the universe

84. Water's temperature of maximum density

85. Water's heat of fusion

86. Water's heat of vaporization

87. Number density of clumpuscules (dense clouds of cold molecular hydrogen gas) in the universe 88. Average mass of clumpuscules in the universe

89. Location of clumpuscules in the universe

90. Dioxygen's kinetic oxidation rate of organic molecules

91. Level of paramagnetic behavior in dioxygen

92. Density of ultra-dwarf galaxies (or supermassive globular clusters) in the middle-aged universe 93. Degree of space-time warping and twisting by general relativistic factors

94. Percentage of the initial mass function of the universe made up of intermediate mass stars

95. Strength of the cosmic primordial magnetic field

96. Capacity of liquid water to form large-cluster anions

97. Ratio of baryons in galaxies to baryons between galaxies

98. Ratio of baryons in galaxy clusters to baryons in between galaxy clusters

99. Rate at which the triple-alpha process (combining of three helium nuclei to make one carbon nucleus) runs inside the nuclear furnaces of stars

100. Quantity of molecular hydrogen formed by the supernova eruptions of population III stars

101. Epoch for the formation of the first population II (second generation) stars

102. Percentage of the universe's baryons that are processed by the first stars (population III stars) Part 1. Fine-Tuning for Life in the Universe 4

103. Ratio of ultra-dwarf galaxies to larger galaxies

104. Constancy of the fine structure constants

105. Constancy of the velocity of light

106. Constancy of the magnetic permeability of free space

107. Constancy of the electron-to-proton mass ratio

108. Constancy of the gravitational constant

109. Smoothness of the quantum foam of cosmic space

110. Constancy of dark energy over cosmic history

111. Mean temperature of exotic matter

112. Minimum stable mass of exotic matter clumps

113. Degree of Lorentz symmetry or integrity of Lorentz invariantce or level of symmetry of spacetime

114. Nature of cosmic defects

115. Number density of cosmic defects

116. Average size of the largest cosmic structures in the universe

117. Quantity of three-hydrogen molecules formed by the hypernova eruptions of population III stars

118. Maximum size of an indigenous moon orbiting a planet

119. Rate of growth in the average size of galaxies during the first five billion years of cosmic history

120. Density of dwarf dark matter halos in the present-day universe

121. Metallicity enrichment of intergalactic space by dwarf galaxies

122. Average star formation rate throughout cosmic history for dwarf galaxies

123. Epoch of rapid decline in the cosmic star formation rate

124. Quantity of heavy elements infused into the intergalactic medium by dwarf galaxies during the first two billion years of cosmic history

125. Quantity of heavy elements infused into the intergalactic medium by galactic superwinds during the first three billion years of cosmic history

126. Average size of cosmic voids

127. Number of cosmic voids per unit of cosmic space

128. Percentage of the universe's baryons that reside in the warm-hot intergalactic medium

129. Halo occupation distribution (number of galaxies per unit of dark matter halo virial mass)

130. Timing of the peak supernova eruption rate for population III stars (the universe's first stars) 131. Ratio of the number density of dark matter subhalos to the number density dark matter halos in the present era universe

132. Quantity of diffuse, large-grained intergalactic dust

133. Radiometric decay rate for nickel-78

134. Ratio of baryonic matter to exotic matter in dwarf galaxies

135. Ratio of baryons in the intergalactic medium relative to baryons in the circumgalactic media 136. Level of short-range interactions between protons and exotic dark matter particles

137. Intergalactic photon density (or optical depth of the universe)

138. High spin to low spin transition pressure for Fe++ Part 1. Fine-Tuning for Life in the Universe 5

139. Average quantity of gas infused into the universe's first star clusters

140. degree of suppression of dwarf galaxy formation by cosmic reionization

References:

1. John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986), pp. 123-457.

2. Fred Hoyle, Galaxies, Nuclei, and Quasars, (New York: Harper and Row, 1965), pp. 147-150.

3. Fred Hoyle, "The Universe: Past and Present Reflection," Annual Reviews of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20 (1982), p. 1- 16.

4. Fred Hoyle, The Nature of the Universe, second edition, (Okford, UK: Basil Blackwell, 1952), p. 109-111.

5. Fred Hoyle, Astronomy and Cosmology: A Modern Course, (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman, 1975), pp. 684-685.

6. James S, Trefil, The Moment of Creation, (New York: Collier Books, Macmillan, 1983), pp. 127-134.

7. John P. Cox and Thomas R. Giuli, Principles of Stellar Structure, Volume II: Applications to Stars, (New York: Gordon and Breach, 1968), pp. 944-1028.

8. Bernard J. Carr and Martin J. Rees, "The Anthropic Principle and the Structure of the Physical World," Nature, 278 (1979), pp. 605-612.

9. John M. Templeton "God Reveals Himself in the Astronomical and in the Infinitesimal," Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation, December 1984 (1984), pp. 194-200.

10. Jim W. Neidhardt, "The Anthropic Principle: A Religious Response," Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation, December 1984 (1984), pp. 201-207.

11. Brandon Carter, "Large Number Coincidences and the Anthropic Principle in Cosmology," in Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union Symposium No. 63: Confrontation of Cosmological Theories with Observational Data. edited by M. S. Longair. (Boston: D. Reidel, 1974), pp. 291-298.

12. John D. Barrow, "The Lore of Large Numbers: Some Historical Background to the Anthropic Principle," Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, 22 (1981), pp. 404-420.

13. Alan Lightman, "To the Dizzy Edge," Science 82, October (1982), pp. 24-25.

14. Thomas O'Toole, "Will the Universe Die by Fire or Ice?" Science 81, April (1981), pp. 71-72.

15. Bernard J. Carr, "On the Origin, Evolution, and Purpose of the Physical Universe," in Physical Cosmology and Philosophy, edited by John Leslie (New York: Macmillan, 1990), pp. 134-153.

16. Richard Swinburne, "Argument from the Fine-Tuning of the Universe," in Physical Cosmology and Philosophy, edited by John Leslie (New York: Macmillan, 1990), pp. 154-173.

17. R. E. Davies and R, H. Koch, "All the Observed Universe Has Contributed to Life," Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B, 334 (1991), pp. 391-403.

18. Paul Davies, God and the New Physics. (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1983), pp. Viii, 3-42, 142-143.

19. Paul Davies, Superforce. (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1984), p. 243.

20. Paul Davies, The Cosmic Blueprint. (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1988), pp. 3-203.

21. Paul Davies, "The Anthropic Principle," Science Digest, volume 191, number 10, October 1983, pp. 22-25.

22. George Greenstein, The Symbiotic Universe. (New York: William Morrow, 1988), p. 13-148.

23. Tony Rothman, "A 'What You See Is What You Beget' Theory," Discover, May 1987, p. 99.

24. Freeman Dyson, Infinite in All Directions, (New York: Harper and Row, 1988), p. 298.

25. Henry Margenau and Roy Abraham Varghese, editors, Cosmos, Bios, and Theos, (La Salle, IL: Open Court, 1992), p. 52- 83.

26. Fang Li Zhi and Li Shu Xian, Creation of the Universe, translated by T. Kiang, (Singapore: World Scientific, 1989), p. 161-174.

27. Edward Harrison, Masks of the Universe, (New York: Collier Books, Macmillan, 1985), pp. 239-263.

28. John Noble Wilford, "Sizing Up the Cosmos: An Astronomer's Quest," New York Times, March 12, 1991, p. B9.

29. Hugh Ross, The Fingerprint of God, 2nd edition (New Kensington, PA: Whitaker House, 1991): 119-138.

30. Hugh Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos, 3rd edition (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2001): 145-167.

31. Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, (New York: W. W. Norton, 1978), pp. 89-124.

32. Richard Swinburne, "Argument from the Fine-Tuning of the Universe," in Physical Cosmology and Philosophy. edited by John Leslie, (New York: Macmillan, 1990), pp. 154-173.

33. George F. R. Ellis, "The Anthropic Principle: Laws and Environments," in The Anthropic Principle, edited by F. Bertola and U. Curi (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993), pp. 27-32.

34. F. Bertola and U. Curi, editors, The Anthropic Principle (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993).

35. D. Allan Bromley, "Physics: Atomic and Molecular Physics," Science, 209 (1980), page 116. Part 1. Fine-Tuning for Life in the Universe 6

36. Michael Rowan-Robinson, The Nine Numbers of the Universe (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999).

37. H. R. Marston, S. H. Allen, and S. L. Swaby, "Iron Metabolism in Copper-Deficient Rats," British Journal of Nutrition, 25 (1971), pages 15-30.

38. K. W. J. Wahle and N. T. Davies, "Effect of Dietary Copper Deficiency in the Rat on Fatty Acid Composition of Adipose Tissue and Desaturase Activity of Liver Microsomes," British Journal of Nutrition, 34 (1975), pages 105-112.

39. Walter Mertz, "The Newer Essential Trace Elements, Chromium, Tin, Vanadium, Nickel, and Silicon," Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 33 (1974), pages 307-313.

40. Hubert Reeves, "Growth of Complexity in an Expanding Universe," in The Anthropic Principle, edited by F. Bertola and U. Curi (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993), pages 67-84.

41. H. Oberhummer, A. Csótó, and H. Schlattl, "Stellar Production Rates of Carbon and Its Abundance in the Universe," Science, 289 (2000), pp. 88-90.

42. Lawrence M. Krauss, "The End of the Age Problem and the Case for a Cosmological Constant Revisited," Astrophysical Journal, 501 (1998), pp. 461-466.

43. Christopher C. Page, et al, "Natural Engineering Principles of Electron Tunneling in Biological Oxidation-Reduction," Nature, 402 (1999), pp. 47-52.

44. S. Perlmutter, et al, "Measurements of Ω and L from 42 High-Redshift Supernovae," Astrophysical Journal, 517 (1999), pp. 565-586.

45. P. deBarnardis, et al, "A Flat Universe from High-Resolution Maps of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, Nature, 494 (2000), pp. 955-959.

46. A. Melchiorri, et al, "A Measurement of Ω from the North American Test Flight of Boomerang," Astrophysical Journal Letters, 536 (2000), pp. L63-L66.

47. Lawrence M. Krauss and Glenn D. Starkman, "Life, the Universe, and Nothing: Life and Death in an Ever-Expanding Universe," Astrophysical Journal, 531 (2000), pp. 22-30.

48. Volker Bromm, Paolo S. Coppi, and Richard B. Larson, "Forming the First Stars in the Universe: The Fragmentation of Primordial Gas, "Astrophysical Journal Letters, 527 (1999), pp. L5-L8.

49. Jaume Garriga, Takahiro Tanaka, and Alexander Vilenkin, "Density Parameter and the Anthropic Principle," Physical Review D, 60 (1999), 5-21.

50. Jaume Garriga and Alexander Vilenkin, "On Likely Values of the Cosmological Constant," Physical Review D, 61 (2000), 1462-1471.

51. Max Tegmark and Martin Rees, "Why is the Cosmic Microwave Background Fluctuation Level 10-5 ?" Astrophysical Journal, 499 (1998), 526-532.

52. Jaume Garriga, Mario Livio, and Alexander Vilenkin, "Cosmological Constant and the Time of Its Dominance," Physical Review D, 61 (2000), id.023503.

53. J. Garriga and A. Vilenkin, "Solutions to the Cosmological Constant Problems," Physical Review D, 64 (2001), id.023517.

54. Peter G. van Dokkum, et al, "A High Merger Fraction in the Rich Cluster MS 1054-03 at z = 0.83: Direct Evidence for Hierarchical Formation of Massive Galaxies," Astrophysical Journal Letters, 520 (1999), pp. L95-L98.

55. Theodore P. Snow and Adolf N. Witt, "The Interstellar Carbon Budget and the Role of Carbon in Dust and Large Molecules," Science 270 (1995), pp. 1455-1457.

56. Elliott H. Lieb, Michael Loss, and Jan Philip Solovej, "Stability of Matter in Magnetic Fields," Physical Review Letters, 75 (1995), pp. 985-989.

57. B. Edvardsson et al, "The Chemical Evolution of the Galactic Disk. I. Analysis and Results," Astronomy & Astrophysics, vol. 275 (1993), pp. 101-152.

