Teleology in Cosmology
by BradfordRobert Deyes posted Post details: Darwinian Universes And Colliding Branes: Eschewing A Cosmic Singularity at The ID Report. Deyes makes this observation about fine tuning at the linked blog entry:
"Many of the most fundamental characteristics of our cosmos- the relative strengths of gravity, electromagnetism and the forces that operate inside atomic nuclei as well as masses and relative abundances of different particles- are so finely tuned that if just one of these were even slightly different, life as we know it couldn't exist. If the so-called weak nuclear interaction were a tiny bit stronger or weaker than it is, for example, stars wouldn't blow up in the mammoth supernovas that spread elements like carbon and oxygen out into space and without those elements, there would be no water and no organic molecules. If the strong nuclear force were just one-half of 1% stronger or weaker, stars could not make carbon or oxygen….Because there is no known law that requires those forces to have the values they do, scientists figure that there must be another explanation for how we got so lucky"
Lee Smolin, a cosmologist, has presented a Multiverse theory of his own about which the following remarks were made:
Smolin's idea of universe progeny spawning from black holes within parent universes bears striking similarities to the evolutionary tree of common descent that Darwin provided as the sole picture in 'The Origin Of Species'. According to Smolin, as universes 'improve' their ability to generate more stars and thereby produce more black holes, 'fitter' universes will swamp out those that are less finely tuned, have fewer stars and therefore produce less progeny (Ref 4, p.90-100). Given time, enough universes will have produced enough stars to generate enough black holes to produce more progeny universes with life-supporting, physical parameters such as our own.
Smolin seems to be abusing the natural selection concept. I've seen origin of life proponents do the same with respect to precursor biochemical scenarios. Natural selection is not a convenient tack-on to be incorporated into theories when a selection process is not indicated. What would define a fitter universe? One with properties that would enable life? Why would such universes win out over alternatives? And there is this:
It is ironic that Smolin should choose Darwin's tree of life to illustrate his model. After all, Darwin himself called for a singularity in so far as all existing life could be brought together through the ages to one or at least a few common ancestors at some defined point in time (Ref 7, pp. 480, 615, 630). With the different Multiverse theories we have still not answered the fundamental question of why there is something rather than nothing.
A biological singularity. That's a different way of looking at life's origin. Why is there something rather than nothing is a familiar philosophical question. I'd ask why would a causal trail ends with the presumption an unexplained existence?
September 30th, 2008 at 10:45 am
Read what you quoted:
A fitter universe is one that lasts longer. Fitter (longer lasting) universes produce more black holes, and so more new universes.
Comment by The Pixie Again — September 30, 2008 @ 10:45 am
September 30th, 2008 at 11:17 am
Pixie: A fitter universe is one that lasts longer. Fitter (longer lasting) universes produce more black holes, and so more new universes.
That's not what the quote states. More black holes are produced in this theoretical construction. An age indicator is not provided. Neither are percentages of "unfit" to "fit." I would add that the ideas presented look inherently untestable. The blog depiction of science fiction is apt.
Comment by Bradford — September 30, 2008 @ 11:17 am
September 30th, 2008 at 11:30 am
Sorry, I got that a bit wrong. He is equating star production with fitness (and I was equating that with longevity, which is probably but not necessarly the case). A fitter universe is one that produces more stars. A universe that produces more stars will have more blackholes, and so more offspring.
I agree that is sounds untestable.
Comment by The Pixie Again — September 30, 2008 @ 11:30 am
September 30th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Keep in mind that Smolin's idea is highly speculative.
Evolution is inevitable when we have reproduction with variation. Natural Selection occurs when we have differential reproductive success due to heritable variations.
Evolution is intrinsic to Smolin's concept , not tacked on. The idea is that universes are spawned from black holes and inherit physical parameters with variation, so the universes that generation the most black holes will tend to predominate in a population of such universes. But like most such speculations, it is full of what-ifs, especially that a universe of black holes would be necessarily linked to a universe of life. It seems that black holes would quickly predominate even over stars. For that and other reasons it doesn't appear any stronger an argument than the Weak Anthropic Principle which has applicability to a broader range of scenarios.
The Laws of Thermodynamics do not necessarily apply to the universe as a whole (such as when spacetime contracts).
