Did Science (and Mr. Rogers) Prove God?

[Thermos aquaticus]

If we somehow produced a human from completely new DNA and threw them in with the population, how would it be apparent in their offspring?

It would be apparent by the lack of sequence similarity and phylogenetic signal when comparing their genomes to the genomes of other species.

 

[Etritonakin]

It is inefficient for humans to start from scratch because we have limited knowledge, limited resources, and limited time. For a being with unlimited knowledge, time, and resources it would be just as easy to start from scratch as it would be to re-use stuff. What you seem to be doing is projecting human limitations onto God.



The process would be exactly the same whether God started it or not which makes God irrelevant to the question of how the process occurs.



I have read the Bible and I am unaware of any reference to God re-using DNA to create humans.

I think the assumption that God did/does not "learn" or develop (or that a God would not) is unnecessary, illogical and it is also not even biblical.

If God arose from the most fundamental things -being the sum thereof -becoming what he now is -Alpha and Omega, as it were -he would be all-knowing, all-powerful, etc. by having been every state (perhaps requiring a slight bit of reverse engineering of himself in the very early stages before extreme complexity).
In other words, in order to be the "most high",'he would have had to have once been the most simple.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

I think the assumption that God did/does not "learn" or develop (or that a God would not) is unnecessary, illogical and it is also not even biblical.

The assumption you are using is that God forgets what he has designed, which seems even worse. If God is designing a new species why would God forget all of the other stuff that he has already made? Why would God have to start with a single genome and not mix and match parts from a lot of other genomes?

If God arose from the most fundamental things -being the sum thereof -becoming what he now is -Alpha and Omega, as it were -he would be all-knowing, all-powerful, etc. by having been every state (perhaps requiring a slight bit of reverse engineering of himself in the very early stages before extreme complexity).
In other words, in order to be the "most high",'he would have had to have once been the most simple.

Then why would God need to re-use a single design when God already knows of a near infinite number of alternatives?

 

[Etritonakin]

Can you make your "in short" shorter?

I'm not very good at that. Hmmmmmmmm.

Busy, but will try later.

 

[Etritonakin]

The assumption you are using is that God forgets what he has designed, which seems even worse. If God is designing a new species why would God forget all of the other stuff that he has already made? Why would God have to start with a single genome and not mix and match parts from a lot of other genomes?



Then why would God need to re-use a single design when God already knows of a near infinite number of alternatives?

I did not mean God would have to collect material for that record -certainly a God capable of producing a universe would do some record-keeping.

Why would God know of an infinite number of specific possible alternative species before he created them -and why would he want to? Doing all the possible "math" would be pointless, boring and not leave time for actual creation. Knowing enough is enough.
Producing that which would in turn produce things which were a surprise to God would be more of a goal than predicting all possible arrangements -provided enough was known to be certain those surprises were manageable.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Why would God know of an infinite number of specific possible alternative species before he created them -and why would he want to?

I was going by what you said:

"If God arose from the most fundamental things -being the sum thereof -becoming what he now is -Alpha and Omega, as it were -he would be all-knowing, all-powerful, etc."

Doing all the possible "math" would be pointless, boring and not leave time for actual creation.

In order to make his new creations look like they evolved God would have to do tons of math anyway, so that isn't a very good excuse anyway. God would have to calculate the proper Ka/Ks ratios for coding DNA. God would have to calculate the proper ERV LTR divergences. God would have to calculate the proper divergence between introns and exons. God would also have to make sure that any mutations he creates are not found in other closely related species to make it look like they evolved. This is a lot of extra work for no functional reason.

On top of that, God would have to do all the work of making sure non-synonymous mutations were at least neutral. That's a lot of work over 30,000 genes or so.

Producing that which would in turn produce things which were a surprise to God would be more of a goal than predicting all possible arrangements -provided enough was known to be certain those surprises were manageable.

Out of all the nearly infinite possible sequences for genomes, why would God pick the sets of sequences that evolution would produce?

