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

[Eric_Hyom]

Blind mutation alone did not produce those things.

If blind mutation did not produce these things first, natural selection would have nothing to work with.

single cells with a light sensitive organelle.
brain
nervous system
Add curvature on the surface
Mostly close the cup and fill it with transparent gunk
harden the gunk
Add muscles to shrink or expand as needed.

Your grandchildren have copies of your genes. The more grandchildren you have the more copies of your genes.

From abiogenesis we have blind primitive cells, they don’t have copies of shark genes. Shark genes do not have copies of my genes. BUT my grandchildren will have copies of my genes.

 

[rossum]

If blind mutation did not produce these things first, natural selection would have nothing to work with.

Blind mutations produces many things, most of which are irrelevant (neutral), most of the rest are bad (deleterious) with only a few being good (beneficial). Natural selection eliminates the bad and spreads the good.

 

[stoplooklisten]

See the excellent post above this one.

@Freddy, thank you for approving excellence.

@rossum, you do seem to know your biology.

Now, I would still argue what’s the cause and what’s the effect? How did male and female develop in parallel? Does evolution program the genes? Or, do the pre-programmed genes guide the successive generations of evolution? The mechanisms of random mutations and natural selection seem inadequate. Even if there are billions of years of natural processes, could not it have been that Almighty God infused an immortal soul into two beings named Adam and Eve?

I do commend @freddy and @rossum for their many contributions to these threads.

 

[stoplooklisten]

@eric_hyom and @o_mlly, I also commend you for your many contributions to these threads.

Thank you also to others unnamed.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

In science the evidence wins.

There is no evidence to say how the universe came to be, granted there are many hypotheses.
There is no evidence to say how abiogenesis happened, granted there are many hypotheses.
Evolution does not seem to stand up well to simple questions.

Blind mutations produces many things,
Natural selection “guides” the population towards more copies of beneficial genes.

You are giving natural selection the power of a god.

In science the evidence wins.

There is no winning evidence so far. If the evidence was convincing, we would both be in agreement.

 

[rossum]

You are giving natural selection the power of a god.

It is the power of having more grandchildren than the average. Is that a godly power? One of my uncles had over 20 grandchildren; does that make him a god?

Another way of looking at natural selection is as a sort of compound interest. Is compound interest a godly power?

There is no winning evidence so far.

There is winning evidence for evolution. There is some evidence for the various scientific hypotheses on abiogenesis; more evidence than for the various theological hypotheses. The origin of the material universe is more hypotheses then evidence.

 

[lelinator]

You are giving natural selection the power of a god.

Absolutely. You’ve simply deified a natural process. The question is…why? This is a very interesting question, both from a personal perspective, and from an evolutionary perspective, why do supposedly rational people believe in God?

 

[BT3241]

Your a scientist and know nothing about virtual particles yes I want to see your lab coat.

 

[o_mlly]

Your [sic] a scientist and know nothing about virtual particles yes I want to see your lab coat.

Apparently, I know quite a bit more than you. Do you know what “virtual” means? Do you know how a wave of energy converts to particles of matter? Turn in your lab coat.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

Your grandchildren have copies of your genes. The more grandchildren you have the more copies of your genes.

From abiogenesis we have blind primitive cells, they don’t have copies of Tiktaalik genes. Tiktaalik genes do not have copies of my genes. BUT my grandchildren will have copies of my genes.

 

[rossum]

From abiogenesis we have blind primitive cells, they don’t have copies of Tiktaalik genes. Tiktaalik genes do not have copies of my genes. BUT my grandchildren will have copies of my genes.

What are you trying to say here? Yes, genes change over time thanks, to evolution. The very first living organisms did not have the Cytochrome-C gene. Tiktaalik did, and so do we though we have a different variant of that gene from Tiktaalik.

The different amino acid sequences of Cytochrome-C are part of the evidence for evolution, specifically for the tree of life. Separation on the tree correlates with differences in Cytochrome-Cs. Our Cytochrome-C is identical to chimps, one amino acid different from Rhesus monkeys and a lot different from sunflowers.