The fine-tuning argument itself is not very strong. Multiverses are suggested by versions Inflation Theory, so the Anthropic Principle may be a valid explanation. It is also possible that there intrinsic relationships between the various physical constants such that they can only take certain values.
Comment by Zachriel — September 30, 2008 @ 12:18 pm
September 30th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
Zachriel (or anyone else)…
I thought our latest models for Black Holes show that they leak energy through Hawking radiation and, therefore, are destined to evaporate.
This is why I thought the LHC scientists weren't worried about creating tiny Black Holes.
While having temporary Black Holes doesn't necessarily eliminate Smolin's ideas, it makes the ideas less of a compelling explanation, IMO.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 30, 2008 @ 12:57 pm
October 1st, 2008 at 6:16 am
Zachriel
Do you mean we do not have sufficient knoweledge to be able to tell, or is there actually some reason to suppose this?
Comment by The Pixie Again — October 1, 2008 @ 6:16 am
October 1st, 2008 at 10:49 am
The energy of particles emitted depends on the mass of the black hole. The smaller the mass, the greater the energy of particles emitted. If the Schwartzschild radius is less than the Planck length, then the black hole immediately evaporates.
There are many theories due to a lack of data to decide between them. As I understand it, these are some of the outstanding issues.
We could start with the origin of the Cosmos itself (from nothing?) which seems to violate entropy with a very low entropy distribution of mass and energy. When Cosmic Inflation ends, a great deal of energy is released and entropy rapidly rises. Once matter dominates, the entropy largely stabilizes with most of the entropy of the Universe in the Cosmic Background Radiation. But matter continues to clump, much of it into black holes, which then slowly evaporate. We might attempt to explain the initial condition by assuming a small, empty universe with a 'temporary' fluctuation leading to inflation, stars and galaxies. Just virtual particles.
*If* the Cosmos were to collapse, most physicists believe entropy would continue to increase (though some think that when the Universe becomes small enough entangled particles once separated by great distances would begin to interact). The singularity of a Big Crunch may not be capable of remembering its previous state, so entropy may reset. But why expect an oscillation then? Quantum Gravity? Spacetime Foam? Maybe the virtual particles just return to their ground state and the story ends. Resolution probably depends on a valid Unified Theory.
Back to Smolin and RDeyes. If the Oscillating Cosmos is some sort of black hole spawned in a larger universe, then it may slowly evaporate by Hawking Radiation into the Fifth Dimension, eventually tiring like the bouncing ball and then evaporate completely! But this isn't known yet. And RDeyes seemingly rejects multiverses anyway.
In any case, the current state of cosmology is that the universe will *not* collapse. Even supermassive black holes will have evaporated in 10^100 years or so. (Some theories of dark energy avoid heat death, though.)
—
AddendumJust as I was submitting, I noticed this article on Scientific American, Big Bang or Big Bounce?: New Theory on the Universe's Birth: The right amount of cosmic forgetfulness may come to the rescue by presenting the young, growing universe with a clean slate irrespective of all the mess that may have built up before.
Comment by Zachriel — October 1, 2008 @ 10:49 am
October 1st, 2008 at 10:24 pm
Zachriel wrote:
I would argue that Smolin’s idea is really a theological, or maybe more accurately, an atheological idea. Whatever it was that caused the universe to explode into existence transcends the universe. Transcendent, ultimate causes are the domain of theologians, not scientists. According to Einstein’s theory of General Relativity if we rewind the history of the universe, like a movie back to the very beginning, not even space and time exist. So whatever caused the universe also possibly caused space and time, as we know it, to exist.
This is in an impenetrable veil that is impossible for empirical science to penetrate. We can only consider the range of possibilities. Certainly, the idea of multiple universes is a logically possible one; but so is the idea of an eternally existing transcendent intelligence. Notice that intelligence very easily explains the physical features the universe. The naturalistic approach that Smolin is suggesting, on the other hand, just leaves too many questions unanswered.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — October 1, 2008 @ 10:24 pm
October 2nd, 2008 at 7:42 am
That's true, but it is also possible that science may be able to detect the existence of multiverses. Smolin's idea is just speculation at this point, but we may soon be able to test for the existence of other dimensions.
Theology, on the other hand, is usually apologetics for what is claimed to be known about ultimate causes.
We may as well say God created the world Last Thursday. It explains everything!