58. Hugh Ross, "Sparks in the Deep Freeze," Facts & Faith, v. 11, n. 1 (1997), pp. 5-6.

59. T. R. Gabella and T. Oka, "Detectiion of H3 + in Interstellar Space," Nature, 384 (1996), pp. 334-335.

60. David Branch, "Density and Destiny," Nature, 391 (1998), p. 23.

61. Andrew Watson, "Case for Neutrino Mass Gathers Weight," Science, 277 (1997), pp. 30-31.

62. Dennis Normile, "New Experiments Step Up Hunt for Neutrino Mass," Science, 276 (1997), p. 1795.

63. Joseph Silk, "Holistic Cosmology," Science, 277 (1997), p. 644.

64. Frank Wilczek, "The Standard Model Transcended," Nature 394 (2 July 1998): 13-15.

65. Limin Wang, et al, "Cosmic Concordance and Quintessence," Astrophysical Journal, 530 (2000), pp. 17-35.

66. Robert Irion, "A Crushing End for our Galaxy," Science, 287 (2000), pp. 62-64.

67. Roland Buser, "The Formation and Early Evolution of the Milky Way Galaxy," Science, 287 (2000), pp. 69-74.

68. Joss Bland-Hawthorn and Ken Freeman, "The Baryon Halo of the Milky Way: A Fossil Record of Its Formation," Science, 287 (2000), pp. 79-83.

69. Robert Irion, "Supernova Pumps Iron in Inside-Out Blast, Science, 287 (2000), pp. 203-205.

70. Gary Gibbons, "Brane-Worlds," Science, 287 (2000), pp. 49-50.

71. Anatoly Klypin, Andrey V. Kravtsov, and Octavio Valenzuela, "Where Are the Missing Galactic Satellites?" Astrophysical Journal, 522 (1999), pp. 82-92.

72. Inma Dominguez, et al, "Intermediate-Mass Stars: Updated Models," Astrophysical Journal, 524 (1999), pp. 226-241' Part 1. Fine-Tuning for Life in the Universe 7

73. J. Iglesias-Páramo and J. M. Vilchez, "On the Influence of the Environment in the Star Formation Rates of a Sample of Galaxies in Nearby Compact Groups," Astrophysical Journal, 518 (1999), pp. 94-102.

74. Dennis Normile, "Weighing In on Neutrino Mass, Science, 280 (1998), pp. 1689-1690.

75. Eric Gawiser and Joseph Silk, "Extracting Primordial Density Fluctuations," Science, 280 (1998), pp. 1405-1411.

76. Joel Primack, "A Little Hot Dark Matter Matters," Science, 280 (1998), pp. 1398-1400.

77. Stacy S. McGaugh and W. J. G. de Blok, "Testing the Dark Matter Hypothesis with Low Surface Brightness Galaxies and Other Evidence," Astrophysical Journal, 499 (1998), pp. 41-65.

78. Nikos Prantzos and Joseph Silk, "Star Formation and Chemical Evolution in the Milky Way: Cosmological Implications," Astrophysical Journal, 507 (1998), pp. 229-240.

79. P. Weiss, "Time Proves Not Reversible at Deepest Level," Science News, 154 (1998), p. 277.

80. E. Dwek, et al, "The COBE Diffuse Infrared Background Experiment Search for the Cosmic Infrared Background. IV. Cosmological Implications," Astrophysical Journal, 508 (1998), pp. 106-122.

81. G. J. Wasserburg and Y.-Z. Qian, "A Model of Metallicity Evolution in the Early Universe," Astrophysical Journal Letters, 538 (2000), pp. L99-L102.

82. Ron Cowen, "Cosmic Axis Begets Cosmic Controversy," Science News, 151 (1997), p. 287.

83. Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam Books, April 1988), pp. 120-133, 160-166.

84. Peter D. Ward and Donald Brownlee, Rare Earth (New York: Copernicus, 2000).

85. Vaclav Smil, The Earth's Biosphere (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2002): 27-227.

86. John Leslie, editor, Physical Cosmology and Philosophy (New York: Macmillan, 1990), pp. 121-180.

87. Weihsueh A. Chiu, Nickolay Y. Gneden and Jeremiah P. Ostriker, "The Expected Mass Function for Low-Mass Galaxies in a Cold Dark Matter Cosmology: Is There a Problem?" Astrophysical Journal, 563 (2001), pp. 21-27.

88. Martin Elvis, Massimo Marengo, and Margarita Karovska, "Smoking Quasars: A New Source for Cosmic Dust," Astrophysical Journal Letters, 567 (2002), pp. L107-L110.

89. Martin White and C. S. Kochanek, "Constraints on the Long-Range Properties of Gravity from Weak Gravitational Lensing," Astrophysical Journal, 560 (2001), pp. 539-543.

90. P. P. Avelino and C. J. A. P. Martins, "A Supernova Brane Scan," Astrophysical Journal, 565 (2002), pp. 661-667.

91. P. deBernardis, et al, "Multiple Peaks in the Angular Power Spectrum of the Cosmic Microwave Background: Significance and Consequences for Cosmology," Astrophysical Journal, 564 (2002), pp. 559-566.

92. A. T. Lee, et al, "A High Spatial Resolution Analysis of the MAXIMA-1 Cosmic Microwave Background Anisotropy Data," Astrophysical Journal Letters, 561 (2001), pp. L1-L5.

93. R. Stompor, et al, "Cosmological Implications of MAXIMA-1 High-Resolution Cosmic Microwave Background Anisotropy Measurement," Astrophysical Journal Letters, 561 (2001), pp. L7-L10.

94. Andrew Watson, "Cosmic Ripples Confirm Universe Speeding Up," Science, 295 (2002), pp. 2341-2343.

95. Anthony Aguirre, Joop Schaye, and Eliot Quataert, "Problems for Modified Newtonian Dynamics in Clusters and the Lya Forest?" Astrophysical Journal, 561 (2001), pp. 550-558.

96. Chris Blake and Jasper Wall, "A Velocity Dipole in the Distribution of Radio Galaxies," Nature, 416 (2002), pp. 150-152.

97. G. Efstathiou, et al, "Evidence for a Non-Zero L and a Low Matter Density from a Combined Analysis of the 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey and Cosmic Microwave Background Anisotropies," Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 330 (2002), pp. L29-L35.

98. Susana J. Landau and Hector Vucetich, "Testing Theories That Predict Time Variation of Fundamental Constants, " Astrophysical Journal, 570 (2002), pp. 463-469.

99. Renyue Cen, "Why Are There Dwarf Spheroidal Galaxies?" Astrophysical Journal Letters, 549 (2001), pp. L195-L198.

100. Brandon Carter, "Energy Dominance and the Hawking-Ellis Vacuum Conservation Theorem," a contribution to Stephen Hawkingís 60th birthday workshop on the Future of Theoretical Physics and Cosmology, Cambridge, UK, January, 2002, arXiv:gr-qc/0205010v1, May 2, 2002.

101. Joseph F. Hennawi and Jeremiah P. Ostriker, "Observational Constraints on the Self-Interacting Dark Matter Scenario and the Growth of Supermassive Black Holes," Astrophysical Journal, 572 (2002), pp. 41-54.

102. Robert Brandenberger, Brandon Carter, and Anne-Christine Davis, "Microwave Background Constraints on Decaying Defects," Physics Letters B, 534 (2002), pp. 1-7.

103. Lawrence M. Krauss, "The End of the Age Problem, and the Case for a Cosmological Constant Revisited," Astrophysical Journal, 501 (1998), pp. 461-466.

104. Q. R. Ahmad, et al, "Measurement of the Rate of ne + d þ p + p + e- Interactions Produced by 8 B Solar Neutrinos at the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory," Physical Review Letters, 87 (2001), id. 071301.

105. R. E. Davies and R. H. Koch, "All the Observed Universe Has Contributed to Life," Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 334B (1991), pp. 391-403.

106. George F. R. Ellis, "The Anthropic Principle: Laws and Environments," in The Anthropic Principle, edited by F. Bertola and U. Curi (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993), p. 30.

107. H. R. Marston, S. H. Allen, and S. L. Swaby, "Iron Metabolism in Copper-Deficient Rats," British Journal of Nutrition, 25 (1971), pp. 15-30. Part 1. Fine-Tuning for Life in the Universe 8

108. K. W. J. Wahle and N. T. Davies, "Effect of Dietary Copper Deficiency in the Rat on Fatty Acid Composition of Adipose Tissue and Desaturase Activity of Liver Microsomes," British Journal of Nutrition, 34 (1975), pp. 105-112;.

109. Walter Mertz, "The Newer Essential Trace Elements, Chromium, Tin, Vanadium, Nickel, and Silicon," Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 33 (1974), pp. 307-313.

110. Bruno Leibundgut, "Cosmological Implications from Observations of Type Ia Supernovae," Annual Reviews of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 39 (2001), pp. 67-98.

111. C. L. Bennett, et al, "First Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations, Preliminary Maps, and Basic Results," Astrophysical Journal Supplement, 148 (2003), pp. 1-27.

112. G. Hinshaw, et al, ""First Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Angular Power Spectrum," Astrophysical Journal Supplement, 148 (2003), pp. 135-159.

113. A. Balbi, et al, "Probing Dark Energy with the Cosmic Microwave Background: Projected Constraints from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe and Planck," Astrophysical Journal Letters, 588 (2003), pp. L5-L8.

114. A. Vikhlinin, et al, "Cosmological Constraints from the Evolution of the Cluster Baryon Mass Function at z = 0.5," Astrophysical Journal, 590 (2003), pp. 15-25.

115. Frank Thim, et al, "The Cepheid Distance to NGC 5236 (M83) with the ESO Very Large Telescope," Astrophysical Journal, 590 (2003), pp. 256-270.

116. Kazuhide Ichikawa and M. Kawasaki, "Constraining the Variation of the Coupling Constants with Big Bang Nucleosynthesis," Physical Review D, 65 (2002), id 123511.

117. Eubino-Martin José Alberto, et al, "First Results from the Very Small Array-IV. Cosmological Parameter Estimation," Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 341 (2003), pp. 1084-1092.

118. Takuji Tsujimoto and Toshikazu Shigeyama, "Star Formation History of v Centauri Imprinted in Elemental Abundance Patterns," Astrophysical Journal, 590 (2003), pp. 803-808.

119. Santi Cassissi, Maurizio Salaris, and Alan W. Irwin, "The Initial Helium Content of Galactic Globular Cluster Stars from the R-Parameter: Comparison with the Cosmic Microwave Background Constraint," Astrophysical Journal, 588 (2003), pp. 862-870.

120. Naoki Yoshida, et al, "Early Structure Formation and Reionization in a Warm Dark Matter Cosmology," Astrophysical Journal Letters, 591 (2003), pp. L1-L4.

121. Robert R. Caldwell, et al, "Early Quintessence in Light of the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe," Astrophysical Journal Letters, 591 (2003), pp. L75-L78.

122. V. Luridiana, et al, "The Effect of Collisional Enhancement of Balmer Lines on the Determination of the Primordial Helium Abundance," Astrophysical Journal, 592 (20030, pp. 846-865.

123. Y. Jack Ng, W. A. Christiansen, and H. van Dam, "Probing Planck-Scale Physics with Extragalactic Sources?" Astrophysical Journal Letters, 591 (2003), pp. L87-L89.

124. J. L. Sievers, et al, "Cosmological Parameters from Cosmic Background Imager Observations and Comparisons with BOOMERANG, DASI, and MAXIMA," Astrophysical Journal, 591 (2003), pp. 599-622.

125. R. Scranton, et al, "Physical Evidence for Dark Energy," submitted July 20, 2003 to Physical Review Letters, https://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0307335.

126. Pablo Fosalba, Enrique Gaztanaga, and Francisco Castander, "Detection of the Integrated Sachs-Wolfe and SunyaevZeldovich Effects from the Cosmic Microwave Background-Galaxy Correlation." Astrophysical Journal Letters, 597 (2003), pp. L89-L92.

127. M. R. Nolta, et al, "First Year Wilkinson Anistropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Dark Energy Induced Correlation with Radio Sources," submitted May 7, 2003 to Astrophysical Journal, https://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0305097.

128. Stephen Boughn and Robert Crittenden, "A Correlation Between the Cosmic Microwave Background and Large-Scale Structure in the Universe," Nature, 427 (2004), pp. 45-47.

129. T. Jacobson, S. Liberati, and D. Mattingly, "A Strong Astrophysical Constraint on the Violation of Special Relativity by Quantum Gravity," Nature, 424 (2003), pp. 1019-1021.

130. Sean Carroll, "Quantum Gravity: An Astrophysical Constraint," Nature, 424 (2003), pp. 1007-1008.

131. D. J. Fixsen, "The Spectrum of the Cosmic Microwave Background Anisotropy from the Combined COBE FIRAS and WMAP Observations," Astrophysical Journal Letters, 594 (2003), pp. L67-L70.

132. John L. Tonry, et al, "Cosmological Results from High-z Supernovae," Astrophysical Journal, 594 (2003), pp. 1-24.

133. Jean-Pierre Luminet, et al, "Dodecahedral Space Topology as an Explanation for Weak-Angle Temperature Correlations in the Cosmic Microwave Background," Nature, 425 (2003), pp. 593-595.

