11Prompt - Darwin

A Question in the context of Evolution

Himangsu Sekhar Pal — Sat, 19 Sep 2026 12:58:22 +0000

On Facebook, a person made a post on his own wall about the evolution of the living world. At one point in the post, it was written that if for some reason the deer population increased excessively, it would create a shortage of plants. Therefore, just as an algorithm corrects errors, nature also would restore that balance by increasing the number of predators or through some other means.

While commenting on that post, I quoted this section and made a comment. My comment was: "But the question is, if nature is a blind, unconscious force, how can that blind, unconscious force understand that an increase in deer will create a shortage of plants? Thus, how does it know it must restore that balance by increasing the number of predators or through some other means?"

The person who made the post replied that no conscious intelligence or thought is required to maintain this balance of nature, because according to him, it is the result of a completely automatic cause-and-effect relationship. Giving an example, he said that just as in the case of a room AC, when the temperature rises, the AC cools by itself without any prior planning, similarly, when deer increase, tigers get ample food. As a result, the number of tigers also increases, automatically restoring the balance. Therefore, he believes that rather than considering it a conscious decision, it should be viewed as a perfect mathematical feedback loop.

I wrote in reply: "You gave a wrong example. Because the AC machine is pre-programmed by humans. Who is nature pre-programmed by?"

The post author then wrote that there is human programming behind making an AC, but there is no evidence in favor of the claim that someone programmed the universe. He said that this complex mathematical balance was born as a result of the automatic interaction of natural selection and blind physical laws operating over millions of years. Therefore, according to him, no external planner is needed here.

I wrote this time: "True, there is no proof. But plant numbers have decreased, and deer numbers have increased, so tiger numbers must now be increased—this cannot happen on its own. Who, where, and how is sensing that the deer population has increased, so the tiger population must be increased now?"

Now the post author wrote that an increase in deer ensures sufficient food and nutrition for tigers, which naturally increases their reproductive capacity and cub survival rates. So he believes no one sits down to calculate or sense anything to increase tiger numbers; rather, the abundance of food automatically creates this balance.

This time I wrote: "Suppose there are plants and deer, but there are no tigers in the scene. In this situation, the deer population will skyrocket, and plant numbers will decrease. In this state, how can blind, unconscious nature sense that now tigers must be brought into the scene, otherwise ecological balance cannot be maintained?"

This time, no further answer was received from the post author. He went quiet.

However, someone else replied. He wrote that a food crisis would then arise, and if there were a lack of food, the deer population would automatically decrease.

I wrote in reply: "If the deer population automatically decreases, then with fewer deer, plant numbers will increase again. As plant numbers increase, deer numbers will increase again. As deer numbers increase, plant numbers will decrease again. This will keep going in cycles. So, there seems to be no need to bring tigers into the scene to maintain natural balance."

He then replied that in a forest where tigers exist, tigers will accelerate this process and become part of that ecosystem.

I replied: "If the ecosystem can protect itself without tigers, why would tigers need to arrive at all to protect the ecosystem? Thus, the logic behind the arrival of tigers is not clear."

This time, no reply came from him either.

That means, in the end, no answer was found to my question: where there are only plants and deer, how can blind, unconscious nature understand that natural balance cannot be maintained unless tigers are brought into the scene? And if nature can protect its ecosystem without tigers, why would there be any need to bring tigers to save the ecosystem?

However, if it happened that deer and tigers arrived simultaneously, there is no problem at all. But if it happened that deer came first, and tigers came later, only then does the problem arise. How was the need to bring tigers realized?

Is not SR a Valid Scientific Theory? Part I

Himangsu Sekhar Pal — Sun, 25 Dec 2016 15:50:34 +0000

Atheists do have some deep basic convictions. When science does in no way contradict these basic convictions of them, they are whole-heartedly with science. However if any scientific theory contradicts in any way any single basic conviction of them, they do not hesitate to go against science.

The two most basic convictions of the atheists are:
• There is nothing supernatural; and
• Whatever exists, exists within space-time only. So nothing can exist outside space-time.

However SR has shown that light exists neither in space nor in time, because travel time and travel distance become zero for light. So for light there is neither any space to exist nor any time to exist. This directly contradicts one of the two basic convictions of the atheists that nothing can exist outside space-time. So the attitude of the atheists towards SR is really very peculiar and ambiguous as will be evident from the interactions that I had with some atheists.

In one YouTube comment section one atheist wrote that if space-time began, there is no room for a deity. From here started the exchange of arguments and counterarguments between the two of us.

Me
‘If space-time began, there’s no room for a deity.’