Comment by Zachriel — October 2, 2008 @ 7:42 am
October 2nd, 2008 at 7:44 am
Nevertheless, the Laws of Thermodynamics are quite safe for now.
1. Can't Win.
2. Can't Break Even.
3. Can't Quit.
Comment by Zachriel — October 2, 2008 @ 7:44 am
October 2nd, 2008 at 9:13 am
This response does not counter John's point. Assuming multiple universes would not provide the causal trail answering why space and time exist. It does alter the scenario though and actually affirms a long held theological position of an existence outside our own universe.
Comment by Bradford — October 2, 2008 @ 9:13 am
October 2nd, 2008 at 10:26 am
Don't confuse science fiction multiverses with scientific theories. Multiple universes is a natural extention of Chaotic Inflation Theory with space and time as 'nothing special'. Inflation Theory has made a number of profound predictions.
This may not be true. Once upon a time, it was thought that people could never know the content of stars, or know anything about what the universe looked like a split second after the Big Bang. There is reason to believe that what "caused the universe" may have empirical implications for observations within this universe.
Comment by Zachriel — October 2, 2008 @ 10:26 am
October 2nd, 2008 at 9:50 pm
Zachriel:
However, multiple universes don't allow just anything improbable to happen, just as "multiple rooms theory" doesn't allow all the molecules in a room to accidentally organize themselves in one corner of the room and suffocate the inhabitant while he sleeps.
Second, the necessary numbers to actually produce inflation are extremely fine tuned and thus only pushes the intelligence issue "bump in the carpet" somewhere else.
Third, it has been calculated that the time of inflation for the universe, based on its estimated size, coincides with Penrose and Hameroff's Orch OR model for the collapse of probabilities to produce consciousness.
From the article:
Last, according to the Orch OR model, there is no need for actual multiverses after the period of inflation as all possibilities actually collapse/reduce to one realization.
Comment by CJYman — October 2, 2008 @ 9:50 pm
October 3rd, 2008 at 7:16 am
Zach:
It seems like you are saying that it’s possible that we can determine some things about the cause of the universe by looking at effects inside the universe. I completely agree.
This leads to directly to two questions
What sort of things could we possibly learn about the Cause?
Where would we most likely expect to find this information about the Cause?
These sound to me like ID questions. Please explain why they are not
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — October 3, 2008 @ 7:16 am
October 3rd, 2008 at 8:17 am
That may or may not be true. There are several presumptions to such scenarios. Infinite universes. Quantization of space and time. In any given universe, though, the odds of such events are still near infinitely improbable. Applying the Weak Anthropic Principle limits the observable universes, but doesn't lead to violations of Thermodynamic Principles.
Perhaps. But the whole point of Chaotic Inflation Theory is that the physical parameters may be subject to fluctuation, hence not fine-tuned. There is also the possibility that there is an underlying relationship that explains the parameter values. In any case, "fine-tuning" is not direct evidence of "intelligence", but could just be a question of human ignorance and limitations.
Interesting idea, but as far as I know, the model seems to be a Me-Too model and apparently contradicted by the evidence (Tegmark, Importance of quantum coherence in brain processes, Physical Review 2000).
In any case, there are several outstanding cosmological theories (Orch OR being the least persuasive). Inflation Theory has been able to make valid and important empirical predictions. But there are still a lot of unanswered questions.
Comment by Zachriel — October 3, 2008 @ 8:17 am
October 3rd, 2008 at 8:23 am
Apparently quite a bit. Inflation Theory has already been successful in predicting much of the large-scale structure of the Universe.
In the fossil we call the Cosmic Background Radiation, the large-scale structure of the Universe, in further investigation of dark matter and dark energy, and in fundamental quantum structure such as discoveries from particle colliders.
They could be scientific "ID questions" if you propose an Intelligent Design hypothesis that *entails* specific and distinguishing empirical predictions. For instance, what would ID predict about the Higgs Boson? Or the Cosmic Background Radiation? And how would these prediction be *entailed* in the hypothesis?
Can ID make scientific predictions that we don't already know? Or is it forever to be stuck in the twilight of metaphysics?
Comment by Zachriel — October 3, 2008 @ 8:23 am
October 3rd, 2008 at 8:27 pm
ZacH
Don't forget Inflation is not the cause of the universe but an amazing feature of the universe that the Cause must explain
Those would be good places to investigate but I would expect find a signature of the Cause in the fine-tuning of the constants of the universe as well as the most information rich structures that arise from these constants.