"So, how well do phylogenetic trees from morphological studies match the trees made from independent molecular studies? There are over 10^38 different possible ways to arrange the 30 major taxa represented in Figure 1 into a phylogenetic tree (see Table 1.3.1; Felsenstein 1982; Li 1997, p. 102). In spite of these odds, the relationships given in Figure 1, as determined from morphological characters, are completely congruent with the relationships determined independently from cytochrome c molecular studies . . ."
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1

That's a 1 with 38 zeros after it. That's the number of possible trees that God could have produced. So why pick the one tree out of those nearly infinite number of trees that evolution would produce?

 

[Etritonakin]

I was going by what you said:

"If God arose from the most fundamental things -being the sum thereof -becoming what he now is -Alpha and Omega, as it were -he would be all-knowing, all-powerful, etc."



In order to make his new creations look like they evolved God would have to do tons of math anyway, so that isn't a very good excuse anyway. God would have to calculate the proper Ka/Ks ratios for coding DNA. God would have to calculate the proper ERV LTR divergences. God would have to calculate the proper divergence between introns and exons. God would also have to make sure that any mutations he creates are not found in other closely related species to make it look like they evolved. This is a lot of extra work for no functional reason.

On top of that, God would have to do all the work of making sure non-synonymous mutations were at least neutral. That's a lot of work over 30,000 genes or so.



Out of all the nearly infinite possible sequences for genomes, why would God pick the sets of sequences that evolution would produce?

"So, how well do phylogenetic trees from morphological studies match the trees made from independent molecular studies? There are over 10^38 different possible ways to arrange the 30 major taxa represented in Figure 1 into a phylogenetic tree (see Table 1.3.1; Felsenstein 1982; Li 1997, p. 102). In spite of these odds, the relationships given in Figure 1, as determined from morphological characters, are completely congruent with the relationships determined independently from cytochrome c molecular studies . . ."
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1

That's a 1 with 38 zeros after it. That's the number of possible trees that God could have produced. So why pick the one tree out of those nearly infinite number of trees that evolution would produce?

I think we started talking about different stuff.

However, all-knowing is dependent upon that which exists to be known at any point -or will result generally from any present state. It need not mean knowing every possible thing that could ever happen before it happens.

Off the subject a bit...
(When only one is making decisions, there is not as much to consider.
Granting decision-making power to others compounds possibilities -but only inasmuch as their decisions are able affect the whole -so it would be wise, for example, to limit the power of new beings until certain they would not adversely affect the whole in an unmanageable way -such as keeping them on earth until they learned not to destroy themselves and their environment.)

 

[Etritonakin]

Can you make your "in short" shorter?

I am actually still trying to figure out how to say what I am thinking, but.... Here goes....

Nature always acts according to certain laws when creating new arrangements.
The basic laws cannot change, but new arrangements can change how those laws apply -or create new laws which can change based on those which cannot change -similar to how electronic circuits do different things by doing the same things in different ways.

In order to creatively change what nature would or could otherwise do, nature is mirrored in our imagination, we imagine changes and then apply them to alter the course or configuration of nature.

In the absence of that ability, certain things are not possible in nature, but nature would have had to lead to that ability.

In other words, nature produces that which is not only subject to itself, but is able to make nature subject.

I will stop now while it is kinda short.

 

[Audie]

I am actually still trying to figure out how to say what I am thinking, but.... Here goes....

Nature always acts according to certain laws when creating new arrangements.
The basic laws cannot change, but new arrangements can change how those laws apply -or create new laws which can change based on those which cannot change -similar to how electronic circuits do different things by doing the same things in different ways.

In order to creatively change what nature would or could otherwise do, nature is mirrored in our imagination, we imagine changes and then apply them to alter the course or configuration of nature.

In the absence of that ability, certain things are not possible in nature, but nature would have had to lead to that ability.

In other words, nature produces that which is not only subject to itself, but is able to make nature subject.

I will stop now while it is kinda short.

So, you mean that patterns and designs may occur
"naturally", or thro; the action of various organisms.

Is there any more to it than that?


Oh, "create new laws"? Cant do that.

 

[Etritonakin]

So, you mean that patterns and designs may occur
"naturally", or thro; the action of various organisms.

