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

[rossum]

Darwinism remains a theory…

Gravity remains a theory as well: The Theory of Gravity. Are you going to ignore gravity because it is just a theory?

Darwinism was replaced between about 1910 and 1920 by the “Modern Synthesis” when Mendel’s work was added to Darwin’s original theory. Kimura’s Neutral Theory was incorporated in the 1950s and since then science has been adding the new data from DNA sequencing. You need to keep up with the development of the theory of evolution. It has changed a lot since 1859.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

If, by chance,

If you are saying that evolution depends on chance, then it is bound to lose and fail. With any form of gambling, there are far more losers than winners. If you gamble and loose too much, you will go bust. Rinse and repeat.

If they then manage to avoid being eaten by a specifc predator

If they have the bad luck to get eaten in infancy, when they are all at their most vulnerable, bang goes any advantage. If they have the best eyes but are crippled, bang goes any advantage.

If you are talking about chance, there are probably far more things that could go wrong, rather than right.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

If, by chance,

If you are saying that evolution depends on chance, then it is bound to lose and fail. With any form of gambling, there are far more losers than winners. If you gamble and loose too much, you will go bust. Rinse and repeat.

If they then manage to avoid being eaten by a specifc predator

If they have the bad luck to get eaten in infancy, when they are all at their most vulnerable, bang goes any advantage. If they have the best eyes but are crippled, bang goes any advantage.

If you are talking about chance, there are probably far more things that could go wrong, rather than right.

You’re exactly right on all points. There are immeasurably more losers than winners. And there are very, very many things that will go wrong rather than go right.

If you look at the chances of getting hit by a truck or getting cancer or dying from a pandemic and then multiply those chances by all your hundreds upon hundreds (actually billions upon billions, but let’s keep it to a number we can understand) of ancestors then what are the chances that they all survived to a point where they could reproduce?

It’s 1.

Every. Single. Organism. on this planet has a direct lineage that goes back to the very begining. But there are billions upon billions upon billions who didn’t make it. So you’re right.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

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

This link describes in detail how the eye lens could evolve. Even the authors of this paper say that lens evolution would be of no advantage without increased neural processing.

If you built a robot and placed a lens on it, then it would still bump into objects. To make the lens efficient, you would also need to wire it up to a computer, so it would understand what it sees. Again, this would be useless unless the computer was able to direct the limbs to do something.

For every 0.1% improvement of the lens, the optic nerves, brain processing and limb reaction would each have to improve by 0.1%. If all this does not improve together, the lens improvement becomes null and void.

Nillson and Pelgar seem to have avoided these questions, because they have no explanation as to how this could all happen simultaneously 1829 times.

 

[Freddy]

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

This link describes in detail how the eye lens could evolve. Even the authors of this paper say that lens evolution would be of no advantage without increased neural processing.

You’re not thinking this through, Eric.

My son has better eyesight than I do. You seem to be arguing that that is impossible. How does he manage to cope with all that extra information he recieves through his better vision?

 

[o_mlly]

Gravity remains a theory as well: The Theory of Gravity. Are you going to ignore gravity because it is just a theory?

Quite right. Let’s apply Rossum’s Rule (actual evidence needed). I look out my window for evidence of gravity. Look, there it is. The blossom petals are falling to the earth. Gravity theory has actual evidence.

Now, let’s look for evidence of speciation. Still looking, still looking …

Every. Single. Organism. on this planet has a direct lineage that goes back to the very begining.

There you go again. Throwing out opinion as fact. Fred, get down out of that tree before you hurt yourself. Got actual evidence for that claim, you know the Rossum’s Rule thing?

 

[stoplooklisten]

Correct! We’ll make a scientist of you yet, End

So, Fred, are you an acknowledged or unacknowledged proselytizer of scientism?

 

[Eric_Hyom]

My son has better eyesight than I do.

Thankfully my son also has better eyes than I do, but that avoids my question.

You seem to be arguing that that is impossible. How does he manage to cope with all that extra information he recieves through his better vision?

Go back five billion years before there were eyes, optic nerves, limbs, a brain etc. Now come forward in time, how do all these things evolve together?

Nilsson and Pelgar focus purely on the eye lens and ignore everything else. So if the lens is to evolve incrementally 1829 times, where is the explanation how it could all happen together?

 

[EndTimes]

Evolution, through natural selection,

Natural Selection unto itself - represents a loss in Bio-Info in the Genome.

Ergo, whatever one thought ‘evolution’ was supposed to mean? Isn’t.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

My son has better eyesight than I do.

Thankfully my son also has better eyes than I do, but that avoids my question.

You seem to be arguing that that is impossible. How does he manage to cope with all that extra information he recieves through his better vision?