Do you know of any pridictions at all about the characteristics of the Cause?
I think it can. In fact any prediction about the Cause of the universe is by definition an ID prediction either positive or negative.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — October 3, 2008 @ 8:27 pm
October 3rd, 2008 at 10:14 pm
Inflation is due to symmetry breaking in the early universe. We can identify causes of the large-scale structure of the Cosmos, just as we can identify causes of the formation of the Solar System. We may be able to determine the cause of the fundamental physical constants (as we have for many other constants), but that is still unclear at this point.
The True Cause as opposed to the ordinary kind, I suppose you mean. Sorry, I thought you were talking about science. I will leave you to your metaphysical speculations.
Comment by Zachriel — October 3, 2008 @ 10:14 pm
October 4th, 2008 at 10:28 am
Zach:
Exactly but what caused this symmetry? Its part of the universe is it not? as such it must have a cause.
Did this Cause leave any empirical evidence of its existence and characteristics?
Ordinary causes are not true? I thought a cause was a cause. Now I'm confused I did not know there were two kinds.
I was.
I talking about the cause of the universe and you said
If that’s the case we are talking science when we are talking about the Cause of the universe.
That's what I'm interested in. Does this not interest you?
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — October 4, 2008 @ 10:28 am
October 4th, 2008 at 11:14 am
Then, you might be interested in upcoming experiments with the Large Hadron Collider. The confirmation of the Higgs boson, and the determination of its properties may answer questions concerning the origin of mass. Scientists may even be able to make and study black holes. Perhaps one day they will be able to make and study 'universes'.
There is no ultimate theory yet, but one view is that symmetry is a natural consequence of space and time, which are unified under the geometry of supersymmetry. Beyond that is largely speculative. String theory is making tentative inroads into exploring this domain. Perhaps nothingness is simply an unstable state of perfect symmetry. Or it could be that this universe is embedded in a greater universe currently beyond the kin of human science. But a scientific answer will require data.
Comment by Zachriel — October 4, 2008 @ 11:14 am
October 4th, 2008 at 11:52 am
Zach:
Sure it’s interesting but since mass is a part of our universe it’s cause would in turn be explained by what cased the universe would it not.
But space and time are part of the universe are they not and therefore would be in turn be caused by what caused the universe. That’s the question that I’m truly interested in
Perhaps for now but empirical data can turn the speculative into science. That’s what ID discussions are all about
Of course you know that nothingness can’t be unstable we’ve already covered that already.
But I’ll agree that it’s at least possible that our universe is larger than we can at present explore with science and I am interested in the cause of our universe no matter how large it turns out to be.
To paraphrase you
“Did the cause leave empirical implications for observations within this universe?”
That is Cosmological ID in a nutshell welcome aboard
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — October 4, 2008 @ 11:52 am
October 4th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
I know no such thing.
As the idea is based only on an extrapolation of known symmetries (and the collapse of previous arguments analogous to your own), but does not have empirical support, I'll leave it for now.
I have never seen an ID speculation that has any empirical merit—even in principle. Indeed, ID makes a point of not proposing any testable models.
Comment by Zachriel — October 4, 2008 @ 12:08 pm
October 4th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Zach:
Sure you do you just can't bring yourself to admit it out loud.
Are there any arguments analogous to the law of non-contradiction that have collapsed? I'd love to hear about them.
Have you seem any speculation that has empricial merit? speculations are non empirical by definition.
ID is not a person so I find it hard to believe it makes a point of anything. People make points ideas (speculations) don't.
Michael Sherman has proposed such a testable model for biology.
Perhaps he doesn’t count because he himself is not ID only his idea is
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — October 4, 2008 @ 4:20 pm
October 4th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
CJYman (from the provided quote)
A “big wow” doesn’t explain anything. It doesn’t even explain consciounsness. The fact is that consciousness is something that cannot be so easily reduced to some kind of physical explanation.
Just asserting that it began in the very early moment of the universes existence is just that, just an assertion.
I think Nobel prize winning physicist Steven Weinberg (an avowed atheist) would agree. In his 1992 book, Dreams of a Final Theory, he writes:
I think I have said before the emergence consciousness is more difficult to explain by recourse to reductive materialism or naturalism than the origin of life.
