How could the universe and life come into existence without God? How could life evolve without God?

[o_mlly]

Yes. The two cannot interbreed. One species is parthenogenic and the other reproduces sexually. They are separate species. Their DNA is evidence (not proof) that the one descended from the other. Their DNA is evidence (not proof) that the one descended from the other. If you want proof then stick to mathematics. Science does evidence, not proof. It can do disproof, but not proof.

Yes, I understand all that; under your definition of species the two are different. And, we’re not looking for proof, just actual evidence as required under Rossum’s Rule.

Similar DNA is not actual evidence to support your claim of instant speciation. So far, you’ve provided no actual evidence of immediate speciation in a single generative act.

 

[o_mlly]

You need to read the posts more carefully. I was referring to ‘the’ science…of evolution. Which you deny. And I must point out again that you deny it because none of it fits with your view of a young earth.

Fred, you pivot from Atheist Rule #1 to a predictable straw man argument. It is not me but you who should read posts more carefully.

Wherever did you dream up the idea that I am a young earther? Kindly cite the post and thread number. Earth calling Fred, come in please …

 

[o_mlly]

Nah. I always preferred the Shadows: Apache.

The mods had it all over the rockers, especially in their choreography. Check out Freddy at about 1:15 in. This explains a lot.

 

[rossum]

Similar DNA is not actual evidence to support your claim of instant speciation.

In this case, yes it is since the inability to interbreed was instant – a single change from diploid to triploid.

Your failure to look up the relevant research articles is noted. Here is another one you missed: Clonal genome evolution and rapid invasive spread of the marbled crayfish.

You have still failed to explain the origin of species without evolution. That failure does not help the credibility of your position. Even Ken Ham accepts the evolution of new species after the Flood.

 

[o_mlly]

In this case, yes it is since the inability to interbreed was instant – a single change from diploid to triploid.

Your failure to look up the relevant research articles is noted. Here is another one you missed: Clonal genome evolution and rapid invasive spread of the marbled crayfish.

You have still failed to explain the origin of species without evolution. That failure does not help the credibility of your position. Even Ken Ham accepts the evolution of new species after the Flood.

More importantly, your failure to cite relevant articles that evidence your (not my) claim is noted.

If there is any actual evidence of instant speciation in your latest effort, kindly quote the relevant text.

All this crayfish jazz is making me quite hungry. Think I’ll boil up a batch. In the meantime, in deference to the OP, let’s leave the Almighty out of the conversation.

Where is the science to show how the universe and life came into existence without God?

 

[rossum]

More importantly, your failure…

… to explain the origin of the many species we see today without evolution is still missing? did the cat eat it?

Evolution explains the origin of species, and has done so since 1859. What is your alternative explanation. I do hope that you don’t just have … crickets …

 

[o_mlly]

What is your alternative explanation.

I think, scientifically speaking, PattyIt put it quite well!

Pattylt:

We don’t know and may never know.

Scientifically speaking, that’s quite a refreshing notion.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

I also note that you have no evidence of any deity creating a species without using evolution.

I believe there is some truth in the theory of evolution, so it is not a problem for me.

However, I just can’t see how it could happen without God, and that is the purpose of this thread. Where is the evidence to show it could happen without God?

 

[Eric_Hyom]

rossum:

Research HOX genes.

Five billion years ago, there was no life and no HOX genes. Once you have the first light sensitive cells, the HOX gene will know how to replicate it. Once you have the first vertebrae the HOX gene will know what to do.

Or did the HOX gene know what to do in advance?

HOX genes seem to have the abilities of a 3D printer, imagine what it must take to programme a 3D printer. Imagine the amount of detail you would have to put into the printer to make a skeleton. imagine the amount of detail it would then take for a 3D printer to replicate a skeleton.

I refer you to your own evidence that these things happened without Zeus. Simply replace “Zeus” in your evidence with “God”. You do have sufficient evidence that these things happened without Zeus, don’t you? Oh…

We should not have to mention God in this this thread. How do all these things happen naturally and without God?

Evolution means that something has to exist first before it can evolve.

So what came first, the chicken the egg or the HOX gene?

Multiply that same question for the millions of species that have existed.

 

[rossum]

However, I just can’t see how it could happen without God, and that is the purpose of this thread. Where is the evidence to show it could happen without God?

Where is the evidence to show that it could not happen without Vishnu? Exactly the same as the evidence that it didn’t happen without any god or goddess you care to name. There is no scientific evidence of any deity intervening in evolution.

Science is very reluctant to base theories on an absence of evidence. Hypotheses, fine, but at some point there needs to be positive evidence for the hypothesis if it is to advance beyond a mere hypothesis.

If a deity intervenes by shifting DNA molecules around, then that deity must influence those molecules somehow. If they use one of the four forces known to physics then that would be detectable. If they use a currently unknown fifth force, then you will need evidence that such a fifth force exists.

Alternatively, you could posit a Deist God who created the universe, set its initial conditions, put in place its laws and just let it run like clockwork, with no further intervention required. Given a set of rules and specific initial conditions then the outcome is predictable. Such a non-intervening Deist God would not be detectable by science.

Certainly there is no known evidence of direct creation of a new species by any deity: “Let there be armadillos.”

 

[rossum]

Evolution means that something has to exist first before it can evolve.

Which is why we have abiogenesis, to work out how that very first living organism formed from non-living chemicals.

So what came first, the chicken the egg or the HOX gene?

HOX genes srrived very early, long before chickens. We share the basic organisation of our HOX genes with insects and other organisms which split off our line a very long time ago.