Go back five billion years before there were eyes, optic nerves, limbs, a brain etc. Now come forward in time, how do all these things evolve together?

Nilsson and Pelgar focus purely on the eye lens and ignore everything else. So if the lens is to evolve incrementally 1829 times, where is the explanation how it could all happen together?

If your son has better eyes, then in a situation where slightly better vision will help you survive then he will. But you say that’s impossible. Obviously it isn’t. Your son doesn’t need a major restructuring of the occipital lobe to handle the extra info.

And please drop the references to 1829 changes. It was proposed so that someone like you could understand the process. It’s not to be taken as gospel.

 

[Freddy]

rossum:

Gravity remains a theory as well: The Theory of Gravity. Are you going to ignore gravity because it is just a theory?

Quite right. Let’s apply Rossum’s Rule (actual evidence needed). I look out my window for evidence of gravity. Look, there it is. The blossom petals are falling to the earth. Gravity theory has actual evidence.

Now, let’s look for evidence of speciation. Still looking, still looking …

Every. Single. Organism. on this planet has a direct lineage that goes back to the very begining.

There you go again. Throwing out opinion as fact. Fred, get down out of that tree before you hurt yourself. Got actual evidence for that claim, you know the Rossum’s Rule thing?

Let’s say that the start of humanity happened at a given point. Whatever that point was then it’s a given that we are all direct descendents of whatever came first.

Can you possibly deny that everything has a direct lineage back to the very begining?

I don’t think you thought that through. It’s a problem that a lot of people have: discounting something because of who said it rather than what was said.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

And please drop the references to 1829 changes. It was proposed so that someone like you could understand the process.

On the contrary, I believe it was written for people like you who might look on it as Gospel.

The process IS understandable, it just does not seem to stand up to being questioned.

It’s not to be taken as gospel.

Oh sorry, you don’t take it as Gospel either.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

Let’s say that the start of humanity happened at a given point. Whatever that point was then it’s a given that we are all direct descendents of whatever came first.

God.

Can you possibly deny that everything has a direct lineage back to the very begining?

I don’t think you thought that through. It’s a problem that a lot of people have: discounting something because of who said it rather than what was said.

Refer to first answer; unless there is evidence to say otherwise.

 

[Freddy]

No. It’s monstrously ridiculous to suggest that there are an actual number of specific changes. If you don’t understand the reason behind the use of using a number such as that then…you simply don’t understand the concept at all.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Let’s say that the start of humanity happened at a given point. Whatever that point was then it’s a given that we are all direct descendents of whatever came first.

God.

Can you possibly deny that everything has a direct lineage back to the very begining?

I don’t think you thought that through. It’s a problem that a lot of people have: discounting something because of who said it rather than what was said.

Refer to first answer; unless there is evidence to say otherwise.

God wasn’t the start of humanity. That would either be Adam or the begining of life a few billion years ago on this planet. You can pick either one. But in either case we are all direct descendants.

Would you like to offer an alternative?

 

[EndTimes]

If your son has better eyes, then in a situation where slightly better vision will help you survive then he will.

Sure. And that means beans as far as proving Darwinism

 

[o_mlly]

Let’s say that the start of humanity happened at a given point. Whatever Whomever that point person, (e.g., Adam] was then it’s a given that we are all direct descendents of whatever whomever came first.

If you accept my correction then: Yes, of course.

Can you possibly deny that everything has a direct lineage back to the very begining?

This is not the same claim. And, yes, I can and should hold my scientific judgment in suspense pending your actual evidence.

Show us evidence of microbe to plant, and plant to animal. That would be a good start.

 

[stoplooklisten]

Do trees have senses like vision, touch? Why do two trees growing near each other not put out big branches that bump into each other? Can trees see?

The tree on the left has a big branch growing to the left but no branch growing to the right. It seems to know that there is no room for it to grow a big branch to the right.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

God’s creation has many mysteries that I expect science can’t fully explain. How do trees seem to “see” nearby trees? Why do trees shed their leaves in the fall? Why do birds migrate?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Let’s say that the start of humanity happened at a given point. Whatever Whomever that point person, (e.g., Adam] was then it’s a given that we are all direct descendents of whatever whomever came first.

If you accept my correction then: Yes, of course.

So it wan’t opinion. It actually is a fact. Adam or single cellular life. You’d do better playing the ball rather than the man.

 

[o_mlly]

So it wan’t opinion. It actually is a fact. You’d do better playing the ball rather than the man.

I am. You were caught doing a double dribble.

You didn’t quote the entire post. No one disputes that all humans have a common ancestor and that was not your claim. The claim was humans and microbes have a common ancestor.