134. George F. R. Ellis, "The Shape of the Universe," Nature, 425 (2003), pp. 566-567.

135. Charles Seife, "Polyhedral Model Gives the Universe an Unexpected Twist," Science, 302 (2003), p. 209.

136. Neil J. Cornish, et al, "Constraining the Topology of the Universe," astro-ph/0310233, submitted to Physical Review Letters, 2003.

137. David Kirkman, et al, "The Cosmological Baryon Density from the Deuterium-to-Hydrogen Ratio in QSO Absorption Systems: D/H Toward Q1243+3047," Astrophysical Journal Supplement, 149 (2003), pp. 1-28.

138. Jeremiah P. Ostriker, et al, "The Probability Distribution Function of Light in the Universe: Results from Hydrodynamic Part 1. Fine-Tuning for Life in the Universe 9 Simulations," Astrophysical Journal, 597 (2003), pp. 1-8.

139. M. Tegmark, et al, "Cosmological Parameters from SDSS and WMAP," preprint, 2003 posted at https://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0310723.

140. Wolfram Freudling, Michael R. Corbin, and Kirk T. Korista, "Iron Emission in z ~ 6 QSOs," Astrophysical Journal Letters, 587 (2003), pp. L67-L70.

141. Lennox L. Cowie and Antoinette Songaila, "The inconstant constant?" Nature 428 (2004), pp. 132-133.

142. H. Chand, et al., "Probing the cosmological variation of the fine-structure constant: Results based on VLT-UVES sample," Astronomy and Astrophysics, 417 (2004), pp. 853-871.

143. Thibault Damous and Freeman Dyson, "The Oklo bound on the time variation of the fine-structure constant revisited," Nuclear Physics B, 480 (1996), pp. 37-54.

144. Anton M. Koekemoer, et al, "A Possible New Population of Sources with Extreme X-Ray/Optical Ratios," Astrophysical Journal Letters, 600 (2004), pp. L123-L126.

145. Henry C. Ferguson, et al, "The Size Evolution of High-Redshift Galaxies," Astrophysical Journal, 600 (2004), pp. L107- L110.

146. Charles Seife, "Light from Most-Distant Supernovae Shows Dark Energy Stays the Course," Science, 303 (2004), p. 1271.

147. Jonathan C. Tan and Christopher F. McKee, "The Formation of the First Stars. I. Mass Infall Rates, Accretion Disk Structure, and Protostellar Evolution," Astrophysical Journal, 603 (2004), pp. 383-400.

148. Charles Seife, "Galactic Stripling Gives a Glimpse of the Universe's Raw Youth," Science, 303 (2004), p. 1597.

149. Alan Heavens, et al, "The Star Formation History of the Universe from the Stellar Populations of Nearby Galaxies," Nature, 428 (2004), pp. 625-627.

150. Pavel D. Naselsky, et al, "Primordial Magnetic Field and Non-Gaussianity of the One-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe Data," Astrophysical Journal, 615 (2004), pp. 45-54.

151. Gang Chen, et al, "Looking for Cosmological Alfvén Waves in Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe Data," Astrophysical Journal, 611 (2004), pp. 655-659.

152. Tommaso Treu and Léon V. E. Koopmans, "Massive Dark Matter Halos and Evolution of Early-Type Galaxies to z = 1," Astrophysical Journal, 611 (2004), pp. 739-760.

153. B. Aubert, et al (the BaBar Collaboration), "Observations of Direct CP Violation in B0→ K+pi- Decays," preprint, August, 2004, high energy physics – experiment.

154. Peter Bond, "Hubble's Long View," Astronomy & Geophysics, volume 45, issue 3, June 2004, p. 328.

155. A. C. S. Readhead, et al, "Polarization Observations with the Cosmic Background Imager," Science, 306 (2004), pp. 836- 844.

156. Nickolay Y. Gneidin, "Reionization, Sloan, and WMAP: Is the Picture Consistent?" Astrophysical Journal, 610 (2004), pp. 9-13.

157. Amr A. El-Zant, et al, "Flat-Cored Dark Matter in Cuspy Clusters of Galaxies," Astrophysical Journal Letters, 607 (2004), pp. L75-L78.

158. J. R. Lin, S. N. Zhang, and T. P. Li, "Gamma-Ray Bursts Are Produced Predominantly in the Early Universe," Astrophysical Journal, 605 (2004), pp. 819-822.

159. Timothy P. Ashenfelter and Grant J. Mathews, "The Fine-Structure Constant as a Probe of Chemical Evolution and Asymptotic Giant Branch Nucleosynthesis in Damped Lyα Systems," Astrophysical Journal, 615 (2004), pp. 82-97.

160. Naoki Yoshida, Volker Bromm, and Lars Hernquist,, "The Era of Massive Population III Stars: Cosmological Implications and Self-Termination," The Astrophysical Journal, 605, (2004), pp. 579-590.

161. Yeshe Fenner, Jason X. Prochaska and Brad K. Gibson, "Constraints on Early Nucleosynthesis from the Abundance Pattern of a Damped Lyα System at z = 2.626," The Astrophysical Journal, 606 (2004), pp. 116-125.

162. Andreas Heithausen,, "Molecular Hydrogen as Baryonic Dark Matter," The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 606 (2004), pp. L13-L15.

163. Douglas Clowe, Anthony Gonzalez, and Maxim Markevitch, "Weak-Lensing Mass Reconstruction of the Interacting Cluster IE 0657-558: Direct Evidence for the Existence of Dark Matter," Astrophysical Journal, 604 (2004), pp. 596-603.

164. Sean T. Prigge, et al, "Dioxygen Binds End-On to Mononuclear Copper in a Precatalytic Enzyme Complex," Science, 304 (2004), pp. 864-867.

165. H. Jakubowski, Biochemistry: Chapter 8: Oxidative-Phosphorylation, A: The Chemistry of Dioxygen, November 17, 2005, https://employees.csbsju.edu/hjakubowski/classes/ch331/oxphos/oldioxygenchem.html. Accessed 02/06/06.

166. Robert H. Abeles, Perry A. Frey, and William P. Jencks, Biochemistry (Boston: Jones and Bartlett, 1992), pp. 655-673.

167. P. Caresia, S. Matarrese, and L. Moscardini, "Constraints on Extended Quintessence from High-Redshift Supernovae," Astrophysical Journal, 605 (2004), pp. 21-28.

168. Amr A. El-Zant, et al, "Flat-Cored Dark Matter in Cuspy Clusters of Galaxies," Astrophysical Journal Letters, 607 (2004), pp. L75-L78.

169. Kyu-Hyun Chae, et al, "Constraints on Scalar-Field Dark Energy from the Cosmic Lens All-Sky Survey Gravitational Lens Statistics," Astrophysical Journal Letters, 607 (2004), pp. L71-74.

170. Max Tegmark, et al, "The Three-Dimensional Power Spectrum of Galaxies From the Sloan Digital Sky Survey," Part 1. Fine-Tuning for Life in the Universe 10 Astrophysical Journal, 606 (2004), pp. 702-740.

171. Adrian C. Pope, et al, "Cosmological Parameters from Eigenmode Analysis of Sloan Digital Sky Survey Galaxy Redshifts," Astrophysical Journal, 607 (2004), pp. 655-660.

172. Yun Wang and Pia Mukherjee, "Model-Independent Constraints on Dark Energy Density from Flux-Averaging Analysis of Type Ia Supernova Data," Astrophysical Journal, 606 (2004), pp. 654-663.

173. Adam G. Riess, et al, "Type Ia Supernova Discoveries at z>1 from the Hubble Space Telescope: Evidence for Past Deceleration and Constraints on Dark Energy Evolution," Astrophysical Journal, 607 (2004), pp. 665-687.

174. A. Kashlinsky, et al, "Detecting Population III Stars Through Observations of Near-Infrared Cosmic Infrared Background Anisotropies," Astrophysical Journal, 608 (2004), pp. 1-9.

175. Nickolay Y. Gneidin, "Reionization, Sloan, and WMAP: Is the Picture Consistent?" Astrophysical Journal, 610 (2004), pp. 9-13.

176. Paul Martin and Luis C. Ho, "A Population of Massive Globular Clusters in NGC 5128," Astrophysical Journal, 610 (2004), pp. 233-246.

177. L. Pasquini, et al, "Beryllium in Turnoff Stars of NGC6397: Early Galaxy Spallation Cosmochronology and Cluster Formation," Astronomy and Astrophysics, in press, 2004.

178. Peter Bond, "Hubble's Long View," Astronomy & Geophysics, volume 45, issue 3, June 2004, p. 328.

179. T. Harko and K. S. Cheng, "Time Delay of Photons of Different Energies in Multidimensional Cosmological Models," Astrophysical Journal, 611 (2004), pp. 633-641.

180. I. H. Stairs, S. E. Thorsett, and Z. Arzoumanian, "Measurement of Gravitational Soin-Orbit Coupling in a Binary Pulsar System," Physical Review Letters, 93 (2004), id. 141101.

181. Daniel B. Zucker, et al, "Andromeda IX. A New Dwarf Speroidal Satellite of M31," Astrophysical Journal Letters, 612 (2004), pp. L121-L124.

182. J. Patrick Henry, "X-Ray Temperatures for the Extended Medium-Sensitivity Survey High-Redshift Cluster Sample: Constraints on Cosmology and the Dark Energy Equation of State," Astrophysical Journal, 609 (2004), pp. 603-616.

183. S. W. Allen, et al, "Constraints on Dark Energy from Chandra Observations of the Largest Relaxed Galaxy Clusters," Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 353 (2004), pp. 457-467.

184. Ruth A. Daly and S. G. Djorgovski, "Direct Determination of the Kinematics of the Universe and Properties of the Dark Energy as Functions of Redshift," Astrophysical Journal, 612 (2004), pp. 652-659.

185. Ruth A. Daly and S. G. Djorgovski, "A Model-Independent Determination of the Expansion and Acceleration Rates of the Universe as a Function of Redshift and Constraints on Dark Energy," Astrophysical Journal 597 (2003), pp. 9-20.

186. E. Peik, et al, "Limit on the Present Temporal Variation of the Fine Structure Constant," Physical Review Letters, 93 (2004), id # 170801.

187. I. Ciufolini and E. C. Pavils, "A Confirmation of the General Relativistic Prediction of the Lense-Thirring Effect," Nature, 431 (2004), pp. 958-960.

188. Timothy P. Ashenfelter and Grant J. Mathews, "The Fine-Structure Constant as a Probe of Chemical Evolution and Asymptotic Giant Branch Nucleosynthesis in Damped Lya Systems," Astrophysical Journal, 615 (2004), pp. 82-97.

189. Signe Riemer-Sorensen, Steen H. Hansen, and Kristian Pedersen, "Sterile Neutrinos in the Milky Way: Observational Constraints," Astrophysical Journal Letters, 644 (2006), pp. L33-L36.

190. D. G. Yamazaki, et al, "Constraints on the Evolution of the Primordial Magnetic Field from the Small-Scale Cosmic Microwave Background Angular Anisotropy," Astrophysical Journal, 646 (2006), pp. 719-729.

191. Oliver S. Wenger, et al, "Electron Tunneling Through Organic Molecules in Frozen Glasses," Science, 307 (2005), pp. 99- 102.

192. J. R. R. Verlet, et al, "Observation of Large Water-Cluster Anions with Surface-Bound Excess Electrons," Science, 307 (2005), pp. 93-96.

193. B. R. McNamara, et al, "The Heating of Gas in a Galaxy Cluster by X-Ray Cavities and Large-Scale Shock Fronts," Nature, 433 (2005), pp. 45-47.

194. Hans O. U. Fynbo, "Revised Rates for the Stellar Triple-Alpha Process from Measurement of 12C Nuclear Resonances," Nature, 433 (2005), pp. 136-139.

195. Fabrizio Nicastro, et al, "The Mass of the Missing Baryons in the X-Ray Forest of the Warm-Hot Intergalactic Medium," Nature, 433 (2005), pp. 495-498.

196. Ping He, Long-Long Feng, and Li-Zhi Fang, "Distributions of the Baryon Fraction on Large Scales in the Universe," Astrophysical Journal, 623 (2005), pp. 601-611.

197. Brian W. O'Shea, Tom Abel, Dan Whalen, and Micheal L. Norman, "Forming a Primordial Star in a Relic H II Region," Astrophysical Journal 628 (2005): L5-L8.

198. O. Le Fèvre et al., "A Large Population of Galaxies 9 to 12 Billion Years Back in the History of the Universe," Nature 437 (2005): 519-21.