A good example is the work on the eyeless gene in flies: here. That work was taken further when the mammalian equivalent of eyeless, called Pax6, from a mouse was put into a leg of a developing fly. The result was a fly eye on the leg. The mammal gene still signalled “build an eye here” to the fly, and it built a fly eye there. There was still enough similarity between eyeless in flies and Pax6 from a mammal to trigger eye development. That slow speed of evolution shows that these developmental genes are very important, and highly conserved. Mutations can be very seriously deleterious, such as making the organism blind.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

You need to read the posts more carefully. I was referring to ‘the’ science…of evolution. Which you deny. And I must point out again that you deny it because none of it fits with your view of a young earth.

Wherever did you dream up the idea that I am a young earther?

From months’ worth of posts where you emphatically refuse to nail your colours to the flag. One might ask if you have nothing to hide then why are you hiding it? I’ve got so used to the smell of cordite around here that it’s hardly noticable any more.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

HOX genes srrived very early, long before chickens.

You might accept that a HOX gene could just pop into existence. The way you talk suggests you are giving evolution the power of God.

Can we have some kind of evidence please; rather than say HOX genes have been around a long time.

A good example is the work on the eyeless gene in flies: here .

Thanks for the link, it is a good explanation of how genes can be manipulated, but they have to exist first.

Five billion years ago, there was no life and no HOX gene and no flies.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

Nilsson Pelger account of eye lens evolution

https://www.researchgate.net/public...ate_of_the_Time_Required_for_an_Eye_to_Evolve

They show 1829 incremental steps for the eye lens to develop in under half a million years.

Random mutation and natural selection have no goals. However, there seems to be seven separate goals in the Nilsson model. 176 steps towards one goal, then it stops going in that direction, and there are 362 steps towards another goal, then repeat for five more goals.

Because they list 1829 steps, each increment must show an improvement of less than 0.1 percent. I question the ability of natural selection to select one member of a population with an eye that is 0.1% better than all its brothers and sisters.

If the eye lens is 0.1% more efficient, it becomes useless if the optic nerves and the neural processing do not also improve by 0.1%

All this seems very goal driven. I struggle to understand how all this could happen without guidance.

Talking about eyes, I would just like to nudge this post forwards again please.

 

[po18guy]

Any of the YouTube videos of physicist Fr. Robert Spitzer, S.J. on the “big bang”/origin of the universe are quite illuminating. The chance of it being chance are so small that basically only an unreasoning mind would obstinately stick to “chance” opinions.

 

[rossum]

I question the ability of natural selection to select one member of a population with an eye that is 0.1% better than all its brothers and sisters.

Your questioning is wrong. With a large population, that same mutation will appear more than once; “if at first you don’t succeed…” Once the mutation spreads because of its advantage then again you have a population from which to launch the next mutation. Evolution happens in populations; every time a new individual appears then you get to roll the dice again to add another improvement on top of any existing improvements.

Because it is a population phenomenon, evolution always works in parallel. That means that those of our intuitions which are based on serial processes, no longer apply.

 

[rossum]

You might accept that a HOX gene could just pop into existence.

HOX genes are a subset of Homeobox genes. That article covers the evolution of Homeobox genes in general, including the Bilateran HOX genes that we carry.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

HOX genes are a subset of Homeobox genes.

Thanks for the link, and like most evolution links it describes what a Homebox gene is, and when they may have first appeared, but not how they first appeared. For Homebox genes to work, they would have to grow in complexity at an exponentially rapid rate.

It is probably safe to say we don’t know how this could happen…

 

[o_mlly]

o_mlly:

Fred, you pivot from Atheist Rule #1 to a predictable straw man argument. It is not me but you who should read posts more carefully.

Wherever did you dream up the idea that I am a young earther? Kindly cite the post and thread number. Earth calling Fred, come in please …

From months’ worth of posts where you emphatically refuse to nail your colours to the flag. One might ask if you have nothing to hide then why are you hiding it? I’ve got so used to the smell of cordite around here that it’s hardly noticable any more.

As usual, Fred comes up empty on a demand for a citation to support his straw man argument. Instead he lurches once again for his Atheist’s Playbook. Looks like this time he’s grabbed Rule #5: Call them names. Fred it’s not the forum that you smell and its not like cordite. Put your Atheist’s Playbook closer to your nose.

Let’s expose the chicanery of Fred’s attempted diversion.

What does the age of the earth have to do with the absence of actual evidence for Fred’s rabbit/dinosaur in the rocks argument? Answer: Nothing.

So, I put it to you again:

Freddy:

So you say that if a scientist uses scientific terms to explain how he thinks evolution happened from a scientific standpoint, then that is not a scientific explanation.

Yes, the newly elucidated Rossum’s Rule applies. Without actual evidence, it ain’t science.

Freddy:

So if dinosaur fossils suddenly stop around 65 million years ago (the evidence) …

That would be lack of evidence, not evidence. If I cannot find something, does that something not exist? If confused, just apply the Rossum’s Rule corollary: A non-observation is not an observation.

if we have evidence that rabbits (belonging to the order of mammals called lagomorpha) evolved around 40 million years ago

That would be evidence of rabbits. The movement from the fact of rabbits fossils in rocks to 40 million years old rabbit fossils is indirect. Further, the movement from the speculation that the rabbit fossils are 40 million years old to the wild guess that rabbits did not exist earlier takes you back to the fallacy of proposing non-evidence as evidence.

we can make a prediction: that no lagamorpha fossils will be discovered in the same age rocks as dinosaur fossils.

Of course you can make a prediction, it just not a scientific prediction according to Rossum’s Rule. Actual evidence is required.

If the test that estimates the age of the rock is valid and if the rabbit fossils in the rock are the same age as the estimated age of the rock and if those rabbit fossils are the oldest rabbit fossils and if the oldest rabbits are always fossilized then …

 

[Freddy]

One might ask if you have nothing to hide then why are you hiding it?