Did Nothing Create Everything?

[DaveC426913]

As we agree, the ancestor of the dog was the Wolf.

The Wolf ancestors had genetic code which had the ability to create every dog we currently have today by switching genes on and off, by eventual gene deletion, and even by harmful gene mutation. No new genes had to be created to make dogs, they were created by a loss or corruption of the original genetic code of the Wolf.

The progression goes downhill, not up, starting from a higher sophistication in genetic code in exchange for a wider distribution, but with each having less sophisticated code individually.

I guess then the only "pure" life form is the single-celled bacteria from 3 billion years ago...


There is no such thing as "corruption" in evolution. This is wrong-headed thinking.
1] Wolves are not special perfect creatures. The only measure of a creature - any creature- 's fitness is whether or not it survives its environment.

2] Wolves evolved from proto-wolves during a relative ice age. They evolved traits that helped them survive, such as large size and thick coats.
We are not in an ice age now. If the wolves of 20,000 years ago had not adapted and evolved they would have died out from overheating.

All life forms evolve. The wolves of today are not the wolves of 20,000 years ago. The fact that we happen to call them wolves does not mean they are any closer to wolves of yore than domestic dogs are.

Dogs are thriving in their environment. They are very well adapted to survive. That is the only criterion by which an animal's fitness can be measured.

 

[billvon]

Maybe if you eat more fish and think swimmy kinda thoughts!

Or if you are Pakicetus and evolve into a killer whale. (Not quite a fish, but close.)

 

[river]

Do you believe that Nothing created Everything?

If you do, please prove it.

So can it ? Can nothing create everything ?

No .

 

[(Q)]

Yes, that certainly is the story we are told.
But I don’t think anyone can actually prove that in reality, partially because no one was there.

And no one was there to see Adam and Eve, so that argument is not valid. The "story we are told" is based on sound science with mountains of evidence (and more pouring in every day) to support it. Since you've already shown in a number of posts here that you don't understand evolution, it would definitely serve you well to take the time to do so. Of course, many Christians (and other religious folks) fear the idea of understanding evolution as they fear it might jeopardize their faith based ideals on Creationism. Is this what you fear, as well?

It is only a guess, so I will call it pseudo-Science just for fun.

It does not bode well for you to opine dishonestly on things you don't understand.

 

[(Q)]

I would suggest that...

Love was not invented at the moment Jesus mentioned it.

Love has always existed and will always exist because God is Love, and God is eternal, without beginning or end.

People throughout the centuries have recognized the value of Love, with and without God.

You have just inadvertently made your claims above about God and love to be invalid.

And also, I regard The Shroud of Turin as evidence both for the reality of the life of Jesus, and for His bodily resurrection from the dead.

Even though extensive testing from various institutions shows with 95% accuracy the shroud dates back to somewhere between the 13-14 century?

What do you base your ethics on (Q)?

Same as most others, secular humanism. In fact, that's most likely where you get your ethics. You certainly don't get them from the Bible. Few, if any, actually do.

 

[James R]

SetiAlpha:

You highlighted the wrong parts of that quote you posted. Here. Let me help you.

"Gene pools and the impact of selection

What is a gene pool?

A gene pool is a hypothetical collection of all the variations of genes in a population. This could be a population of rabbits in a field, fish in a pond, or dogs in a breed. In a closed population, such as pedigree dogs, the numbers of gene variants is unlikely to increase, unless new dogs are brought into the breed, or mutations occur (which is rare and usually harmful). A gene pool can, and most likely will, get smaller when genes are lost through complete chance (i.e. not passed on to any descendants), or when dogs do not reproduce.

Sometimes an animal having a certain trait can influence how likely it is to survive and/or reproduce, this could be a faster rabbit evading a fox, a better camouflaged fish not being seen by its predators, or a pet dog having a good temperament and being chosen for breeding. All of these selection pressures can, over time, shape a population, making some genes associated with these benefits more common, while others become rarer or are lost from the gene pool.

How does selection impact a gene pool?

Dog breeders will choose carefully and select dogs that possess specific desirable traits, such as an excellent level of health and good temperamen. By applying a selection pressure, (or a breeding criteria), to a breed, it makes some traits, and the genes that control them, more common, while others which control less desirable traits become rarer.

Dogs with desirable traits are likely to be bred from more frequently, while others that do not possess these traits may not be used for breeding at all. Over time, the gene variants associated with these popular dogs become common in the breed, while those associated with the less desirable dogs may be lost and disappear forever. These lost genes may include those that controlled the less desirable traits, but may also include other genes that just happened to be found in the less desirable dogs.

For example, if a longer coat is desirable, then dogs with a long coat are more likely to be bred from and pass on their genes. Dogs with a short coat may not be bred from at all and so will not pass on any of their genes. These lost genes may include those that produce a shorter coat, but also includes all of the other genes that contributed to the rest of the dog, i.e. its eye colour, leg length, quality of hips, temperament, etc.

What is the impact a shrinking gene pool can have on a population?

If a population is made up of 100 dogs and there are 50 different variations of each gene, then the likelihood of finding two dogs with the same genes is small. If over time the number of dogs stays as 100, but the number of gene variants shrinks down to 10, then the likelihood of finding two dogs with same genes is much higher. These dogs will have inherited their similar genes from an ancestor that featured in both their pedigrees and so they are, to some degree, related. Therefore, as the gene pool shrinks, the likelihood of two related dogs mating increases. The mating of related dogs is known as inbreeding. As inbreeding increases, so too can the risk of health problems occurring within the population."

 

[James R]

Basically what I am saying is...

As we agree, the ancestor of the dog was the Wolf.

The Wolf ancestors had genetic code which had the ability to create every dog we currently have today by switching genes on and off, by eventual gene deletion, and even by harmful gene mutation.

And gene addition, of course. You forgot about that. Oh, and helpful gene mutation. And gene mixing through sexual reproduction.

No new genes had to be created to make dogs, they were created by a loss or corruption of the original genetic code of the Wolf.

No. Dogs were created by certain genes becoming more prevalent in some populations, due to selection pressures, not the least of which was the interaction of wolves with human beings.

In a way, though, you picked a bad example, because dogs are still very closely related to wolves. Genetically, dogs and wolves share approximately 98.8% of their DNA.

The progression goes downhill, not up, starting from a higher sophistication in genetic code in exchange for a wider distribution, but with each having less sophisticated code individually.

No. For instance, every time two animals breed sexually their offspring gets 50% of its genes from the male and 50% from the female. There's no loss in that process, no downhill.

It is certainly possible to "breed out" certain traits from a small population of animals, and this is partly what has been done in domesticating wolves. It is also certainly possible to select for preferred characteristics that arise due to the usual random processes (mutation, copying errors, gene swapping etc.)

You should be able to start over with the Wolves we have today and do it all over again. Unless the Wolves we have today are also genetically corrupted from where they used to be.

Wolves have evolved from earlier ancestor species just the same as every animal has evolved from its ancestor species.

Since human beings share a common ancestor with wolves, you might as well argue that human genes are a corruption of the "perfect" genes from the common ancestor species of wolves and humans.

What's gone wrong with you is that you have been reading too much Creationist literature. There aren't any perfect "kinds", like the Creationists tell you. Noah's ark wasn't real. Wolves evolved, and human beings evolved, from earlier species. There is no perfect "human kind". There's no Adam and Eve who were perfect human beings that you, SetiAlpha6 are a corrupted version of.

Which, in that case, would also indicate reverse Evolution.

Anybody who uses terms like "devolution" or "reverse evolution" can be ignored on the topic of evolution, because when they use those words it becomes immediately clearly that they don't understand how evolution works.

If Evolution resulted in an increase in genetic sophistication and complexity you should be able to breed something like a Chihuahua back into a Wolf like creature that is even more genetically superior and complex than the original Wolf ancestors were.

Yes. Given a long enough time, you could breed a chihuahua population back into something resembling wolves. After all, the reverse was clearly possible and there's nothing to stop selective breeding to go the other way.

When you use words like "more genetically superior and complex" it is clear that you don't have a clue about evolution. How are you measuring superiority or complexity in wolves vs chihuahuas? If you can't answer that, then you should consider whether it is appropriate to use that kind of language.

 

[James R]

In my opinion...

If God created us then it would follow that He would also know what is best for us, since He designed us.

I don't think that necessarily follows, unless you bring in concepts like omniscience.

And because He loves us, He tells us what the best way to live is.

How does he tell us?

 

[SetiAlpha6]

You have just inadvertently made your claims above about God and love to be invalid.

No, I disagree.

Even though extensive testing from various institutions shows with 95% accuracy the shroud dates back to somewhere between the 13-14 century?

Right!

I regard those results as being accurate for the samples that were tested. But not accurate for dating the rest of the artifact.

Unfortunately, the samples tested were all taken from the same place near the edge of the Shroud of Turin.

And it was later determined that this area had been carefully repaired with newer threads.

There are ancient paintings depicting the Shroud being held up for public display, hanging specifically by that edge, which would of course become damaged over the centuries from repeated use.

The samples were analyzed carefully after the initial testing was done, I think up to 2005, and it was discovered that newer repair threads had very clearly been interweaved in with the original threads. This caused the later date for that specific area of the Shroud to occur.

Ray Rodgers, Director of Chemical Research for the 1978 Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP) acknowledged the finding.

Just do a search on Wikipedia for the name...

Raymond Rogers

... and drop down to the Shroud of Turin section.

It is all written right there for everyone to see.

Perhaps the source you found should be updated.

The Shroud of Turin is real evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ in space and time, in my opinion.

Review the following resource for yourself, if you wish...
https://www.shroud.com/

 

[(Q)]

No, I disagree.



Right!

I regard those results as being accurate for the samples that were tested. But not accurate for dating the rest of the artifact.

Unfortunately, the samples tested were all taken from the same place near the edge of the Shroud of Turin.

And it was later determined that this area had been carefully repaired with newer threads.

There are ancient paintings depicting the Shroud being held up for public display, hanging specifically by that edge, which would of course become damaged over the centuries from repeated use.

The samples were analyzed carefully after the initial testing was done, I think up to 2005, and it was discovered that newer repair threads had very clearly been interweaved in with the original threads. This caused the later date for that specific area of the Shroud to occur.

Ray Rodgers, Director of Chemical Research for the 1978 Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP) acknowledged the finding.

Just do a search on Wikipedia for the name...

Raymond Rogers

... and drop down to the Shroud of Turin section.

It is all written right there for everyone to see.

Perhaps the source you found should be updated.

The Shroud of Turin is real evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ in space and time, in my opinion.

Review the following resource for yourself, if you wish...
https://www.shroud.com/

Sorry, but the patches from the repaired area are very obvious. The textile experts from three different world class institutions who studied that cloth knew that only too well, please don't insult their intelligence by assuming they didn't know.

 

[SetiAlpha6]

Sorry, but the patches from the repaired area are very obvious. The textile experts from three different world class institutions who studied that cloth knew that only too well, please don't insult their intelligence by assuming they didn't know.

Right!

The repairs from the fire damage were clearly seen and avoided at the time of the original testing. I never said otherwise.

As for the actual tested areas, your disagreement is with Ray Rogers, head scientist in that discipline.

You are completely free to disagree with him if you wish to, though I do not understand on what basis, you could do so?

As for me, I am just going to agree with his assessment, and I will leave it at that.

And I wish you well!

 

[(Q)]

Right!

The repairs from the fire damage were clearly seen and avoided at the time of the original testing. I never said otherwise.

As for the actual tested areas, your disagreement is with Ray Rogers, head scientist in that discipline.

You are completely free to disagree with him if you wish to, though I do not understand on what basis, you could do so?

As for me, I am just going to agree with his assessment, and I will leave it at that.

And I wish you well!

No, it is you who is making the claim here on this forum, not Ray Rogers. And, you are agreeing with his assessment not because you understand the science, but like all your other posts, you agree with him because of your religious agenda here. You agree with anything and everything that somehow points to the existence of God, no matter how ridiculous or absurd. That's why you insult those textile experts.

 

[paddoboy]

From where I stand/sit/lay, it makes far more sense and logic, that speculatively speaking, our universe did evolve from nothing, [nothing being quantum foam] rather then imagine/accept that some all mighty, all powerful, omnipotent, infinite IDer, just happened to decide to clap his hands and voila!!!
The greatest educator of our time [imo of course] simply put it this way.......

 

[Quantum Quack]

I would like to know how the evidence of Earths age or the Suns age can be so easily dismissed?
Did God just sit around for billions of years before creating man about 10,000 years ago?
Also when did God transform the Earth for being Flat and made it into a spherical shape?

 

[SetiAlpha6]

I would like to know how the evidence of Earths age or the Suns age can be so easily dismissed?
Did God just sit around for billions of years before creating man about 10,000 years ago?
Also when did God transform the Earth for being Flat and made it into a spherical shape?

I don’t think that the Earth was ever Flat.

The Bible uses the word “circle” to describe the same thing you and I would see looking 360 degrees around the horizon from the peak of the Mountain of God today.

Such a view is literally a Circle.

It is a perspective.

 

[davewhite04]

.

The Wolf ancestors had genetic code which had the ability to create every dog we currently have today by switching genes on and off, by eventual gene deletion, and even by harmful gene mutation. No new genes had to be created to make dogs, they were created by a loss or corruption of the original genetic code of the Wolf.

Pretty eloquent.

The progression goes downhill, not up, starting from a higher sophistication in genetic code in exchange for a wider distribution, but with each having less sophisticated code individually.

Dogs can be pretty intelligent(my ted is genius level for a dog, Alfie is a bit thick I must admit) and are very cute. Makes you wonder if it wasn't planned this way via evolution.

 

[davewhite04]

Also when did God transform the Earth for being Flat and made it into a spherical shape?

He hasn't. It's just there's a lot of fake space pictures out there. What do you see when you look up?

 

[davewhite04]

No. Dogs were created by certain genes becoming more prevalent in some populations, due to selection pressures, not the least of which was the interaction of wolves with human beings.

You think you know everything don't you? You speak with an arrogance, in this case pure theory, the same as Set. Set's idea is much more likely. How can you test yours? Go for it, you are saying it's a fact.

 

[(Q)]

I don’t think that the Earth was ever Flat.

The Bible uses the word “circle” to describe the same thing you and I would see looking 360 degrees around the horizon from the peak of the Mountain of God today.

Such a view is literally a Circle.

It is a perspective.

The Bible has at least a dozen or so verses that refer to the Earth being potentially flat.

 

[paddoboy]

From where I stand/sit/lay, it makes far more sense and logic, that speculatively speaking, our universe did evolve from nothing, [nothing being quantum foam] rather then imagine/accept that some all mighty, all powerful, omnipotent, infinite IDer, just happened to decide to clap his hands and voila!!!
The greatest educator of our time [imo of course] simply put it this way.......

Adding to what Carl Sagan says, and that which most IDers happen to ignore, is that the Catholic Church have recognised both the BB and the theory of Evolution, as the evidence is so strong. In fact while a scientific theory always remains open for change, modification, the theory of the evolution of life is actually certain.
What science now needs to concentrate on is the question of Abiogenesis or how life started and the associated evidence for such...perhaps Panspermia? But that will only answer life on Earth....the final goal is the beginning of Abiogenesis, speaking universally.