199. A. Kashlinksy et al., "Tracing the First Stars with Fluctuations of the Cosmic Infrared Background," Nature 438 (2005): 45-50.

200. A. Kashlinsky, "Cosmic Infrared Background from Population III Stars and Its Effect on Spectra of High-z Gamma-Ray Part 1. Fine-Tuning for Life in the Universe 11 Bursts," Astrophysical Journal 633 (2005): L5-L8.

201. Robert Irion, "Astronomers Sweep Space for the Sources of Cosmic Dust," Science 310 (2005): 614-15.

202. Beth Willman, et al, "A New Milky Way Dwarf Galaxy in Ursa Major," Astrophysical Journal Letters, 626 (2005), pp. L85-L88.

203. David Martinez-Delgado et al., "The Closest View of a Dwarf Galaxy: New Evidence on the Nature of the Canis Major Overdensity," Astrophysical Journal 633 (2005): 205-09.

204. Daniel J. Eisenstein et al., "Detection of the Baryon Acoustic Peak in the Large-Scale Correlation Function of SDSS Luminous Red Galaxies," Astrophysical Journal 633 (2005): 560-74.

205. M. J. Lee et al., "Hubble Space Telescope Advanced Camera for Surveys Weak-Lensing and Chandra X-Ray Studies of the High-Redshift Cluster MS 1054-0321," Astrophysical Journal 634 (2005): 813-32.

206. N. Kanekar et al., "Constraints on Changes in Fundamental Constants from a Cosmologically Distant OH Absorber or Emitter," Physical Review Letters 95 (2005): 261301.

207. John N. Bahcall, Charles L. Steinhardt, and David Schlegel, "Does the Fine-Structure Constant Vary with Cosmological Epoch?" Astrophysical Journal, 600 (2004), pp. 520-543.

208. P. C. W. Davies, Tamara M. Davis, and Charles H. Lineweaver, "Cosmology: Black Holes Constrain Varying Constants," Nature, 418 (2002), pp. 602-603.

209. Alexander Y. Potekhin, et al, "Testing Cosmological Variability of the Proton-To-Electron Mass Ratio Using the Spectrum of PKS 0528-250," Astrophysical Journal, 505 (1998), pp. 523-528.

210. D. B. Guenther, "Testing the Constancy of the Gravitational Constant Using Helioseismology," Astrophysical Journal, 498 (1998), pp. 871-876.

211. E. Peik, et al, "Limit on the Present Temporal Variation of the Fine Structure Constant," Physical Review Letters, 93 (2004), id # 170801.

212. Adrian Cho, "Ring Around a Quasar May Deflate Quantum Foam After All," Science 311 (2006): 594.

213. Ariel G. Sánchez et al., "Cosmological Parameters from Cosmic Microwave Background Measurements and the Final 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey Power Spectrum," Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 366 (2006): 189-207.

214. Roya Mohayaee and R. Brent Tully, "The Cosmological Mean Density and Its Local Variations Probed by Peculiar Velocities," Astrophysical Journal 635 (2005): L113-116.

215. Enrique Gaztañaga, Mark Manera, and Tuomas Multamäki, "New Light on Dark Cosmos," Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 365 (2006): 171-77.

216. Daniel Clery, "Dwarf Galaxies May Help Define Dark Matter," Science 311 (2006): 758-59.

217. Philip J. Humphrey and David A. Buote, "A Chandra Survey of Early-Type Galaxies. I. Metal Enrichment in the Interstellar Medium," Astrophysical Journal 639 (2006): 136-56.

218. Phil Schewe and Ben Stein, "Have Particle Masses Changed Since the Early Universe?" Physics News Update 774 (2006): #1.

219. F. Y. Wang and Z. G. Dai, "Constraining the Cosmological Parameters and Transition Redshift with Gamma-Ray Bursts and Supernovae," Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 368 (2006): 371-378.

220. B. Altschul, "Limits on Lorentz Violation from Synchrotron and Inverse Compton Sources," Physical Review Letters 96 (2006): id 201101.

221. R. Monaco et al., "Zurek-Kibble Mechanism for the Spontaneous Vortex Formation in Nb-Al/Alox/Nb Josephson Tunnel Junctions: New Theory and Experiment," Physical Review Letters 96 (2006): id 180604.

222. C. Fröhlich et al., "Neutrino-Induced Nucleosynthesis of A>64 Nuclei: the n-p Process," Physical Review Letters 96 (2006): id 142502.

223. Peter L. Biermann and Alexander Kusenko, "Relic keV Sterile Neutrinos and Reionization," Physical Review Letters 96 (2006): e091301.

224. Masataka Fukugita and Masahiro Kawasaki, "Primordial Helium Abundance: A Reanalysis of the Izotov-Thuan Spectroscopic Sample," Astrophysical Journal 646 (2006): 691-695.

225. Takeshi Oka, "Interstellar H3 + ," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 103, no. 33 (2006): 12235-12242.

226. Douglas Clowe, et al, "A Direct Empirical Proof of the Existence of Dark Matter," Astrophysical Journal Letters 648 (2006): L109-L113.

227. Signe Riemer-Sørensen, Steen H. Hansen, and Kristian Pedersen, "Sterile Neutrinos in the Milky Way: Observational Constraints," Astrophysical Journal 644 (2006): L33-36.

228. Charles L. Bennett, "Cosmology from Start to Finish," Nature 440 (2006): 1126-1131.

229. D. N. Spergel et al., "Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Three Year Results: Implications for Cosmology," preprint, March 17, 2006.

230. Simon Rainville et al., "World Year of Physics: A Direct Test of E=mc2 ," Nature 438 (2005): 1096-1097.

231. Brian J. Barris and John L. Tonry, "The Rate of Type Ia Supernovae at High Redshift," The Astrophysical Journal 637 (2006): 427-438.

232. Mario Livio and Martin J. Rees, "Anthropic Reasoning," Science 309 (2005): 1022-1023.

233. Stelios Kazantzidis et al., "Density Profiles of Cold Dark Matter Substructure: Implications for the Missing-Satellites Part 1. Fine-Tuning for Life in the Universe 12 Problem," The Astrophysical Journal 608 (2004): 663-679.

234. Stacy S. McGaugh, "The Mass Discrepancy-Acceleration Relation: Disk Mass and The Dark Matter Distribution," The Astrophysical Journal 609 (2004): 652-666.

235. Frédéric Daigne et al., "Cosmic Star Formation, Reionization, and Constraints on Global Chemical Evolution," The Astrophysical Journal 617 (2004): 693-706.

236. Yasuhiro Kuwayama et al., "The Pyrite-Type High-Pressure Form of Silica," Science 309 (2005): 923-925.

237. Geoff Brumfiel, "Outrageous Fortune," Nature 439 (2006): 10-12.

238. Greg Dash, "Book Review: Ice: The Nature, the History and the Uses of an Astonishing Substance," Nature 440 (2006): 608.

239. Michael Schirber, "Emergence of the Galactic Heavyweights," ScienceNOW Daily News, 18 May 2006.," ScienceNOW 306 (2006): 1099.

240. Robin M. Canup and William R. Ward, "A Common Mass Scaling for Satellite Systems of Gaseous Planets," Nature 441 (2006): 834-839.

241. F. Governato et al., "The Formation of a Realistic Disk Galaxy in Λ-Dominated Cosmologies," The Astrophysical Journal 607 (2004): 688-696.

242. Bouwens et al., "Galaxy Size Evolution at High Redshift and Surface Brightness Selection Effects: Constraints from the Hubble Ultra Deep Field," The Astrophysical Journal Letters 611 (2004): L1-L4.

243. P. Colín et al., "Dwarf Dark Matter Halos," The Astrophysical Journal 612 (2004): 50-57.

244. Akima Fujita et al., "Cosmological Feedback from High-Redshift Dwarf Galaxies," The Astrophysical Journal 613 (2004): 159-179.

245. Varsha Kukarni et al., "Hubble Space Telescope Observations of Element Abundances in Low-Redshift Damped Lyα Galaxies and Implications for the Global Metallicity-Redshift Relation," The Astrophysical Journal 618 (2005): 68-90.

246. Anthony Aguirre et al., "Confronting Cosmological Simulations with Observations of Intergalactic Metals," The Astrophysical Journal Letters 620 (2005): L13-L17.

247. Joshua D. Younger, Neta A. Bahcall, and Paul Bode, "Evolution of the Cluster and Correlation Functions in a ΛCDM Cosmology," The Astrophysical Journal 622 (2005): 1-5.

248. Robert Minchin et al., "A Dark Hydrogen Cloud in the Virgo Cluster," The Astrophysical Journal Letters 622 (2005): L21- L24.

249. Eric F. Bell et al., "Toward an Understanding of the Rapid Decline of the Cosmic Star Formation Rate," The Astrophysical Journal 625 (2005): 23-36.

250. Critiano Porciana and Piero Madau, "The Origin of Intergalactic Metals Around Lyman Break Galaxies," The Astrophysical Journal Letters 625 (2005): L43-L46.

251. R. J. Wilman et al., "The Discovery of a Galaxy-Wide Superwind from a Young Massive Galaxy at Redshift z ≈ 3," Nature 436 (2005): 227-229.

252. Timothy C. Bears, "The First Generation of Stars," Science 309 (2005): 390-391.

253. Nobuyuki Iwamoto et al., "The First Chemical Enrichment in the Universe and the Formation of Hyper Metal-Poor Stars," Science 309 (2005): 451-453.

254. Nicolas Bouché et al., "Measuring the Halo Mass of z ~ 3 Damped Lyα Absorbers from the Absorber-Galaxy CrossCorrelation," The Astrophysical Journal 628 (2005): 89-103.

255. Brian W. O'Shea et al., "Forming a Primordial Star in a Relic H II Region," The Astrophysical Journal Letters 628 (2005): L5-L8.

256. Haruka Mii and Tomonori Totani, "Ultraluminous X-Ray Sources: Evidence for Very Efficient Formation of Population III Stars Contributing to the Cosmic Near-Infrared Background Excess?," The Astrophysical Journal 628 (2005): 873-878.

257. N. Panagia et al., "Direct Evidence for an Early Reionization of the Universe," The Astrophysical Journal Letters 633 (2005): L1-L4.

258. Asantha Cooray and Renyue Cen, "The Rise of Dwarfs and the Fall of Giants: Galaxy Formation Feedback Signatures in the Halo Satellite Luminosity Function," The Astrophysical Journal Letters 633 (2005): L69-L72.

259. C. Simon Jeffery, Christopher A. Tout, John C. Lattanzio, "Nucleosynthesis in Binary Stars," Science 311 (2006): 345-346.

260. A. N. Straugh et al., "Tracing Galaxy Assembly: Tadpole Galaxies in the Hubble Ultra Deep Field," The Astrophysical Journal 639 (2006): 724-730.

261. C. Maier et al., "Oxygen Gas Abundances at z ~ 1.4: Implications for the Chemical Evolution History of Galaxies," The Astrophysical Journal 639 (2006): 858-867.

262. Jason Tumlinson, "Chemical Evolution in Hierarchical Models of Cosmic Structure. I. Constraints on the Early Stellar Initial Mass Function," The Astrophysical Journal 641 (2006): 1-20.

263. Aparna Venkatesan, "A Cosmic Milestone: Constraints from Metal-Poor Halo Stars on the Cosmological Rionization Epoch," The Astrophysical Journal Letters 641 (2006): L81-L84.

264. J. Stuart B. Wyithe and Abraham Loeb, "Suppression of Dwarf Galaxy Formation by Cosmic Reionization," Nature 441 (2006): 322-324.

265. Ben E. K. Sugerman et al., "Massive-Star Supernovae as Major Dust Factories," Science Express, Part 1. Fine-Tuning for Life in the Universe 13 10.1126/science.1128131 (2006).," Science 309 (2006): 1431.

266. Jeremy L. Tinker et al., "Cosmic Voids and Galaxy Bias in the Halo Occupation Framework," The Astrophysical Journal 647 (2006): 737-752.

267. Ignacio Trubillo et al., "The Size Evolution of Galaxies Since z~3: Combining SDSS, GEMS, and FIRES," The Astrophysical Journal 650 (2006): 18-41.

268. L. Dyson, M. Kleban, L. Susskind, "Disturbing Implications of a Cosmological Constant," SU/MIT arXiv (2002): hepth/020813 v1.

269. Max Tegmark et al., "The Three-Dimensional Power Spectrum of Galaxies from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey," The Astrophysical Journal 606 (2004): 702-740.

270. Joachim Wambsganss, Paul Bode, and Jeremiah Ostriker, "Giant Arc Statistics in Concordance Lambda Cold Dark Matter Universe," The Astrophysical Journal Letters 606 (2004): L93-L96.