Hum:          mgdvekgkki fimkcsqcht vekggkhktg pnlhglfgrk tgqapgysyt aanknkgiiw gedtlmeyle npkkyipgtk mifvgikkke eradliaylk katne
Chm:          mgdvekgkki fimkcsqcht vekggkhktg pnlhglfgrk tgqapgysyt aanknkgiiw gedtlmeyle npkkyipgtk mifvgikkke eradliaylk katne
Rhe:          mgdvekgkki fimkcsqcht vekggkhktg pnlhglfgrk tgqapgysyt aanknkgitw gedtlmeyle npkkyipgtk mifvgikkke eradliaylk katne
Sun: masfaeap agdpttgaki fktkcaqcht vekgaghkqg pnlnglfgrq sgttagysys aanknmaviw eentlydyll npkkyipgtk mvfpglkkpq eradliaylk tsta

As I said above, there is winning evidence for evolution.

 

[Noose001]

The different amino acid sequences of Cytochrome-C are part of the evidence for evolution, specifically for the tree of life. Separation on the tree correlates with differences in Cytochrome-Cs. Our Cytochrome-C is identical to chimps, one amino acid different from Rhesus monkeys and a lot different from sunflowers.

Hum:          mgdvekgkki fimkcsqcht vekggkhktg pnlhglfgrk tgqapgysyt aanknkgiiw gedtlmeyle npkkyipgtk mifvgikkke eradliaylk katne
Chm:          mgdvekgkki fimkcsqcht vekggkhktg pnlhglfgrk tgqapgysyt aanknkgiiw gedtlmeyle npkkyipgtk mifvgikkke eradliaylk katne
Rhe:          mgdvekgkki fimkcsqcht vekggkhktg pnlhglfgrk tgqapgysyt aanknkgitw gedtlmeyle npkkyipgtk mifvgikkke eradliaylk katne
Sun: masfaeap agdpttgaki fktkcaqcht vekgaghkqg pnlnglfgrq sgttagysys aanknmaviw eentlydyll npkkyipgtk mvfpglkkpq eradliaylk tsta

As I said above, there is winning evidence for evolution.

I see no evidence of speciation or a common ancestor here.

 

[rossum]

I see no evidence of speciation or a common ancestor here.

Yockey (1992) calculated that there were 2.3 x 10^93 different ways to make a working Cytochrome C. What is the chance that humans and chimps have identical versions? What is the chance that Rhesus monkeys (another primate) are only one amino acid different?

That is the evidence; it was not chance but inheritance from a common ancestor. Our common ancestor with the chimps is a lot closer than our common ancestor with sunflowers.

 

[Noose001]

Yockey (1992) calculated that there were 2.3 x 10^93 different ways to make a working Cytochrome C. What is the chance that humans and chimps have identical versions? What is the chance that Rhesus monkeys (another primate) are only one amino acid different?

That is the evidence; it was not chance but inheritance from a common ancestor. Our common ancestor with the chimps is a lot closer than our common ancestor with sunflowers.

Well imagined but it’s no evidence for speciation. I say it is a common designer.

 

[rossum]

Well imagined but it’s no evidence for speciation. I say it is a common designer.

If, and only if, the designer wanted to give the appearance of evolution. The designer had 2.3e93 - 1 choices to pick from for human Cytochrome-C which would both work and be different from the chimpanzee version. Instead the designer picked the exact match.

The designer is making it appear that evolution happened. Why do you disagree with what the designer wants you to see?

 

[Noose001]

The designer is making it appear that evolution happened. Why do you disagree with what the designer wants you to see?

Nope, things appear to be designed. Nothing appears to have come out of randomness and chaos. But all you need to do is present the evidence for speciation even using Cytochrome-C

 

[BT3241]

You obviously not a physicist I suspect your not even a scientist your not worth my time. No physicist would reject this theory

 

[o_mlly]

You obviously not a physicist I suspect your not even a scientist your not worth my time.

This post pretty much explains the depth of your scientific mind:

“How do you feel about Dr. Strange?”

I don’t watch them anymore - I found this one boring and never finished watching it . Although lately they have been changing to the dark side of superhero movies with characters that aren’t exactly role models.

 

[rossum]

Nothing appears to have come out of randomness and chaos.

Abiogenesis is chemistry, which is neither randomness nor chaos.

Evolution includes natural selection which is neither randomness nor chaos.

Your sources are misinforming you. I suggest you find better sources.

 

[Noose001]

Abiogenesis is chemistry, which is neither randomness nor chaos.

Abiogenesis has never been demonstrated so it is not Chemistry but a speculation.

Evolution includes natural selection which is neither randomness nor chaos.

There’s no evidence so far that speciation comes through mutations and natural selection, so that makes it a speculation too.
Mutations are random and natural selection, i don’t think it ever happens.