Zachriel wrote:
And the universe as we presently understand it doesn’t require an ultimate explanation?
Zachriel also responded to me as follows:
That’s nothing more than an over worn canard. Name one person who is an advocate of ‘last Thursdayism.”
Karl Popper would have referred to this as “promissory materialism;” the belief that that someday empirical science will be able to answer all our questions. This is simply introducing faith and dogma into what is pretending to be objective empirical science. It’s dogma because those advocating such promissory viewpoints exclude other logical possibilities a priori just on the basis of their own personal biases.
I simply advocate considering all the metaphysical possibilities.
Furthermore, I simply claim some are better than the others.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — October 4, 2008 @ 5:19 pm
October 4th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
People seem to require one. That's quite a different statement, though.
Claiming that "intelligence very easily explains the physical features of the universe" is functionally equivalent to Last Thursdayism—unless you provide evidence of this intelligence and how it implements the physical features—or evidence of creation Last Thursday.
Just because you tire of hearing it, doesn't make it a canard.
Many people believe the universe is created anew in each moment. It's a common view in mystical religions, including Buddhism and even among Christians.
You made an unsupportable claim. I promised nothing. I only mentioned that such broad claims have been found false before.
You did precisely the opposite. You said the door was inexorably shut.
Comment by Zachriel — October 4, 2008 @ 8:15 pm
October 4th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
Nothingness ain't what it used to be.
Yes. Many scientific speculations can and have been crafted as testable hypotheses.
I've browsed Sherman's paper on the "Universal Genome". It appears contrary to the evidence, but leaving that aside, it doesn't seem to say anything about the origin of the "Universal Genome" or Intelligent Design.
Comment by Zachriel — October 4, 2008 @ 8:20 pm
October 5th, 2008 at 10:53 am
Zach:
no
Nothing is still nothing.
What I think you mean to say is that things we thought to be equal to nothing turned out to be something.
This could well be the case for a hypothetical substrate houseing the singularity that exploded into the big bang.
If such a substrate turns out to exist it’s existence would not tell us what caused the universe It would be yet another aspect of the universe that would need to be explained by this cause.
The discovery of an unstable universe creating substrate would make the universe more difficult to explain not less.
Instead of simply explaining a universe that pops into existence out of nothing now we would have to explain the existence of an unexplained substrate with the power to create universes at random for no reason at all.
thats a much harder task.
This hypothetical substrate would need to produce at least one universe fined tuned for life but not an infinite number.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — October 5, 2008 @ 10:53 am
October 5th, 2008 at 10:03 pm
So looking for signatures within genomes has no empirical merit, even in principle?
Comment by kornbelt888 — October 5, 2008 @ 10:03 pm
October 6th, 2008 at 7:17 am
Wandering aimlessly is science? Here is my search for a Mona Lisa in a genome.
But Mona Lisa must have had the highway blues.
You can tell by the way she smiles. — Bob Dylan
Comment by Zachriel — October 6, 2008 @ 7:17 am
October 6th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
You seem to be equating "empirical merit" with "science." I didn't know those were exchangeable terms.
I don't know how "aimless" the search has to be. But since you did not specify exactly what you mean by "aimless", it's difficult to reply without clarification. Various kinds of searches could be attempted, all of them with an "aim" to find certain kinds of patterns unnecessary to the functioning of the genome, but obviously containing meaningful information to us. Images, for example. And if a signature is there, I suspect it will only be found if someone were to actually look for it.
Why you think such a search is an unworthy activity cannot be based on any scientific conclusions. What you are basing your view on?
Looking for evidence qualifies as a scientific activity, or activity that is a part of science. Interesting and fruitful scientific endeavors have often been prompted by intuitive hunches. What would constitute an aim-ful search to you?
(By the way, I predicted (to myself) that your answer would take essentially the form it has, thereby adding confirmation to my theory about you, personally. So, at the very least, the exchange has scientific merit.
)
Comment by kornbelt888 — October 6, 2008 @ 1:40 pm
October 6th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Well, let's see what level of "aimlessness" you can achieve.
Wouldn't it be for you to clarify, as you were the one who suggested looking for some vague "signatures within genomes".
An image is distinguished by having regions of self-similarity, so this will result in a localized statistical anomaly.
