Fine tuning in the universe and now biology how interesting

Semantics. Evolution is a theory.

Evolution is a scientific theory - that's not semantics for anyone who understands the body of evidence, scrutiny & testing that supports any scientific theory.

@Kjvav  No, my friend.  That's the truth, the facts.  That is what a scientific theory is: an explanation of observed facts that makes testable predictions.  A scientific theory is NOT a guess or conjecture as the word is colloquially misused by non-scientists.

Macro evolution I mean

But we digress from the OP....

@TruthMuse A common concern with design arguments as applied to biology is that they lead to "god-of-the-gaps" or in this case, a "fine-tuning/design-of-the-gaps."  In fact, the authors of the article you posted admit this and further admit that their work does not and cannot disprove or rule out natural causation.  But let me ask you a practical question.  Let's say for sake of argument that their work does *prove* that biological diversity is the result of fine-tuning/design by an intelligent designer.  My question to you is, OK, now what?  Where do we/does science go from there?  What's the next research question?  What do we do or what would you like to see done with that information?  

Speciation is an example of macroevolution and that's not even a question anymore.  Speciation happens.  We have mountains of evidence for it, and we have even observed speciation in real-time. 

Again. A theory, with a lot of evidence, to support it.

If it is not subject to change, it is not progress.

@TruthMuse I'm curious to hear your thoughts on the question I posed to you in post #25.  But there's some additional thoughts I'd like to move on to as well.  This second post to you is more just my own musings and thinking-out-loud...

With respect to the question itself, it seems like there should or potentially could be a scientific way to address this.  For example, SETI--the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence--is predicated on our ability to distinguish natural signals from intentional ones that are the product of some intellgient agency.  Archaeology and physical anthropology have criteria to establish whether rock shapes are the result of natural weathering or intentional altering by an intelligent agency such as with these Paleolithic tools shown in the picture below.

Similarly, there is growing acceptance that even the simplest life forms--such as bacteria cells--exhibit a form of *cognition* or sentience; an autonomy and intentionality that distinguishes life from the non-living world.  In fields like paleontology, geology, geochemistry, etc., it is important to be able to distinguish between structures and sediments that are non-biological vs. biogenic in origin (i.e., structures/sediments produced by [the *intentionality* of] biological activity).

That said, it seems like we should be able to do this in biology, too, and that we should be able to have tests and/or criteria to establish this.  For example, I would think there should be a way to determine whether a given virus is the result of normal biological evolution or if instead it was intentionally bio-engineered by some intelligent (human) agency.

Or, for sake of argument, let's say that life on our planet did not originate on earth through natural chemical processes (option A) but was intentionally created or engineered by an intelligent alien civilization that has left no trace of its existence (option B).  Could we determine from the biological information itself (e.g., DNA, RNA, etc.) whether it is the result of A or B, and, if so, how would we go about doing so?  I am not an expert in bioinformatics, so I don't know the answer to this question, but it would seem that if we can make this determination in other scientific fields that we might be able to do the same here. 

And if it progresses, the “progression” is a mistake, or it wasn’t truth to being with. 

And the Scientific Method is the only reliable, proven method to get us closer to that "Truth." Precisely BECAUSE it accepts nothing, as Absolute.

Not to be pedantic (too late), but technically, and perhaps ironically, there's no real way to *prove* the scientific method and the underlying assumptions of empirical method are not, themselves, empirically verifiable.  The scientific method certainly has great utility, but it also has limitations and is not the only epistemological "way-of-knowing."  A lot of people write-off philosophy as useless, but here's one place where philosophy has been very useful, by critically analyzing our epistemological methods and revealing the uncertainty and unreliability that exists in humanity's different "ways-of-knowing," including science.  But again, we digress from the OP

One of the greatest contributions of philosophy was from the school of Skepticism. which gave birth to the Scientific Method.

   And the child ate the mother

Please, you think the universe just assumed all of the proper conditions for life to form, strive, and thrive here without direct intervention? That all of the necessary components for life formed all in the same place, at the same time for a life to form, in continuing ideal conditions? That life would arise, overcoming every obstacle and avoiding anything destroying it all at any moment? I believe there is an illusion being bought into here, suggesting all of these things required would happen, so how fortunate for us it did.

Yes, I do but over vast geological periods of time of course! And just about everything we've discovered in the last 200 years points persistently to that conclusion - the Universe really is some 13 billion years old & our planet, 4.6 billion years old. And life really did take about 1000,000,000 years (count the zero's) to develop from single-celled 'goo' into more complex life.

For me that shouts out a naturalistic cause, not a divine one. For some event to occur it is necessary only for the probability to be finite, it doesn't have to be large.

   You want to know what I see? I see Stephen’s statement as proof that this is not an intellectual issue (as much as the anti-God side wants it to be) but is most definitely a spiritual issue.

   How else could an intelligent man read post #36 and disagree with what TruthMuse said? Two plus two does not equal negative seven. But the anti-God person says “Ah, yes, but with billions and billions of years it does”. 
   In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth, he did it in six literal 24 hour days and that was a little over 6K years ago. I believe it based on no more than God told me so, though the evidence around me confirms it in my mind, and nothing sways me. It is spiritual for me and I acknowledge it as such.

   And as far as “God told me so”, he has told the self-described atheist also, for he has shown every man the reality of his existence and presence by the very Creation that they try to use to deny him (Romans 1). It is written on their hearts as well as mine.

   And so their denial of the God who created them is a spiritual issue also. They cling to it with no evidence other than what they’ve fabricated themselves as a group. And when contradicting evidence is thrust upon them, their god (billions of years) rescues them. 
   The atheists defy logic because it is not logic that leads them to their position (and post 36 shows that clearly), they have arrived where they are by spiritual decision.

   The believer did not arrive at his decision by logic either (though it is logical), he got there by acceptance of God’s truth as laid out in Scripture. God does not talk you into belief, he presents truth and you accept or reject it and evidence comes later. It is spiritual for both groups, but only one group readily acknowledges it.

   And if logic didn’t bring you to a belief, all the logic in the world cannot drag you from it.

@Kjvav The problem with your God/Anti-God dichotomy when it comes to evolution is that there are thousands upon thousands of Christian believers around the world who also accept the evidence for evolution and the evidence that the universe is billions of years old.