This is not true. If this deity is spaceless and timeless, then it can exist spacelessly and timelessly without needing any space-time for it to exit.

The atheist
“If this deity is spaceless and timeless” Then definitionally it doesn’t exist. Do you understand? Existence means within space-time. There is nothing “outside”. That’s a comparative concept that doesn’t apply.

Me
Please read the article “The Fundamental Nature of Light” by Dr. Sascha Vongehr in Science 2.0 (February 3rd, 2011) here:

http://www.science20.com/alpha_meme/fundamental_nature_light-75861

There it has been shown that light exists for zero time in zero space, because as per the special theory of relativity both the travel time and the travel distance becomes zero for light. Therefore as per SR light is in no space for no time. So will you say that light does not exist? Here is an example: A photon coming from a star lying at a distance of one billion light-years from the earth will take one billion years of earth’s time to reach the surface of the earth. But from the reference frame of light the distance from the star to the earth is zero. This is as per one of the equations of SR. So as per SR there is no space in between the star and the earth for light to exist. Similarly for light there is no time to exist, because from its own reference frame the travel time has also become zero for it.

The atheist
“There it has been shown that light exists for zero time in zero space” Well.. that’s fundamentally wrong.. and we have been able to slow down photons and examine them, you know.

“So will you say that light does not exist?” We have a specific definition for the em spectrum, and we measure it.

“But from the reference frame of light” Heh.. light doesn’t have a reference frame. That’s another place you went wrong.

“Similarly for light there is no time to exist, because from its own reference frame the travel time has also become zero for it.” You understand that traveling at lightspeed isn’t going to matter when you are playing these imaginary games, right? Everything moves at the speed of light if you use light as a reference point. Can you see how that just doesn’t work? Also, you assume the speed of light in a vacuum is special, the entire em spectrum moves without regard for the higgs field.

Not sure how this in any way relates to your assertion that a nothing deity can exist. Your page is more philosophy than science.

Me
From your reply it appears that in order to not address the main issue here you have to discuss so many things about light that is not in any way warranted by my reply. I have given one example in my reply: light coming from a star situated at a distance of one billion light-years from the earth. I have also written that the travel distance (TD) and the travel time (TT) from the star to the earth become zero for light. Either I am wrong in my assertion here, or I am not. If I am not wrong, then the two legitimate scientific questions that can be asked here are these: in which space does light exist during its transition from the star to the earth (TD is zero)? And for how long does it exist (TT is also zero)? So the main issue here is simply this: do TD and TT really become zero for light, as the two equations of SR show? Or, do they not? So it was most essential for me to know whether I was wrong in my assertion here or not. But from your reply it is in no way possible for me to know this, because there is no clear-cut answer. So, without trying to sidetracking the real issue here, if you can answer this question just in one word only, then that will be enough and sufficient for me: am I wrong, or am I not? No one has requested you to take a science class here.

The atheist
“I have given one example in my reply: light coming from a star situated at a distance of one billion light-years from the earth.” That still has nothing to do with your assertion of a deity, try to stay focused.

“I have also written that the travel distance (TD) and the travel time (TT) from the star to the earth become zero for light. Either I am wrong in my assertion here, or I am not.”

In simple terms:
1. Space is not a perfect vacuum.
2. The EM spectrum is not sentient, it cannot have a “perspective” as EM is just information packets, not mass.
3. Mass cannot travel the speed of light, so your modality is flawed.

“If I am not wrong, then the two legitimate scientific questions that can be asked here are these: in which space does light exist during its transition from the star to the earth (TD is zero)? And for how long does it exist (TT is also zero)?” These questions sound like you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of space-time. Space-time is not static, it’s an infinitely variable matrix. Distance is variable as space-time expands (and it will eventually expand faster than light). Of course none of this is relevant to the assertion that a deity exists.

“But from your reply it is in no way possible for me to know this, because there is no clear-cut answer.” Because your questions are not cogent. You need to take a basic cosmology course, understand that there’s a lot more going on than simple trigonometry.

Me
Equations of SR show that travel time and travel distance become zero for light. On the basis of this I have asked these two questions: “in which space does light exist during its transition from the star to the earth (TD is zero)? And for how long does it exist (TT is also zero)?”

But you have written that I “have a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of space-time. Space-time is not static, it’s an infinitely variable matrix. Distance is variable as space-time expands (and it will eventually expand faster than light)”.

