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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Eric_Hyom
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
No. Cosmic rays can cause mutations.
What kind of mutations could cosmic rays influence?

Are we talking about a light sensitive patch? Or could cosmic rays repeatedly work towards the 1,500 incremental steps to form an eye lens?
 
In evolution, a tail developed through a series of random mutations and the tail was later lost through a series of random mutation in a reverse order.
You are badly misinformed. A tail developed through a series or random mutations and natural selection. Natural selection depends on the environment. If the environment changes, then so does the effect of natural selection.

Monkeys with tails run along the top of branches and use their tails for balance. Apes hang below branches by their arms and so no longer require tails for balance. Tree sloths have greatly reduced tails for the same reason: hanging below a branch does not need a tail for balance.
 
A tail developed through a series or random mutations and natural selection .
I guess our ancestor lost the tail through a series of reverse random mutations and natural selection too.
 
Last edited:
What kind of mutations could cosmic rays influence?
All of them. The initial experiments on the effects of radiation on genetics were done from 1926 onwards. See Muller (1927) for example.
Are we talking about a light sensitive patch? Or could cosmic rays repeatedly work towards the 1,500 incremental steps to form an eye lens?
Cosmic rays, and other causes of mutations do not “work towards” anything. Mutations are random with respect to their effects. Natural selection reduces the proportion of mutations with deleterious effects, ignores the mutations with neutral effects and increases the proportion of mutations with beneficial effects.

Where progress towards a better eye is beneficial then natural selection will select those mutations and increase their proportion in the population. Evolution happens in populations, not individuals. Individuals reproduce; populations evolve.
 
Last edited:
Mutations are random with respect to their effects.
How is developing a tail through mutations and natural selection and then losing the same tail through reverse mutations and natural selection random?
Doesn’t this require some memory?
 
How is developing a tail through mutations and natural selection and then losing the same tail through reverse mutations and natural selection random?
Doesn’t this require some memory?
Not memory, just information storage. DNA provides the required information storage.

We have not lost all of our genes for a tail, the occasional atavistic tail appears in humans. It is more likely that a single gene change was all that was initially required; something that disabled the “build a tail here” genetic signal.
 
Not memory, just information storage. DNA provides the required information storage.

We have not lost all of our genes for a tail, the occasional atavistic tail appears in humans. It is more likely that a single gene change was all that was initially required; something that disabled the “build a tail here” genetic signal.
Ok. At what point does this “build a tail here” genetic signal appear during the random development of the tail through a series of random mutations which are picked as beneficial each time by the environment?
 
Last edited:
Monkeys with tails run along the top of branches and use their tails for balance. Apes hang below branches by their arms and so no longer require tails for balance.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Hey, Didn’t you get the memo from CD? Tails are back in for just hanging out.
 
At what point does this “build a tail here” genetic signal appear during the random development of the tail through a series of random mutations which are picked as beneficial each time by the environment?
What, if anything, did Jesus have for breakfast 157 days after His 23rd birthday?

It is very easy to ask questions for which much of the detail has been lost. Our ancestors have had tails since they were fish, so we no longer have the relevant details.
 
Prehensile tails are only found in some South American monkeys. African monkeys, from which our ape ancestors are descended, do not have prehensile tails.

The difference evolved after the platyrrhines (South America) separated from the catarrhines (Africa and Asia).
 
What, if anything, did Jesus have for breakfast 157 days after His 23rd birthday?
There’s no ‘scientific body’ that deals Jesus’ breakfasts
It is very easy to ask questions for which much of the detail has been lost. Our ancestors have had tails since they were fish, so we no longer have the relevant details.
I’m asking things on which research is ongoing and as you are you always quick to say that these are well established facts.
 
Last edited:
I’m asking things on which research is ongoing and as you are you always quick to say that these are well established facts.
We have fossil fish with tails. Those fish are too old for their DNA to have survived, just as the records of Jesus’ breakfasts have not survived.

Science works with the information available.
 
Last edited:
Science works with the information available.
Available information/data has to be analysed and a proper conclusion made; evolution isn’t as we can tell from its proposal on tail development and lose of the tail.
too old for their DNA
‘Too old’ and ‘too young’ are just but a construct of the mind. There’s no time outside our consciousness.
 
Last edited:
There’s no time outside our consciousness.
Then earthworms are all eternal because they have no consciousness? You need to rethink yourself here, or do you think that a sub-atomic particle like a muon has consciousness?
 
or do you think that a sub-atomic particle like a muon has consciousness?
Well, a subatomic particle only exists because it is measured, measurement is an observation, an observation is consciousness.
Then earthworms are all eternal because they have no consciousness?
When i talk about consciousness creating reality, i mean human consciousness. Everything else exists because we (humans) measure them
 
Last edited:
Whatever you do or think or observe as reality, you can not set aside consciousness because it makes all these things possible. IOW, we create reality (the universe). I’ll try to explain.
This event causes a point of energy potential to begin to expand (a “Big Bang”). Some of these baby universes possess universal constants that allow them to continue to expand.
Expansion is a measure and a measure is an observation and an observation is consciousness. Without consciousness, there’s no big bang (expansion) at all.

A change is as observed otherwise it is no change; If you notice the diameter changes from 5 to 10 to 20…then you can say it is expanding.Changes have to have a reference point and the reference point of all reference points is our collective consciousness.
 
Last edited:
Well, a subatomic particle only exists because it is measured, measurement is an observation, an observation is consciousness.
Muons cease to exist after a short time, they decay. Even if we do not observe the actual muon, we can observe the decay products. How did the unobserved muon know when to decay? Does a muon have consciousness?
 
Muons cease to exist after a short time, they decay. Even if we do not observe the actual muon, we can observe the decay products. How did the unobserved muon know when to decay? Does a muon have consciousness?
First of all, it exists because you measured it, secondly, it ceases to exist because you measured it again. Changes are only changes when observed (measured) and a change is with respect to a reference point and in this case, the existence of muon is with reference to non existence and its non existence is with reference to its existence and the only thing that does this analysis is the conscious mind.
 
First of all, it exists because you measured it,
No we did not measure it. We never measured the muon, we only measured the decay products, which are not muons.

If is like measuring a footprint. We can observe the footprint, but we never observed the person who made the footprint.

The muon was never observed, only its ‘footprints’.

How did the muon know when to decay before it was observed?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top