271. Adrian Cho, "Galaxy Clusters Bear Witness to Universal Speed-Up," Science 304 (2004): 1092.

272. Alexandre Refregier et al., "Weak Lensing from Space. III. Cosmological Parameters," The Astronomical Journal 127 (2004): 3102-3114.

273. Adrian C. Pope et al., "Cosmological Parameters from Eigenmode Analysis of Sloan Digital Sky Survey Galaxy Redshifts," The Astrophysical Journal 607 (2004): 655-660.

274. Adam G. Riess et al., "Type Ia Supernova Discoveries at z > 1 from the Hubble Space Telescope: Evidence for Past Deceleration and Constraints on Dark Energy Evolution," The Astrophysical Journal 607 (2004): 665-687.

275. J. Patrick Henry, "X-Ray Temperature for the Extended Medium-Sensitivity Survey High-Redshift Cluster Sample: Constraints on Cosmology and Dark Energy Equation of State," The Astrophysical Journal 609 (2004): 603-616.

276. Steven E. Boggs et al., "Testing Lorentz Invariance with GRB 021206," The Astrophysical Journal Letters 611 (2004): L77-L80.

277. Gang Chen and Bharat Ratra, "Constraints on Scalar-Field Dark Energy from Galaxy Cluster Gas Mass Fraction Versus Redshift Data," The Astrophysical Journal Letters 612 (2004): L1-L4.

278. Ruth A. Daly and S. G. Djorgovski, "Direct Determination of the Kinematics of the Universe and Properties of the Dark Energy as Functions of Redshift," The Astrophysical Journal 612 (2004): 652-659.

279. Z. G. Dai, E. W. Liang, and D. Xu, "Constraining ΩM and Dark Energy with Gama-Ray Bursts," The Astrophysical Journal Letters 612 (2004): L101-L104.

280. A. C. S. Readhead et al., "Polarization Observations with the Cosmic Background Imager," Science 306 (2004): 836-844.

281. Pavel D. Naselsky et al., "Primordial Magnetic Field and Non-Gaussianity of the One-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anistropy Probe Data," The Astrophysical Journal 615 (2004): 45-54.

282. Masataka Fukugita and P. J. E. Peebles, "The Cosmic Energy Inventory," The Astrophysical Journal 616 (2004): 643-668.

283. David Tytler et al., "Cosmological Parameters σ8, the Baryon Density Ωb, The Vacuum Energy Density ΩΛ, The Hubble Constant and the UV Background Intensity from a Calibrated Measurement of H I Lyα Absorption at z = 1.9," The Astrophysical Journal 617 (2004): 1-28.

284. Robert Irion, "Galaxy Patterns Preserve an Imprint of the Big Bang," Science 307 (2005): 508-509.

285. Fabrizio Nicastro et al., "The Mass of the Missing Baryons in the X-ray Forest of the Warm-Hot Intergalactic Medium," Nature 433 (2005): 495-498.

286. Jonathan Mitchell et al., "Improved Cosmological Constraints from Gravitational Lens Statistics," The Astrophysical Journal 622 (2005): 81-98.

287. S. Dye and S. J. Warren, "Decomposition of the Visible and Dark Matter in the Einstein Ring 0047-2808 by Semilinear Inversion," The Astrophysical Journal 623 (2005): 31-41.

288. Sergey Mashchenko, H. M. P. Couchman, and Alison Sills , "Modeling Star Formation in Dwarf Spheroidal Galaxies: A Case for Extended Dark Matter Halos," The Astrophysical Journal 624 (2005): 726-741.

289. D. G. Yamazaki, K. Ichiki, and T. Kajino, "Constraining the Primordial Magnetic Field from Cosmic Microwave Background Anisotropies at Higher Multipoles," The Astrophysical Journal Letters 625 (2005): L1-L4.

290. Kevork Abazajian et al., "Cosmology and the Halo Occupation Distribution from Small-Scale Galaxy Clustering in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey," The Astrophysical Journal 625 (2005): 613-620.

291. E. R. Siegel and J. N. Fry, "The Effects of Inhomogeneities on Cosmic Expansion," The Astrophysical Journal Letters 628 (2005): L1-L4.

292. David L. Weinberg, "Mapping the Large-Scale Structure of the Universe," Science 309 (2005): 564-565.

293. Mario Livio and Martin J. Rees, "Anthropic Reasoning," Science 309 (2005): 1022-1023.

294. John H. Wise and Tom Abel, "The Number of Supernovae from Primordial Stars in the Universe," The Astrophysical Journal 629 (2005): 615-624.

295. Karl Glazebrook and Christ Blake, "Measuring the Cosmic Evolution of Dark Energy with Baryonic Oscillations in the Galaxy Power Spectrum," The Astrophysical Journal 631 (2005): 1-20.

296. Roberto Mainini, Loris P. L. Colombo, and Silvio A. Bonometto, "Dark Matter and Dark Energy from a Single Scalar Field and Cosmic Microwave Background Data," The Astrophysical Journal 632 (2005): 691-705.

297. Daniel J. Eisenstein et al., "Detection of the Baryon Acoustic Peak in the Large-Scale Correlation Function of SDSS Part 1. Fine-Tuning for Life in the Universe 14 Luminous Red Galaxies," The Astrophysical Journal 633 (2005): 560-574.

298. P. Astier et al., "The Supernova Legacy Survey: Measurement of ΩM, ΩΛ and w from the First Year Data Set," Astronomy & Astrophysics 447 (2006): 31-48.

299. George Ellis, "Physics Ain't What It Used to Be," Nature 438 (2005): 739-740.

300. Kiyotomo Ichiki et al., "Cosmological Magnetic Field: A Fossil of Density Perturbations in the Early Universe," Sciencexpress 10.1126/Science.11206090 (2006): 1-7; Science Express 311 (2006): 7.

301. Robert Irion, "Astronomers Push and Pull Over Dark Energy's Role in Cosmos," Science 311 (2006): 316.

302. Jounghun Lee and Xi Kang, "Reconstructing the Triaxial Shapes of Dark Matter Halos from the Anisotropic Spatial Distributions of Their Substructures in the Concordance Cosmology," The Astrophysical Journal 637 (2006): 561-566.

303. Jenny Hogan, "Microwave Data Refine Picture of Universe," Nature 440 (2006): 395.

304. D. N. Spergel, et al, "Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Three Year Results: Implications for Cosmology," Astrophysical Journal Supplement (2007): in press.

305. L. Page, et al, "Three Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Polarization Analysis," Astrophysical Journal Supplement (2007): in press.

306. Joey Key Shapiro, et al, "Extending the WMAP Bound on the Size of the Universe," eprint arXiv:astro-ph/0604616.

307. Alexander Vilenkin, "The Vacuum Energy Crisis," Science 312 (2006): 1148-1149.

308. Paul J. Steinhardt and Neil Turok, "Why the Cosmological Constant is Small and Positive," Science 312 (2006): 1180- 1183.

309. Jounghun Lee, "The Axis-Ratio Distribution of Galaxy Clusters in the SDSS-C4 Catalog as a New Cosmological Probe," The Astrophysical Journal 643 (2006): 724-729.

310. A. Conley et al., "Measurement of Ωm,ΩΛ from a Blind Analysis of Type Ia Supernovae with CMAGIC: Using Color Information to Verify the Acceleration of the Universe," The Astrophysical Journal 644 (2006): 1-20.

311. Jiajian Shen, "An Excursion Set Model of the Cosmic Web: The Abundance of Sheets, Filaments, and Halos," The Astrophysical Journal 645 (2006): 783-791.

312. Laurie D. Shaw et al., "Statistics of Physical Properties of Dark Matter Clusters," The Astrophysical Journal 646 (2006): 815-833.

313. Kaiki Taro Inoue and Joseph Silk, "Local Voids as the Origin of Large-Angle Cosmic Microwave Background Anomalies. I.," The Astrophysical Journal 648 (2006): 23-30.

314. Yun Wang and Pia Mukherjee, "Robust Dark Energy Constraints from Supernovae, Galaxy Clustering, and 3 yr Wilkinson Anisotrophy Probe Observations," The Astrophysical Journal 650 (2006): 1-6.

315. Andreea Petric et al., "A Direct Upper Limit on the Density of Cosmological Dust from the Absence of an X-Ray Scattering Halo Around the z = 4.3 Quasar QSO 1508+5714," The Astrophysical Journal 651 (2006): 41-45.

316. D0 Collaboration, "A Precision Measurement of the Mass of the Top Quark," Nature 429 (2004): 638-642.

317. Daniel H. McIntosh, Hans-Walter Rix, and Nelson Caldwell, "Structural Evidence for Environment-Driven Transformation of the Blue Galaxies in Local Abel Clusters: A85, A496 and A754," The Astrophysical Journal 610 (2004): 161-182.

318. Lawrence M. Krauss and Glenn D. Starkman, "Life, the Universe, and Nothing: Life and Death in An Ever-Expanding Universe," The Astrophysical Journal 531 (2000): 22-30.

319. Somnath Bharadwaj, Suketu P. Bhavsar, and Jatush V. Sheth, "The Size of the Longest Filaments in the Universe," The Astrophysical Journal 606 (2004): 25-31.

320. Mark Peplow, "Particle Physics: The Bs Have It," Nature 430 (2005): 739.

321. B. Aubert, et al, "Direct CP Asymmetry in B0 → K+ πDecays," ArXiv:hep-ex/0407057 v2 25 Jan 2005.

322. Jeremy Darling, "A Laboratory for Constraining Cosmic Evolution of the Fine Structure Constant: Conjugate 18 Centimeter OH Lines Toward PKS 1413+135 at z = 0.24671," The Astrophysical Journal 612 (2004): 58-63.

323. Joel N. Bregman, Renato A. Dupke, and Eric D. Miller, "Cosmic Filaments in Superclusters," The Astrophysical Journal 614 (2004): 31-36.

324. Bruce A. Bassett, Pier Stefano Corasaniti, and Martin Kunz, "The Essence of Quintessence and the Cost of Compression," The Astrophysical Journal Letters 617 (2004): L1-L4.

325. Priyamvada Natarajan and Volker Springel, "Abundance of Substructure in Clusters of Galaxies," The Astrophysical Journal Letters 617 (2004): L13-L16.

326. J. Michael Shull, "Hot Pursuit of Missing Matter," Nature 433 (2005): 465-467.

327. David W. Hogg et al., "Cosmic Homogeneity Demonstrated with Luminous Red Galaxies," The Astrophysical Journal 624 (2005): 54-58.

328. J. Richard Gott III et al., "A Map of the Universe," The Astrophysical Journal 624 (2005): 463-484.

329. P. W., "Astrophysics: Test Puts Pedal to Heavy Metal," Science News 167 (2005): 318.

330. Xiao Wang et al., "Estimating Dark Matter Distributions," The Astrophysical Journal 626 (2005): 145-158.

331. F. J. Sánchez-Salcedo, "The Dark Halo of NGC 5963 as a Constraint of Dark Matter Self-Interaction of the Low-Velocity Regime," The Astrophysical Journal 631 (2005): 244-251.

332. F. D. A. Hartwick, "Early Cosmic Chemical Evolution: Relating the Origin of a Diffuse Intergalactic Medium and the First Long-Lived Stars," The Astrophysical Journal 640 (2006): 41-46. Part 1. Fine-Tuning for Life in the Universe 15

333. Leonid Chuzhoy and Adi Nusser, "Consequences of Short-Range Interactions Between Dark Matter and Protons in Galaxy Clusters," The Astrophysical Journal 645 (2006): 950-954.

334. F. W. Stecker, M. A. Malkan and S. T. Scully, "Intergalactic Photon Spectra from the Far-IR to the UV Lyman Limit for 0 < z < 6 and the Optical Depth of the Universe to the High-Energy Gamma Rays," The Astrophysical Journal 648 (2006): 774-783.

335. Douglas Clowe et al., "A Direct Empirical Proof of the Existence of Dark Matter," The Astrophysical Journal Letters 648 (2006): L109-L113.

336. Takashi Yoshida et al., "Neutrino Oscillation Effects on Supernova Light-Element Synthesis," The Astrophysical Journal 649 (2006): 319-331.

337. Renyue Cen and Jeremiah P. Ostriker, "Where Are the Baryons? II. Feedback Effects," The Astrophysical Journal 650 (2006): 560-572.

338. Renyue Cen and Taotao Fang, "Where Are the Baryons? III. Nonequilibrium Effects and Observables," The Astrophysical Journal 650 (2006): 573-591.

339. Alexander F. Goncharov, Viktor V. Struzhkin, and Steven D. Jacobsen, "Reduced Radiative Conductivity of Low-Spin (Mg,Fe)O in the Lower Mantle," Science 312 (2006): 1205-1208.