As Finding Mona demonstrates, even the tinest discernable bitmap image stands out to even the simplest statistical analysis. We can safely say that no such image exists in the genome examined.
There is no evidence that anyone placed a "signature" in an ancient genome (which excludes cases where modern humans have done so), and genomes have already been poked and prodded with no evidence of such a "signature". Furthermore, there are an unlimited number of ways of encoding a message, so you could look forever regardless of the existence of a "signature".
Sure. But the intuition is then normally framed as a testable hypothesis.
Publish or perish.
Comment by Zachriel — October 6, 2008 @ 2:47 pm
October 6th, 2008 at 9:49 pm
I don't think that it's "aimless" to search a data space using all known forms of analysis. That seems pretty "aim-ful" to me.
Not necessarily so obvious if the image was constructed using, say, some kind ELS system, among other techniques.
What does your Finding Mona bitmap look like when each Mona pixel is separated by a gap of a 1000, or 10000 pixels? Or a progressive gap. Tell you what, want me to encode an image within your E Coli bitmap and see if you can find it? If you can't, does that mean it doesn't exist? Or would it mean you didn't bother to analyze the image enough?
Which genomes? And to what degree?
Yes, and that's the point. The encoding method might not be as obvious as your example. It may be deliberately difficult, but not impossible. Even I could do it in a way that would make it difficult to find, indistinguishable from random noise by visual inspection, and I'm not very smart.
A testable hypothesis can be as simple "there is an image in there." An intuitive hunch is all that's needed to make a start. It helps to know various methods of analysis.
I would worry more about that if I made my living off of it, or was a serious culture warrior.
At any rate, I find it strange that anyone would think that looking for evidence of a signature within genomes is a "speculation that has [no] empirical merit—even in principle." So far, you've given me no insight into the reasons for your view.
the universe is a cryptogram set by the Almighty — Isaac Newton
Comment by kornbelt888 — October 6, 2008 @ 9:49 pm
October 6th, 2008 at 10:16 pm
You show quite well why your 'project' is vacuous.
There are an unlimited number of ways of encoding a message. There are an unlimited number of mediums to transmit the message. Maybe tea leaves or the position of the planets really do prognosticate the future. Maybe you can read your fate in the entrails of a goat. Or in the lines of the hand. Or maybe you should throw bones to receive messages from the Beyond.
Without some theory as to how and why a message would be found here rather than there, and how to read the message, your 'project' is worse than vacuous. It's just silly.
Comment by Zachriel — October 6, 2008 @ 10:16 pm
October 7th, 2008 at 8:29 am
Quite right. That's what cryptography is all about. Messages can be decoded if one has an idea what one is looking for. If an alien intelligence wanted to convey a message to humans, it seems natural that it would either be an easily recognizable image or a text that conforms to something important and fundamental that humans have discovered in another way. That narrows things down quite a bit. But how will we know if we don't look?
That seem quite a bit more open ended than an encoded picture or text in a genome, of say a picture of a human, or some important fundamental mathematical construct.
I've provided "some theory." Aliens putting an easily recognizable image or text in a genome to let us know they are there. It could be a lot easier that expecting something like SETI to find a radio beacon, if they're across the galaxy or otherwise inaccessible. And not encoded to fool us or deliberately hide it, but encoded in such a way as to resist mutational corruption.
Now there a profound scientific pronouncement.
Comment by kornbelt888 — October 7, 2008 @ 8:29 am
October 7th, 2008 at 9:21 am
Yes, following a trail of evidence distinguishes a search from aimless wandering. (Not that there is anything wrong with that!)
We would not expect a message in a genome because we have strong evidence that the patterns in genomes are due to natural evolutionary processes.
There is no more reason to suppose a message in a genome than in tea leaves.
Again. Modern genomes are highly derived having evolved from primitive beginnings over billions of years. They have also been subjected to extensive data analysis with no indication of artifice. You might have better luck with goat entrails.
silly: exhibiting or indicative of a lack of common sense or sound judgment.
Yes, that's the word I was looking for. You have every right to be as silly as you want (but not to expect others to mistake silliness for sound judgment). Aimless wandering can be fun, and who knows what you will find.
Many genomes are available in the public domain. Take a look. Let us know if you find anything.
Comment by Zachriel — October 7, 2008 @ 9:21 am