So do you mean to say here that if the two facts that space-time is not static and that distance is also variable are properly taken into consideration, then we will find that travel time and travel distance do not actually become zero for light? As whatever I have written is based on the two equations of SR only, so do you mean to say that SR has not taken into consideration these two facts and that that is the reason why it has arrived at some equations that are wrongly showing that travel time and travel distance become zero for light? Do you mean to say that if an actual experiment is conducted with light coming from a distant star, then we will be able to arrive at some other equations completely different from those of SR and that will be able to show that travel time and travel distance do not become zero for light?

Has any such experiment been conducted by any scientist? Can you give any citation? Otherwise how do we come to know that these are not just your personal opinions having no valid scientific basis?

On the basis of which scientific evidence are you saying that travel time and travel distance do not become zero for light when the equations of SR are showing that they do become zero?

Here there are only two possibilities:
1) Either SR has not taken into consideration the facts that space-time is not static and that distance is also variable and that is why it is wrongly showing that travel time and travel distance become zero for light;
2) Or SR has properly taken into consideration the above two facts and despite that it is showing that travel time and travel distance become zero for light.

If 1), then SR is not a valid scientific theory and therefore it should be immediately replaced by some other better theory.

If 2), then my two questions are fully legitimate questions.

Up till now he has not replied although more than two weeks have already elapsed.

Here the atheist is not directly saying that SR is not a valid scientific theory. That much courage he does not possess. He knows very well that if he says so, then he will have to substantiate it by some actual experimental evidence as otherwise no one will believe his words. But neither is it possible for him to digest that one well-established scientific theory is showing that light exists neither in space nor in time and so he brings in all sorts of arguments to point out that this cannot be the case:

1) Space is not a perfect vacuum:
2) Space-time is not static, it’s an infinitely variable matrix: and
3) Distance is also variable.

Below is the case of another atheist who is bold enough to say that math of SR is wrong.

The atheist
So how can a god that exists outside time interact with stuff inside time? At best you have a deist god, but doesn’t this result in another version of the interaction problem?

Me
Please read the article “The Fundamental Nature of Light” by Dr. Sascha Vongehr in Science 2.0 (February 3rd, 2011) here:

http://www.science20.com/alpha_meme/fundamental_nature_light-75861

There it has been shown that light exists for zero time in zero space, because as per the special theory of relativity both the travel time and the travel distance becomes zero for light. Therefore as per SR light is in no space for no time. Still being neither in space nor in time light can have effects on things within space and time.

The atheist
‘Therefore as per SR light is in no space for no time.’

That’s not at all what SR says. Just that light doesn’t ‘experience’ time. It still has location in spacetime(duh, photons is how we see stuff), which means it exists in spacetime.

So you’ve not solved this interaction problem, you’ve just demonstrated you’ve no idea what it’s about, and why SR debunks A-theory of time.

Me
A photon coming from a star lying at a distance of one billion light-years from the earth will take one billion years of earth’s time to reach the surface of the earth. But from the reference frame of light the distance from the star to the earth is zero. This is as per one of the equations of SR. So as per SR there is no space in between the star and the earth for light to exist. So please specify in which particular space-point does light exist during its transition from the star to the earth. Just saying that light exists in space-time will not do.

The atheist
‘But from the reference frame of light the distance from the star to the earth is zero.’

Yes, dr^2 and such, but the particle still exists in space-time now does it.

Again, no frame of reference doesn’t mean no space-time-allocation.

‘So as per SR there is no space in between the star and the earth for light to exist.’

No, just that photons don’t experience time.

‘Just saying that light exists in space-time will not do.’

If observation defeats math, math is wrong, not observation.

Me
‘If observation defeats math, math is wrong, not observation.’

So you are saying that math of SR is wrong, because observation cannot be wrong. Can you offer a better theory that will be able to replace SR? If you do have such a theory, then please present it to the peers and get it accepted.

The atheist
‘So you are saying that math of SR is wrong, because observation cannot be wrong.’

No. Both theory and observation are subject to fallabilism. That doesn’t mean observation isn’t key to physics. I’d refer you to Kuhn’s 5 ways for theory choice.

‘Can you offer a better theory that will be able to replace SR?’

No, nor do I see why I should, that’s not my job. SR is still less wrong than what came before, and very useful. It’s just not complete.

Me
There are two theories of science that are also considered as facts by the scientific community. These two theories are:

1) Darwin’s theory of evolution: and
2) Einstein’s special theory of relativity.

A theory can be falsified at any time, but a fact is a fact is a fact is a fact is a fact is a fact is a fact. So perhaps you are daydreaming if you think that one day SR will be replaced by some other better theory.

11Prompt - Darwin

A Question in the context of Evolution

Tags:

Is not SR a Valid Scientific Theory? Part I

Tags: