How could the universe and life start without God, how did life evolve without God?
- Thread starter Eric H
- Start date
- Replies 98
- Views 28K
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Halal Food Gastronomy | vBulletin 4 php 8.0 patch
Al-Ansariyah
Elite Member
- Messages
- 454
- Reaction score
- 13
- Gender
- Female
- Religion
- Islam
[MENTION=44606]chalks75[/MENTION]
Let me tell u in all this, that u r killing ur soul. You accept it or not, it's the reality. You'll come to know once you reach ur grave.u'll regret it man, u'll regret it.( Until nd unless Allah guides you)
I don't need any reply from u on this. It was just a fact which I stated. There's no need for u to speak against it.
Let me tell u in all this, that u r killing ur soul. You accept it or not, it's the reality. You'll come to know once you reach ur grave.u'll regret it man, u'll regret it.( Until nd unless Allah guides you)
I don't need any reply from u on this. It was just a fact which I stated. There's no need for u to speak against it.
Your right
There either is a god or there is not
If there is, il find out when I die
If there’s not,then I won’t.
If god judges me harshly for my honest disbelief, there isn’t much I can do about it.
Of course, you could die, and find out you were worshiping the wrong god all along.
Gamble for both of us.
I don’t believe people have souls.
I’m as concerned about meeting Allah in the afterlife as I am about being reincarnated as a snail , or not getting into Valhalla
I do apologise,
I did not see the notification
I was not ignoring you.
Evolution is a fact
Life changes over time
That is evolution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_fact_and_theory
The link I gave you says - it took 1,829 incremental steps from a light sensitive patch to a focused lens eye.
https://www.researchgate.net/public...ate_of_the_Time_Required_for_an_Eye_to_Evolve
I know the theory, but there are too many unanswered questions.
They have done this by avoiding a lot of challenging questions. Your article is based on a computer model. So just to be clear how this would work, a programmer would look at eyes in a number of species and plot their coordinates on a computer. They would then tell the computer to plot a path between these coordinates. The computer would show what it was told to show.
The article did not address any of the questions which you agreed were valid. If the questions can't be answered, it is better to say, I don't know.
Because all the papers I have read avoid these questions, I am still not convinced the eye evolved as stated.
I agree with you that if questions can’t be answered then the correct answer is
“ i don’t know “
To admit you don’t, then assert a god did it, would seem to defeat the purpose of not knowing.
"It is not surprising that cells of human eyes come from the brain. We still have light-sensitive cells in our brains today which detect light and influence our daily rhythms of activity," explains Wittbrodt. "Quite possibly, the human eye has originated from light-sensitive cells in the brain. Only later in evolution would such brain cells have relocated into an eye and gained the potential to confer vision."
It’s possible that eyes developed from light sensitive cells in the brain, and not a separate entity from the brain.
Are there answers to any of the following questions, or do we say we don't know about some of them?
I will reflect on your other comments.
Scimitar
DAWAH DIGITAL
- Messages
- 7,549
- Reaction score
- 851
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
No. It is not. What it is, is a variety of inferred contradictory assumptions based on loosely strung together observations.
You’ve not been able to prove otherwise.
You are confusing
The fact of evolution
With the hypothesis/ theories that attempt to explain it.
Would you like some observed examples of evolution, both the result of natural selection, and of selective breading ?
Hi Eric
Hope your keeping well
There are a couple of things I don’t understand in your post.
I’m
Not sure what you mean when you say natural selection “changes direction “
From what I understand “ natural selection “
Always selects what is beneficial.
I’m not sure what you mean when you say how could “ natural selection detect such a minuscule change “
The changes are played out in nature, and the selection is done by how those changes affect the organisms ability to pass on its genes.
I think it’s also important to note that evolution shapes what is already there,
It was explained to me by a biologist like this
“Imagine a 50 empty gallon barrel, with a tap dripping above it, at a rate of 1 drop per day.
Imagine you look into the barrel after a month, you will see some water
If you came back and looked everyday, for a week, you won’t see much change
If you came back a month later , you might see a little change
If you can back after 2 years , you would see a big change.
It’s still only 1 drip of water
But
A small change, amounts to a big difference over time.
The same is true with evolution
Small changes, amount to a big difference over time.
He went on to explain
“ once you realise the change is happening you can make predictions and test them, if this change is happening then the water level should be at X in 6 months , it should be at Y in 2 years and so on “
The same is true with evolution,
If evolution is true then you can make a prediction, and they have.
They have been able to predict,
A certain type of fossil , being found in a certain age of strata,in a certain area.
They have been able to go and dig and have found the fossil type predicted, predicted on the premise of evolution being true.
It’s this ability to make predictions, that help a hypothesis become a theory
http://answersinscience.org/evo_science.html
Last edited:
Hi chalk, We are doing as well as we possibly can in these testing times, it has been an opportunity to catch up on bits we have been putting off. Nothing exciting like building a fish pond though, how about yourself?
https://www.researchgate.net/public...ate_of_the_Time_Required_for_an_Eye_to_Evolve
In the above link, there are diagrams of 8 stages showing how many incremental steps it could take for the eye to evolve. If you look at the first it is just a flat light sensitive patch, it then takes 176 incremental steps to reach an optimum curve. It then has to stop randomly mutating in this direction, and take another 362 steps to form a different curve. Then repeat another five times. I think you need to look at the diagrams to understand what they are trying to say.
I question how they interpret random mutation, 176 steps towards one goal is pushing my understanding of 'random'. I understand that natural selection would dump any detrimental mutations. When you repeat this process six more times with bigger numbers, random mutation looses all meaning for me. Yet this would have to happen so that evolution could work. Natural selection has no goals to work towards, so it could have stopped at any point along these 1,829 steps. I know it did for some species.
Then there are all the other tedious questions of optic nerves, the brain, limbs, muscles evolving at the same rate as the eye lens, but how?
https://www.researchgate.net/public...ate_of_the_Time_Required_for_an_Eye_to_Evolve
In the above link, there are diagrams of 8 stages showing how many incremental steps it could take for the eye to evolve. If you look at the first it is just a flat light sensitive patch, it then takes 176 incremental steps to reach an optimum curve. It then has to stop randomly mutating in this direction, and take another 362 steps to form a different curve. Then repeat another five times. I think you need to look at the diagrams to understand what they are trying to say.
I question how they interpret random mutation, 176 steps towards one goal is pushing my understanding of 'random'. I understand that natural selection would dump any detrimental mutations. When you repeat this process six more times with bigger numbers, random mutation looses all meaning for me. Yet this would have to happen so that evolution could work. Natural selection has no goals to work towards, so it could have stopped at any point along these 1,829 steps. I know it did for some species.
Then there are all the other tedious questions of optic nerves, the brain, limbs, muscles evolving at the same rate as the eye lens, but how?
I have just noticed your edit.
A dripping tap can describe an accumulation of events. But in order for things to change, something different has to happen. A leaky tap will always leak in the same way, unless some other natural occurrence happens. If you wanted the tap to leak at a different angle, you could bang the tap.
If you wanted the dripping water to form shapes depicting 8 stages of the evolving eye. You could take 8 eye shaped moulds and let the water drip into each one. When we talk about evolution, we have to find ways how nature could do this without any help.
A dripping tap can describe an accumulation of events. But in order for things to change, something different has to happen. A leaky tap will always leak in the same way, unless some other natural occurrence happens. If you wanted the tap to leak at a different angle, you could bang the tap.
If you wanted the dripping water to form shapes depicting 8 stages of the evolving eye. You could take 8 eye shaped moulds and let the water drip into each one. When we talk about evolution, we have to find ways how nature could do this without any help.
Hi Eric
These are tough times, I’m still working but at reduced hours, and I work now from 3 AM to 8 AM to make social distancing possible
I work for a charity that helps people in fuel and food poverty, as you can imagine it’s a very busy time.
I’m not sure I would describe the pond building as exciting, more back breaking lol
The kids are excited though, but they didn’t have to dig the hole.[emoji3]
Could you quote from the article, the section that describes” changing direction “
I think I know the part you are referring to but I want to be sure [emoji106]
I think the point being made was how a small changes can amount to a big difference over time.
Imagine if a blackbird got ever so slightly lighter with each generation,
You wouldn’t notice much change over a few generations
But
Eventually the “ blackbird” will no longer be black,
That sounds like a worthwhile job, I can see how you would be more in demand now. Sadly the opposite is true for me, I am now 71, and until recently used to drive a mini bus part time at a care home, this has stopped as has all the other voluntary work I do.
The diagrams are on page 55, but the paper starts on page 53. The diagrams just highlight what the wall of text says.
This would be like a black African moving to Britain, the dark skin would be lost over many generations. The process would be speeded up with each white partner. We can easily understand how this would happen.
What natural causes could there be that would aid the development of the lens shape?