340. Paula Jofré, Andreas Reisenegger, and Rodrigo Fernández, "Constraining a Possible Time Variation of the Gravitational Constant through 'Gravitochemical Heating' of Neutron Stars," Physical Review Letters 97 (2006): 131102.

341. Phil Schewe and Ben Stein, "Have Particle Masses Changed Since the Early Universe," Physics News Update 774 (2006) #1. 

......

17.2 – What are the Fine Tuning Arguments and what defines them ?

Some additional narrow mathematical constants necessary for the existence of life. 

As science expands it´s domains, intensity and develops more advanced tools for studying and analyze the macro- and micro cosmos, the nummber of fine tuning situations and constants increases in nature. I have compiled a brief summary of the number of fine tuning dilemmas ackumulated to this date, guided by the Philosphical and scientific magazine "Evolution News".

"Fine-tuning" refers to various features of the universe that are necessary conditions for the existence of complex life. Such features include the initial conditions and "brute facts" of the universe as a whole, the laws of nature or the numerical constants present in those laws (such as the gravitational force constant), and local features of habitable planets (such as a planet's distance from its host star).

The basic idea is that these features must fall within a very narrow range of possible values for chemical-based life to be possible.

Some popular examples are subject to dispute. And there are some complicated philosophical debates about how to calculate probabilities. Nevertheless, there are many well-established examples of fine-tuning, which are widely accepted even by scientists who are generally hostile to theism and design. For instance, Stephen Hawking has admitted: "The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers [the constants of physics] seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life." (A Brief History of Time, p. 125). Here are a compilation of some of the most celebrated and widely accepted examples of fine-tuning for the existence of life:

Cosmic Constants.

1. Gravitational force constant

2. Electromagnetic force constant

3. Strong nuclear force constant

4. Weak nuclear force constant

5. Cosmological constant

Initial Conditions and "Brute Facts"

1. Initial distribution of mass energy

2. Ratio of masses for protons and electrons

3. Velocity of light

4. Mass excess of neutron over proton

"Local" Planetary Conditions.

1. Steady plate tectonics with right kind of geological interior

2. Right amount of water in crust

3. Large moon with right rotation period

4. Proper concentration of sulfur

5. Right planetary mass

6. Near inner edge of circumstellar habitable zone

7. Low-eccentricity orbit outside spin-orbit and giant planet resonances

8. A few, large Jupiter-mass planetary neighbors in large circular orbits

9. Outside spiral arm of galaxy

10. Near co-rotation circle of galaxy, in circular orbit around galactic center

11. Within the galactic habitable zone

12. During the cosmic habitable age

Effects of Primary Fine-Tuning Parameters.

1. The polarity of the water molecule

Explanation

Cosmic Constants

1. Gravitational force constant (large scale attractive force, holds people on planets, and holds planets, stars, and galaxies together) — too weak, and planets and stars cannot form; too strong, and stars burn up too quickly.

2. Electromagnetic force constant (small scale attractive and repulsive force, holds atoms electrons and atomic nuclei together) — If it were much stronger or weaker, we wouldn't have stable chemical bonds.

3. Strong nuclear force constant (small-scale attractive force, holds nuclei of atoms together, which otherwise repulse each other because of the electromagnetic force) — if it were weaker, the universe would have far fewer stable chemical elements, eliminating several that are essential to life.

4. Weak nuclear force constant (governs radioactive decay) — if it were much stronger or weaker, life-essential stars could not form.

(These are the four "fundamental forces.")

1. Cosmological constant (which controls the expansion speed of the universe) refers to the balance of the attractive force of gravity with a hypothesized repulsive force of space observable only at very large size scales. It must be very close to zero, that is, these two forces must be nearly perfectly balanced. To get the right balance, the cosmological constant must be fine-tuned to something like 1 part in 10 to the 120. If it were just slightly more positive, the universe would fly apart; slightly negative, and the universe would collapse.

As with the cosmological constant, the ratios of the other constants must be fine-tuned relative to each other. Since the logically-possible range of strengths of some forces is potentially infinite, to get a handle on the precision of fine-tuning, theorists often think in terms of the range of force strengths, with gravity the weakest, and the strong nuclear force the strongest. The strong nuclear force is 10 to the 40 times stronger than gravity, that is, ten thousand, billion, billion, billion, billion times the strength of gravity. Think of that range as represented by a ruler stretching across the entire observable universe, about 15 billion light years. If we increased the strength of gravity by just 1 part in 10 to the 34 of the range of force strengths (the equivalent of moving less than one inch on the universe-long ruler), the universe couldn't have life sustaining planets.

It is also worth noting that the odds against life in any form or level in the universe is astonishing. At what point is it fair to admit that it is science itself that suggests that we cannot be the result of random and coincidental forces ? The fine-tuning necessary for life to exist on a planet is nothing compared with the fine-tuning required for the universe to exist at all. Astrophysicists now know that the values of the four fundamental forces;

A – Gravity.

B – The electromagnetic force.

C – Strong nuclear force.

D – Weak nuclear force,

were determined less than a millionth (1000000) of a second after the Big Bang. Alter any one of these 4 values ever so slightly and the universe as we know it could not exist. Ex; if the ratio between the strong nuclear force and the electromagnetic force had ben off by the tiniest fraction of a tiniest inconceivable fraction, then no stars could have formed at all. Multiply that single parameter by all the other neessary conditions and the odds against the universe existing is so far beyond astronomical that the notion that "it all just happened by chance" defies a logic mind. It would be lika tossing a coin and having it come up heads 10 quintillion (10 000 000 000 000 000 000) times in a row. Fred Hoyle, the astronomer who coined the term "Big Bang" said; "My atheism was greatly shaken by these developments". One of the worlds most renowned theoretical physicist Paul Davies said "The appearance of design is overwhelming". Even Christopher Hitchens, one of atheisms most aggresive proponents conceded "without question the fine-tuning argument was the most powerful argument of the other side". Oxford University Professor of Mathematics Dr. John Lennox said "The more we get to know about our universe, the more the hypothesis that there is a Creator gains in credibility as the best explanation of why we are here".

Initial Conditions and "Brute Facts"

1. Initial Conditions. Besides physical constants, there are initial or boundary conditions, which describe the conditions present at the beginning of the universe. Initial conditions are independent of the physical constants. One way of summarizing the initial conditions is to speak of the extremely low entropy (that is, a highly ordered) initial state of the universe. This refers to the initial distribution of mass energy. In "The Road to Reality", physicist Roger Penrose estimates that the odds of the initial low entropy state of our universe occurring by chance alone are on the order of 1 in 10 to the10(123). This ratio is vastly beyond our powers of comprehension. Since we know a life-bearing universe is intrinsically interesting, this ratio should be more than enough to raise the question: Why does such a universe exist? If someone is unmoved by this ratio, then they probably won't be persuaded by additional examples of fine-tuning. But it must challenge the thought that the extremely complex fabric of universe just came about by random, undirected tombola forces.

Another interesting and extreme exponential ratio is 1 in 10 to the 66 10(66) wich has ben concluded by physicists and cosmologists when it comes to estimate the number of different inflationary cosmological models that do not result in a life friendly universe.

In addition to initial conditions, there are a number of other, well- known features about the universe that are apparently just brute facts. And these too exhibit a high degree of fine-tuning. Among the fine-tuned (apparently) "brute facts" of nature are the following:

1. Ratio of masses for protons and electrons— If it were slightly different, building blocks for life such as DNA could not be formed.

2. Velocity of light — If it were larger, stars would be too luminous. If it were smaller, stars would not be luminous enough.

3. Mass excess of neutron over proton— if it were greater, there would be too few heavy elements for life. If it were smaller, stars would quickly collapse as neutron stars or black holes.

"Local" Planetary Conditions

But even in a universe fine-tuned at the cosmic level, local conditions can still vary dramatically. As it happens, even in this fine-tuned universe, the vast majority of locations in the universe are unsuited for life. In "The Privileged Planet", Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards identify 12 broad, widely recognized fine-tuning factors required to build a single, habitable planet. All 12 factors can be found together in the Earth. There are probably many more such factors. In fact, most of these factors could be split out to make sub-factors, since each of them contributes in multiple ways to a planet's habitability. In 1966, Time Magazine displayed many articles making the claim that God was obsolete and that many had accepted the cultural narrative that science alone could answer the questions of everythings origin – God or any intelligent source had nothing to do with the explanation of universe. But as it turns out, God keeps on hanging in there and more than so. In fact the best arguments for the existence of a Creator comes from science itself.

The same year 1966, the famous astronomer Carl Sagan announced that there were 2 necessary criteria for a planet to support life; A – The right kind of star and B – a planet the right distance from that star. Given the estimate of approximately 1 Octillion 10 to the 27 (1000000000000000000000000000) planets in the universe there should have ben about 1 septillion 10 to the 24 (1000000000000000000000000) planets in the universe capable of supporting life. With such spectacular odds scientists were optimistic that the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI) wich was an ambitious project launched in the 1960:s, would actually result fruitfully. But in spite of these efforts, by 2014 no actual results has ben detected. What happened in between ? As our knowledge of the universe increased, it became clear that there were in fact far more factors necessary for life, let alone intelligent life, than Sagan supposed. His 2 parameters grew to 10, then 20, then 50 criterias for a planet to support life, wich meant that the number of potential life supporting planets decreased accordingly. The number of life supported planets existing dropped to a few thousands (approx 4000) and kept plummeting as the life supporting criterias grew in numbers. Even SETI proponents acknowledged the problem. Political scientist and author Peter Schenkel wrote in a 2006 article for the science Magazine Sceptical Enquirer "In light of new findings and insights, we should quietly admit that the early estimates may no longer be tenable". Today, there are more than 200 known parameters necessary for a planet to support life, every single one of wich must be perfectly met or the whole life prospect falls apart.

1. Steady plate tectonics with right kind of geological interior(which allows the carbon cycle and generates a protective magnetic field). If the Earth's crust were significantly thicker, plate tectonic recycling could not take place.

2. Right amount of water in crust(which provides the universal solvent for life).

3. Large moon with right planetary rotation period(which stabilizes a planet's tilt and contributes to tides). In the case of the Earth, the gravitational pull of its moon stabilizes the angle of its axis at a nearly constant 23.5 degrees. This ensures relatively temperate seasonal changes, and the only climate in the solar system mild enough to sustain complex living organisms.

4. Proper concentration of sulfur(which is necessary for important biological processes).

5. Right planetary mass(which allows a planet to retain the right type and right thickness of atmosphere). If the Earth were smaller, its magnetic field would be weaker, allowing the solar wind to strip away our atmosphere, slowly transforming our planet into a dead, barren world much like Mars.

6. Near inner edge of circumstellar habitable zone(which allows a planet to maintain the right amount of liquid water on the surface). If the Earth were just 5% closer to the Sun, it would be subject to the same fate as Venus, a runaway greenhouse effect, with temperatures rising to nearly 900 degrees Fahrenheit. Conversely, if the Earth were about 20% farther from the Sun, it would experience runaway glaciations of the kind that has left Mars sterile.

7. Low-eccentricity orbit outside spin-orbit and giant planet resonances(which allows a planet to maintain a safe orbit over a long period of time). Orbit eccentricity is a terminology in astrodynamics, the orbital eccentricity of an astronomical object is a dimensionless parameter that determines the amount by which its orbit around another body deviates from a perfect circle.

8. A few, large Jupiter-mass planetary neighbors in large circular orbits(which protects the habitable zone from too many comet bombardments). If the Earth were not protected by the gravitational pulls of Jupiter and Saturn, it would be far more susceptible to collisions with devastating comets that would cause mass extinctions. As it is, the larger planets in our solar system provide significant protection to the Earth from the most dangerous comets.

9. Outside spiral arm of galaxy(which allows a planet to stay safely away from supernovae).

10. Near co-rotation circle of galaxy, in circular orbit around galactic center(which enables a planet to avoid traversing dangerous parts of the galaxy).

11. Within the galactic habitable zone(which allows a planet to have access to heavy elements while being safely away from the dangerous galactic center).

12. During the cosmic habitable age(when heavy elements and active stars exist without too high a concentration of dangerous radiation events).

This is a very basic list of "ingredients" for building a single, habitable planet. At the moment, we have only rough probabilities for most of these items. For instance, we know that less than ten percent of stars even in the Milky Way Galaxy are within the galactic habitable zone. And the likelihood of getting just the right kind of moon by chance is almost certainly very low, though we have no way of calculating just how low. What we can say is that the vast majority of possible locations in the visible universe, even within otherwise habitable galaxies, are incompatible with life.

