Calilasseia to Polanyi:
Oh, and since there exists a scientific paper published in the physics literature, in which the authors demonstrate that a universe in which the weak nuclear force was absent, would actually be better suited for life in some respects, your apologetic faeces about "fine-tuning" is precisely that - apologetic faeces. Here's the paper in question:
A Universe Without Weak Interactions by Roni Harnik, Grahama D. Kribs and Gilad Perez, arXiv, 4th April 2006 [Full paper downloadable from here]
So, apparently the universe could do without one of the four so-called "fundamental" forces of nature, and stellar nucleosynthesis would still proceed to produce relevant chemical elements. Also, chemistry would be effectively unchanged by the absence of this force.
So much for fucking "fine tuning".
Where in this paper do the authors demonstrate that a universe in which the weak nuclear force was absent, would actually be better suited for life in some respects?
This paper is pure speculation. Nothing wrong with that but you are using it as evidence that the weak force can be discarded without much effect. You forget to mention the difficulties with their proposed scenario.
For example, a difficulty which they see as no more than a curiosity may be seen as a bigger problem for origin of life researchers:
the existence of a molten core that is continually heated by radioactive uranium and thorium in earth-like planets would not occur in the Weakless Universe. Plate tectonics, volcanos, geothermal heat, etc., would not exist billions of years after planets form. Nevertheless, we do not view this difference with our Universe as anything more than a curiosity.
A paper pointing out some problems of a weakless universe can be found here:
http://bama.ua.edu/~lclavell/papers/weakless2c.pdfForm the paper:
We point out, however, that on closer examination the proposed \weakless" universe strongly inhibits the development of life in several different ways. One of the most critical barriers is that a weakless universe is unlikely to produce enough oxygen to support life. Since oxygen is an essential element in both water, the universal solvent needed for life, and in each of the four bases forming the DNA code for known living beings, we strongly question the hypothesis that a
universe without weak interactions could generate life.
Another problem they point out apart from the lack of oxygen is that there would be no known mechanism for providing homochirality.
From the site:
Two recent works [4] suggest that, in order to maintain the understanding that might come from the string landscape, the weakless universe should either be extremely improbable among the potential local minima or the rise of life in such a universe should itself be extremely improbable. In fact, Harnik et al did not demonstrate that life would arise in a weakless universe but claim only an "apparent habitability" of such a universe.
A question you may wish to ask yourself is: Can such a proposed universe produce a form of life that is capable of pondering its existence?
You point to this one speculative paper and cite it as evidence that "the universe could do without one of the four so-called "fundamental" forces of nature".
So much for your statement, 'So much for fucking "fine tuning"'.
by 