Yeah it’s very fulfilling work,
It was a fairly stress free job until covid 19 hit, it’s been hectic since.
Your 71, you still have your wits about you, mind still sharp as a tack.[emoji106]
The only thing I can see about a change of direction
Is when the light sensitive point begins to form a concave, but it get to a point ( when the concave is the same depth as the diameter of the light sensitive spot,
Any deeper and it stops being beneficial,
So that will not be selected by natural selection
Since it’s no longer beneficial for the concave to go deeper, the next beneficial step was the beginning of the formation of a lens
Hi Chalks, I guess you must hear some distressing stories in your job.
Your life slows down as you get older, I think this gives you more opportunity to reflect and ponder.
When you repeat the same random direction 176 times, I think it would constitute habitual behaviour. If it randomly mutated say ten times in the same direction, you might say there was a certain amount of luck involved. When you repeat 176 steps in the same direction; that seems to push the meaning of both luck and random.
Understandable.
I think this is where you would need some natural change to happen, so random mutation would would change course and happily go another 362 steps in another direction. The lens would then need another five changes in direction to make up the 1,829 incremental steps. Evolution says that random mutation and selection have no goals, but this process does seem goal driven to me.
The eye lens would have evolved in the seas, I can't think of many natural forces in the sea that could affect change. There are currents moving chemicals around, changes in temperature, changes in light, possibly lightening. What else would cause random mutation to change direction? And we have not mentioned how optic nerves, the brain and muscles would need to adapt at the same rate.
I truthfully do not know why Nilsson and Pelgar wrote this paper, because in their summing up they say. 'One would expect most eye lens to be useless without advanced neural processing and this being relayed to the muscles'. By their own admission they know how flawed their research is. What I struggle to understand is how this research is seen as important by others, and they don't question the gaps.
Your life slows down as you get older, I think this gives you more opportunity to reflect and ponder.
When you repeat the same random direction 176 times, I think it would constitute habitual behaviour. If it randomly mutated say ten times in the same direction, you might say there was a certain amount of luck involved. When you repeat 176 steps in the same direction; that seems to push the meaning of both luck and random.
Understandable.
I think this is where you would need some natural change to happen, so random mutation would would change course and happily go another 362 steps in another direction. The lens would then need another five changes in direction to make up the 1,829 incremental steps. Evolution says that random mutation and selection have no goals, but this process does seem goal driven to me.
The eye lens would have evolved in the seas, I can't think of many natural forces in the sea that could affect change. There are currents moving chemicals around, changes in temperature, changes in light, possibly lightening. What else would cause random mutation to change direction? And we have not mentioned how optic nerves, the brain and muscles would need to adapt at the same rate.
I truthfully do not know why Nilsson and Pelgar wrote this paper, because in their summing up they say. 'One would expect most eye lens to be useless without advanced neural processing and this being relayed to the muscles'. By their own admission they know how flawed their research is. What I struggle to understand is how this research is seen as important by others, and they don't question the gaps.
Last edited:
[MENTION=44606]chalks75[/MENTION]
Welcome back, nice to see you back here
What amazes me is that people can believe in unseen things like Coronavirus but they can’t believe in God who created everything including this minuscule bacteria who has put the entire world in a lockdown for several months by now. Man can claim whatever he wants but at the end of the day God shows them over and over again that if He wants He can destroy us will the blink of an eye. It is His mercy that we still have a chance to correct our ways and turn back to Him.
Welcome back, nice to see you back here
What amazes me is that people can believe in unseen things like Coronavirus but they can’t believe in God who created everything including this minuscule bacteria who has put the entire world in a lockdown for several months by now. Man can claim whatever he wants but at the end of the day God shows them over and over again that if He wants He can destroy us will the blink of an eye. It is His mercy that we still have a chance to correct our ways and turn back to Him.
Last edited:
Hi chalks, I was just going back over some of the older posts and noticed these.
When I look at this, I try and think of a time billions of years ago when there was no life. Then I try and imagine single cell life with no brain and no light sensitive cells. This is where the journey of evolution would need to start.
Same question again, four billion years ago there were no barrels or taps, so how did evolution produce them (light cells, brains, etc.)
When I look at this, I try and think of a time billions of years ago when there was no life. Then I try and imagine single cell life with no brain and no light sensitive cells. This is where the journey of evolution would need to start.
Same question again, four billion years ago there were no barrels or taps, so how did evolution produce them (light cells, brains, etc.)