It's important to distinguish this local "fine-tuning" is different from cosmic fine-tuning. With cosmic fine-tuning, we're comparing the actual universe as a whole with other possible but non-actual universes. And though theorists sometimes postulate multiple universes to try to avoid the embarrassment of a fine-tuned universe, we have no direct evidence that other universes exist. When dealing with our local planetary environment, however, we're comparing it with other known or theoretically possible locations within the actual universe. That means that, given a large enough universe, perhaps you could get these local conditions at least once just by chance (though it would be "chance" tightly constrained by cosmic fine-tuning).

So does that mean that evidence of local fine-tuning is useless for inferring design? No. Gonzalez and Richards argue that we can still discern a purposeful pattern in local fine-tuning. As it happens, the same cosmic and local conditions, which allow complex observers to exist, also provide the best setting, overall, for scientific discovery. So complex observers will find themselves in the best overall setting for observing. You would expect this if the universe were designed for discovery, but not otherwise. So the fine-tuning of physical constants, cosmic initial conditions, and local conditions for habitability, suggests that the universe is designed not only for complex life, but for scientific discovery as well.

Effects of Primary Fine-Tuning Parameters

There are a number of striking effects of fine-tuning "downstream" from basic physics that also illustrate just how profoundly fine-tuned our universe is. These "effects" should not be treated as independent parameters (see discussion below). Nevertheless, they do help illustrate the idea of fine-tuning. For instance:

1. The polarity of the water moleculemakes it uniquely fit for life. If it were greater or smaller, its heat of diffusion and vaporization would make it unfit for life. This is the result of higher-level physical constants, and also of various features of subatomic particles.

Some downstream Biology fine-tuning.

23.

24.

25. Even if we start with all the proteins we have today, the number of different ways to arranging all the proteins that have nothing to do with life, vastly outstrips any combinational fragment that could partake in any life-building process with extremely huge exponential numbers 10 to the 79 billion (10 79) in a single cell. Referring to the Leventhal´s Paradox.

26. The Levinthal´s Paradox displays the emmense problem for base chemicals to bind into proteins and form amino-acids let alone life dependant amino-acids when trying to explain the origin of life. Levinthal's paradox is a thought experiment in the field of computational protein structure prediction; protein folding seeks a stable energy configuration. An algorithmic search through all possible conformations to identify the minimum energy configuration (the native state) would take an immense duration; however in reality protein folding happens very quickly, even in the case of the most complex structures, suggesting that the transitions are somehow guided into a stable state through an uneven energy landscape. In 1969, Cyrus Levinthal noted that, because of the very large number of degrees of freedom in an unfolded polypeptide chain, the molecule has an astronomical number of possible conformations. An estimate of 10300 was made in one of his papers[2] (often incorrectly cited as the 1968 paper[3]). For example, a polypeptide of 100 residues will have 200 different phi and psi bond angles, two within each residue. If each of these bond angles can be in one of three stable conformations, the protein may misfold into a maximum of 3200 different conformations (including any possible folding redundancy), not even considering the peptide linkages between each residue or the conformations of the side-chains. Therefore, if a protein were to attain its correctly folded configuration by sequentially sampling all the possible conformations, it would require a time longer than the age of the universe to arrive at its correct native conformation (in a random non-directed universe). This is true even if conformations are sampled at rapid (nanosecond or picosecond) rates. The "paradox" is that most small proteins in nature fold spontaneously on a millisecond or even microsecond time scale. The solution to this paradox has been somewhat established by computational approaches to protein structure prediction.

27. The DNA enigma. In 1953, James Watson and Francis Crick studying from Cambridge University, discovered that the DNA (Deoxiribose Nucleic Acid) molecyle stores information as a four character digital code (ACGT). Strings of precisely sequenced chemicals inside the DNA-helix called nucleotide bases store and transmit the assembly instructions – the information for building the crucial proteins that cells need to survive. Unless the chemical "letters" in the DNA text are sequenced properly, a protein molecyle will not form. No proteins – no cells. No cells – no living organism. Crick later proposed that the chemical constituents in DNA function like letters in a written language or digital symbols in a computer code. Microsoft tycoon Bill Gates has said "DNA is like a software program". Just as a well-functioning computer code depends upon precise sequences of zeros and ones, so too does the function of the DNA molecule depend upon the specific arrangement of chemical bases along the spine of the double helix. Keeping that in mind, for computers to run faster and perform more functions, they require new code. The same is true for life. To build new forms of life, the evolutionary process would need to produce new genetic information – new code. This questions the capability of natural selection and mutation. Natural selection is a simpel sorting process. Species keep favorable mutations that allow them to survive but eliminate bad mutations that cause their members to die out. A problem for the evolutionary model is that mutations in a very large majority (+ 95%) generate non-productive and destructive mutations. No one doubts that natural selection is a real process and that it produces minor variations within kinds, but many biologists now doubt that it produces major innovations or new kinds in biological form.

What is software ? What happens if you introduce a few random changes into computer code ? It will malfunction, and if you can make it barely work you must not make to many changes. If you make to many random changes the program will stop functioning altogether. You can not keep on doing this and expect some cool new and/or advanced program to pop out. There is a mathematical reason for this. In all codes and languages there are vastly more ways of arranging characters that will generate garbage than there are arrangements that will generate meaningful sequences able to partake in development and constructive building phases. This applies to DNA.

We must also note that natural selection only "selects" sequences that random mutations generate. Yet experiments has established that DNA sequences capable of making stable proteins are extremely rare – and therefore, really hard to stumble on randomly. How rare ? While working at Cambridge University, molecular biologist Douglas Axe showed that, for every DNA sequence that generates a relatively short functional protein, there are 10 to the 77th power (1077) nonfunctional sequences. Now consider that there are only 10 to the 65th power (1065)atoms in our galaxy.

So finding a new DNA sequence capable of building a functional protein is like searching blindfolded for a single marked atom among a trillion Milky Way galaxies. Even 4 billion years of life´s history is not enough time to overcome a search problem this big.

What About All Those Other Parameters?

In discussing fine-tuned parameters, one can take either a maximal or a minimal approach.

Those who take the maximal approach seek to create as long a list as possible. For instance, one popular Christian apologist listed thirty-four different parameters in one of his early books, and maintains a growing list, which currently has ninety parameters. He also attaches exact probabilities to various "local" factors.

While a long (and growing) list sporting exact probabilities has rhetorical force, it also has a serious downside: many of the parameters in these lists are probably derived from other, more fundamental parameters, so they're not really independent. The rate of supernova explosions, for instance, may simply be a function of some basic laws of nature, and not be a separate instance of fine-tuning. If you're going to legitimately multiply the various parameters to get a low probability, you want to make sure you're not "double booking," that is, listing the same factor twice under different descriptions. Otherwise, the resulting probability will be inaccurate. Moreover, in many cases, we simply don't know the exact probabilities.

To avoid these problems, others take a more conservative approach, and focus mainly on distinct, well-understood, and widely accepted examples of fine-tuning. This is the approach taken here. While there are certainly additional examples of fine-tuning, even this conservative approach provides more than enough cumulative evidence (or at least, provides a very strong case for the most probable theory versus a "blind, random, nihilistic, tombola universe driven by chance and miracle mutations) for design. After all, it is this evidence that has motivated materialists to construct many universe scenarios to avoid the implications of fine-tuning. But the prospect of a many universe scenario also has to adress to probability constants on the many levels within only 1 observable universe as just referred to above, besides explaining the birth, constants, forces and processes driving the many universe scenario and how it differs from the one universe concept. The problems of fine tuning constants within the one or many universe models remains to be explained either way.

Sources:

Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards, The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery (Washington DC: Regnery, 2004).

Robin Collins, "The Teleological Argument: An Exploration of the Fine- tuning of the Cosmos,"Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, edited by William Lane Craig and J.P. Moreland, (Oxford: Blackwell Pub., 2009).

John Barrow and Frank Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986).

Roger Penrose, The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe (New York: Vintage, 2007).

Paul Davies, The Accidental Universe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982).

Martin Rees, Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces that Shape the Universe (New York, NY: Basic Books, 2000).

Contributors

• Guillermo Gonzalez, PhD

• Jay Richards, PhD

XX. Hugh Ross.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Ross_(astrophysicist)

XX. Reasons to believe.

https://reasons.org/

XX.

......

17.6 - Biology.

Special Biological and Anthropological Sciences has for a very long time oriented itself with the assistance of the Theory of Evolution as a basis for describing reality. This was done without fundamental evidence being presented about how this step-by-step happened. In addition, the development of technical aids and instruments since the 1800s shows a much more complex and problematic environment for the legitimacy of the theory of evolution. Often scientist talks about evolution in regard to the scale of nature as macro- or micro evolution. So my question is; Can we qualify evolution as scientific theory when we talk nature ?

The father of evolution, Charles Darwin himself was sceptic when he said; My ideas in evolution are interely based on and totally depends on lives, geological specializations." wich since the days of Darwin has been disproved by cutting edge sedimentology. In regards to whether his theory is true science or not, he wrote a letter to famous botanist Asa Grey; "I am quite conscious that my speculations run beyond the bounds of true science, it is a mear rag of an hypothesis with as many flaws and holes as sound parts."

Darwin expressed his doubt in his major work "the origin of species" about his own theory. A piece of evidence that he could not explain is an event in the history of life that is now known as the Cambrian explosion, which is the geologically sudden appearance of most of the major groups of major groups of animals. Darwin was aware of this back in 1859 and he realized that it contradicted the general pattern of the history of life that he had sketched out in the "origin of species", bacause these forms of life appeared globaly so suddenly in the fossil record with no ancestral forms beneath them in the lower strata.

150 to 200 years have passed since Darwin published the book - The Origin of Species - and many have during this time contributed to the speculative nature of evolution, but the lack of evidence is still remarkable. Despite the strong, and many times dogmatic, support for the theory of evolution amongst the scientific community, there are a fast, leading and growing part of this community of scientists, following over 150 years of fruitless search for evidence to support the theory of evolution, that now question and dismiss the theory as legitimate.

Nobel Prize winning biochemist Dr. Ernst Chain who helped develop penicillin in 1972, called the theory of evolution; "a very feeble attempt to understand the development of life." And he also said; "I would rather believe in fairies than in such wild speculation as Darwinian evolution."

Professor of Geology of the university of Strasbourg Loius Bounoure quote; "evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown ups, this theory has helped nothing in the progress of science, it is useless."

German Professor of Zoology Albert Fleischmann said; "The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature, it is not the result of scientific research but purely the product of imagination."

Many prominent scientist have spoken on the matter and many have not. But professional authority, its opinions and conclusions are only a lesser part. We must look at the substance of science to find out if it has validity for support of any theory. All over the world, the evolution theory has been fundamental in education in schools and universities and proclaimed as fact, when it never had any factual claims and logically no scientific standings.

Let us highlight a few of the many problems with the theory of evolution:

• Evolution is not observed and is not happening today.

• It has not been observed in the past.

• It presupposes but can not account for the origin of life (primaraly bilogical evolution).

• It violates an important physical law (2nd law of thermodynamics).

• It´s proposed mechanism of natural selection and mutation has been shown conclusively not to work.

• It fails to account for the irreducible complexity that we observe in biological systems.

• It fails to account for the origin of specified information in biological systems, primarely the genetic code.

• It fails because it violates many first principles in philosophy, wich actually renders the very concept of evolution metaphysical impossible and irrational.

An open mind and diligent individual research is highly recommended at this stage and will come in handy for the continuation and exploration of the number of problems stated above:

1. Evolution is not observed and is not happening today. Whenever experiments have been tried to reproduce or simulate evolution, the evolutional process in the laboratory has always failed to produce any new bacteria life forms or species. In order just to uphold any life form there needs to be a vast number of amino acids and proteins coordinated in specific amounts and combinations to be a functional template for upholding any life process. When creating this environment for life, tha laborants have to intervene many times (up to 12 times) in the "natural process" to create the most basic amino-protein life upholding substance. Example: E. coli is a form of bacterium, a very simple organism that reproduces every 20 minutes. Because they reproduce every 20 minutes and has in laboratory setting analyzed it over a period of several decades and are able to speed up evolution regarding this process (wich normally takes millions of years) and recreated the process by looking at these organisms that reproduce very quickly, generation after generation being recreated in the lab for many decades under very favourable conditions with active help from interventions, they are still the same E. coli bacteria as from day one and has not changed its origin to become sponges or other forms of bacteria. A lot of this work regarding E. Coli long-term evolution experiment has ben done by scientist Richard Lenski from the University of California, Irvine, and has ben carried on since it´s start in 1988. Attempts have ben made with flies exposing them to UV-light to try and provoke mutations, to change their form and all that happens is that they get sick and die instead of evolve. We also have simulations done in the field of cumputor sciences and AI were the idea was to test if any empirical scientific theory should be able to be recreated in simulations in the field of known parameters in physics, cosmology and astronomy. It has failed so far and one of the most prominent obstacles for recreation is the unmeasurable amount and degree of finetuning constants that is not in place. The only way to come close to any basic model is through programming interventions or several active ad-hoc actions to push the model towards nearing an expected outcome, which defeats the whole purpose of the experiment and undermines its entire legitimacy. This is not what the theory of evolution stipulates, it is supposed to be a blind process with no guiding force and no intervention.

2. It has not been observed in the past. When examining the fossile record. In the Origin of speices, Darwin himself stated a number of significant comments; "As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth ?". He himself described the lack of transissional fossils as; "the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.". At the time of Darwin in the 1860:s many said that science had not had enough time to investigate this obvious fossil absences but in time we will find these fossils. So, we allow the timeline run forward for 100 years, 100 of millions of dollars of investments put into the scientific search for transissional fossiles to support the theory of evolution, and it has found nothing. Famous Atheist Biologist and Paleontologist, Niles Eldredge, acknowledged that; "Despite massive efforts nothing has changed. "It is a simple ineluctable truth that vertially all members of a biota (specific species) remains basically stabile with minor fluctuations during their duration, no new forms can be observed. No meaningful fossiles of the intermediate forms that are required by the Darwinian evolution has ben found today, despite the existence of billions of fossiles.". Such a large number of fossiles in a specific strata actually argues the case for a large global cataclysmic event (the flood theory). The fact that the absence of these transitional forms over time, from the simplest bacteria all the way through early ocean life to larger vertibrates into man, there has to be a vast number of intermediate life forms and spieces. It still remains to be found. Atheist evolutionist and biologist , Jeffrey H. Schwartz admitted; "Instead of filling the gaps in the fossile record with so called "missing links" most paleontologists found themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossile record with no evidence of transformational intermediats between documented fossile species. What we see instead is the same living forms persisting over supposedly hundreds of millions of years of "supposed" evolution.". There are fossile findings of squids that are supposed to be hundreds of millions of years old that in every aspect of science, are constitutes and looks exactly the same as any squid life form captured from the oceans today. Famous mathematician David Berlinski once said; "Bugs stay bugs, there is no evidence in the past that evolution has happened.".

3. Evolution presupposes but can not account for the origin of life (primaraly bilogical evolution). Through history, scientists has never been able to generate even the very basic constituance or processess of life, its basic chemistry, aminoacids or proteins despite decades of research and hundreds of millions of dollars of investments. There are no assembly of aminoacids wich are the constituent blocks of proteins into proteins under a biotic condition. The work of James Mitchell Tour, who is an American chemist, nanotechnologist and probably the worlds leading origin of life scientists quotes; "There are unsurmountable technical difficulties of generating even the simplest of biological molecules let alone any kind of simple organism experimentally. It is impossible". This primordial soup model that we often see in biology textbooks are unfortunately less than assumptions. 12:50 min.

4. It violates an important physical law (2nd law of thermodynamics). It is a physical law that basically says that every observable and tested physical process tends to proceed from an ordered state to an disordered state. If all natural and physical processes ex; solar radiation, rain, vind, mineral bindings etc, are processes of decay that eventually disintegrate all complex systems, things will fall apart over time. It can vary in different parameters within the system (ex; iron can rust) but it can not innovate, create or change one thing into another, particularly something that is more complex or of any higher organisational order. And yet, we are to believe that through this system we can expect evolutionary processes develop by chance from nothingness to code to energy to molecules and to man herself just given enough time, eons and eonas of time, wich is the theory of evolutions thin thread and last line of defense for its validity. But tha fact remains unchanged through time, you can not get order and complexity out of disorder no matter how many billions or trillions of years you are waiting. A pile of building materials will not become a structured house no matter how long time you await for the rubble material to organize any higher order, regardless other factors like rain, vind, lightning or solar radiation over time. In fact, over time the building material themselves will crumble, disintegrate and disappear.

   1. It´s proposed mechanism of natural selection and mutation has been shown conclusively not to work. Another very difficult obstacle for the evolutionary theory to overcome is the fact of Genetic Entropy. It is the genetic degeneration of living things. Genetic entropy is the systematic breakdown of the internal biological information systems that make life alive. Genetic entropy results from genetic mutations. A lot of very substancial work on genetic entropy has ben done by Dr. John C. Sanford of Cornell University. He measured the accumulation of human mutations and detected around 100 new mutations each generation. Most of those mutations had a mear neutral effect on a slightly deteriorating scale. But benificial mutations wich will give the system any improvements are so extremely rare that they are not even considered given their extremely low mathematical probabilities. Every single mutation in the genetic code over time will either have no effect or degrade functionality and therefore not add functionality. It is in comparison like having a software program that has got a bug. You will never get any improvement in your software program. It is going to degrade, delay and/or stop your software program and its functionality. What Sanford showed through his work was that we as humans are actually degrading instead of improving. The rates of mutations actually tallies with the biblical chronology. That is one of the main reasons that the Patriarchs lived for so long because they were closest to the perfect genetic prototype (Adam).Over time all these mutations accumulated in the human genome and the life span for human generations decreased significantly. Through modern health care, medicin and uplifted living standards we have ben able to brake that trend over the last few generations and the life expectancy has instead slightly increased in the western world. But that has nothing to do with the ongoing genetic mutational decay, wich continues on. Genetic entropy has conclusively shown that the fundamental biological mechanism of evolution regarding genetic mutations and natural selection does not support the assumption that you can get increased functionality, order and complexity. On the contrary. Mutations are either neutral or degenerate functionality in the human genome.Natural selection on the other hand is a fact in nature, but not in a way that creates new kinds or new categories of life. Natural selection is a selection pattern within already defined categories and kinds and as such results in minor variations within the categories and kinds.

   1. It fails to account for the irreducible complexity that we observe in biological systems. According to Charles Darwins own criteria for evolution, irreducible complexity refutes Darwins criteria. In Darwins book "the origin of species" Darwin says; "If anyone would prove the existence of a complex organ that absolutely could not have come from a large number of consecutive changes, then my theory would completely collapse". At the time of Darwin, cells were thought to be very simple blobs of goo, but since then we have had the development of instruments like electromicroscopy that has revealed that cells are extremely complex in nano-machinery and functional operations. They are complex structured machines operating with specific coordinated functions to uphold the specific tasks for specialized celltypes on a very small scale. All the functional parts and machinery of a single cell must be present at the same time in order for the cell to exist and survive, otherwise it would never survive. Cells are like complex cities with interdependent factories, logistics and control systems displayed as a headqurter coordination, transport system, assembly system, manufacturingsystem, energyproduction, storage logistics and vaste disposal systems. In addition, It is very hard to exclude a necessary existence of a computorlike software program for the coordination, execution and continuation of a single cellfunction. The cell would die if any of these specialized machine functions were to be removed. So they all had to be there at the same time for a cell to be functionally existing. This is the very example of irreducible complexity that would collapse Darwins theory of evolution.

      Another example of irreducible complexity is the cellular flagellum wich is used by bacteria for motion. It is like a tail with very advanced machinery functions made up of about 30 proteins with propulsion design, filament, a hook, rotor, bearings and are very sophisticated on a microscopical scale. The rotor itself can operate at 6000 to 17 000 revolutions a minute. It fails to assembly and function if only 1 of the 35 genes required to produce the 30 proteins is taken away. This has ben studied by several biochemists and Dr: Michael Behe out of Lehigh University in Pennsylvania has contributed vastly on this topic.

      It is like a mouse trap, all the bits, parts and components with their specific function must be there at the same time in order for the mouse trap to exist and to function. But even if the parts miraculously would have appeared at the same time, it would take yet another miracle to assembly it and make it functional. It would be very logical to ask for the blueprints, the software programs and the programmer.

      Just through the invention of microscopy, the number of systems in biology that now can be categorized under irreducible complexity accumulates over time wich leads to the dismantling of Darwins evolution theory on a larger scale. But there can still be room for an adjusted evolution through the process of natural selection within categories and kinds.

   2. It fails to account for the origin of specified information in biological systems, primarely the genetic code. The DNA and the genetic code. It codes for information like an instruction manual for the production of all materials, specialized assembly, activities of the cells, their morfogenes (specialization), korrelatations and timing programs. It is an extremely advanced, massive and complex program and it is made up of a very sophisticated chemical and physical language wich carries meaning. Think of all languages, the DNA is far more advanced than all those put together. The genetic code manual is made up of millions of words and each word carries a particular instructional meaning and the have several sophisticated meanings. If you were to read a word in one way you will get one instruction and if you read it in the opposite way you get a different instruction. There are mechanisms that translate those words into a different language wich then can be read to deliver other instructions. If you also read ex; the third letter of those words of multiple words you get additional instructions. What we are seeing is a level of sophistication and complexity wich is staggering. It is the most advanced software and hardware program that we can imagine and it is encapsuled within every cell. We have to ask, where does that come from ? Random chance, coincidence, blind physical mutations of nature ? No evolutionist can account for the origin of specified information but they admittedly presuppose it in order to uphold their evolutional theory. Whithout a first replicating organism there will be no evolution according to the evolution advocats. 22:02 (7 scientific reasons why Darwinian evolution is a myth) 

   2. It fails because it violates many first principles in philosophy, wich actually renders the very concept of evolution metaphysical impossible and irrational. Philosophical first principles are principles that do not depend on other principals to exist and are thereby self evident. They can not be proved but are intuitively true and our intellect mind acknowledge them when presented to the intellect. One example is the principle of identity, a thing is what it is. Another is the principle of non-contradiction, a thing can not be at the same place and with the same respect to another thing at the same time and in the same place. If Darwinian evolution is to be true it has to adhere to first principles and if it does not it fails to be a valid theory. We find today that the Darwinian evolution violates many first principles wich concludes that it has to be false in whole or in parts. Some other examples of violations of first principles are the principle of sufficient reason, the existence of a thing is accountable either in itself or in another given that you can not give what you have not got. If I do not have a million dollars I can not give you a million dollars. If I do not have eye balls as an organism, I can not give them to any organism beside me or any organism more sophisticated up the evolutionary ladder. There are no eye balls in a primordial soup nore are there any eye balls attached to the first amoeba. The principle of proportional causality, no effect is greater than the cause. We have a systematic violation of first principles in Darwinian evolution such as; life coming from non-life, multi cellular life coming from uni cellular life, swimmers from non swimmers, walkers fom non walkers, flyers from walkers and on it goes without any evidence to show for. The principle of resemblance or continuity of nature, like gets like, kind will be a kind, all life comes from life, a dog is going to be a dog, specific plants will become just the same as I planted. There are to this day no observable or experimental evidence of evolutional steps or signs of intermediate transitions to support the Darwinian theory of evolution. The logical principle compile the human perceprion and intellect regarding how we gain knowledge and knows about some things. This is the principle of evidence, an explanation or hypothesis must take in to account all of the evidence. A single piece of evidence that are contrary to and can not be accounted for by the theory renders the theory false in whole or in part. Evolution is NOT observed, has total absence of fossile intermediates, fails to explain irreducible complexity and genetic entropy.

      The Darwinian evolutionists last hope is TIME. Billions of billions upon billions of years will eventually produce the tiniest alteration that would ignite the evolution process. TIME will fix the theory of evolution, but as we have already shown earlier, TIME is not benificial to functional progress, on the contrary TIME will produce non progressive mutations, using this argument alone. It does not matter how much time is added, it all comes down to proving the evolutionary theory step by step through the obstacles stated above.

   References and Notes.

   Asa Gray.

   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asa_Gray

   Ernst Chain.

   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Chain

   Louis Bounoure.

   https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/theory-of-evolution-1.319275

   Albert Fleischmann.

   https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Fleischmann

   Todays understanding and increased complexity and knowledge of the ingredients, electro-chemical construct, communication, functions and capacity of a cell compared to the limited scientific knowledge of Charles Darwin and his period represents a giant leap. This is true for all of the scientific disciplines. The more we are able to find out and develop our technology, instruments and methods, the more complexity, fine tuning and debth we see in all of nature. We are slowly discovering an emmense informational programming of everything.

......

Additional structure:

A - THE DNA. 

B - THE CELL. 

C - THE CHIRALITY OF AMINOACIDS & SUGARS.

D - THE EYE. 

E - THE BRAIN. 

F - 

G - 

H - 

I - 

J -

K -

L -

M -

N - 

O - 

P - 

Q - 

R - 

S - 

T - 

U - 

V - 

X -

Y - 

Z -

Å - 

Ä - 

Ö -

......