Is there any more to it than that?


Oh, "create new laws"? Cant do that.

Some things cannot occur without creativity.
They COULD potentially occur -which is how creativity is able to cause them by decision, once the ability of conscious decision exists -but they otherwise WOULD not.

Yes, you can create new laws -but it depends what you mean by laws.

Perhaps it is better described as case law.
New case, new applicable law -but based on unchanging law.
On a most basic level (which we actually do not yet fully understand -or do not realize we do) NOTHING NEW CAN EVER BE CREATED. Yet.... New things are created constantly.

We sometimes view what is impossible and possible from the perspective of our own abilities, rather than what is literally possible or impossible. If WE cannot change something, we tend to view it as unchangeable -when, in fact, it can change.

What humans see as "natural" laws once did not apply -even though the most basic laws which allowed for them to be written by new arrangement always apply (perhaps not the best example, but in a rush..... It is similar to how a computer program is written based on the basic properties of on and off states -ones and zeroes -but the program does not apply until written -and once written, must be dealt with according to itself -the newly created properties rather than the most basic properties.)

 

[Audie]

Some things cannot occur without creativity.
They COULD potentially occur -which is how creativity is able to cause them by decision, once the ability of conscious decision exists -but they otherwise WOULD not.

Yes, you can create new laws -but it depends what you mean by laws.

Perhaps it is better described as case law.
New case, new applicable law -but based on unchanging law.
On a most basic level (which we actually do not yet fully understand -or do not realize we do) NOTHING NEW CAN EVER BE CREATED. Yet.... New things are created constantly.

We sometimes view what is impossible and possible from the perspective of our own abilities, rather than what is literally possible or impossible. If WE cannot change something, we tend to view it as unchangeable -when, in fact, it can change.

What humans see as "natural" laws once did not apply -even though the most basic laws which allowed for them to be written by new arrangement always apply (perhaps not the best example, but in a rush..... It is similar to how a computer program is written based on the basic properties of on and off states -ones and zeroes -but the program does not apply until written -and once written, must be dealt with according to itself -the newly created properties rather than the most basic properties.)

Creativity-covered under the action of various organisms. You are just giving news of the tautological.

Legislatures pass laws. More news of the tautological.

NOTHING NEW CAN EVER BE CREATED. Yet.... New things are created constantly.

Some sort of paradox based on equivocation?

We sometimes view what is impossible and possible from the perspective of our own abilities, rather than what is literally possible or impossible. If WE cannot change something, we tend to view it as unchangeable -when, in fact, it can change.

Ok, that is your opinion, hardly a universal principle
I think the opposite is rather more common. Observe the weather, say. We age and die. totally out of control
Command not the ocean, for lo, it heedeth not.

I dont see how you added a thing to my version.

 

[Etritonakin]

Creativity-covered under the action of various organisms. You are just giving news of the tautological.

Legislatures pass laws. More news of the tautological.

NOTHING NEW CAN EVER BE CREATED. Yet.... New things are created constantly.

Some sort of paradox based on equivocation?

We sometimes view what is impossible and possible from the perspective of our own abilities, rather than what is literally possible or impossible. If WE cannot change something, we tend to view it as unchangeable -when, in fact, it can change.

Ok, that is your opinion, hardly a universal principle
I think the opposite is rather more common. Observe the weather, say. We age and die. totally out of control
Command not the ocean, for lo, it heedeth not.

I dont see how you added a thing to my version.

Perhaps I do not understand your basic point or version.

That which came into existence BY change obviously CAN change -and that is most certainly a universal principle.

WE are able to change only some things due to our limited knowledge and interface -we have become able to change more by increasing knowledge and ability to interface -and knowledge of all coupled with the ability to interface with all at any level is not -in and of itself -an impossibility.

(Command not the DNA? The electron? Split not the atom? Command not the ocean until you learn how and are made able.)

 

[Audie]

Perhaps I do not understand your basic point or version.

That which came into existence BY change obviously CAN change -and that is most certainly a universal principle.

WE are able to change only some things due to our limited knowledge and interface -we have become able to change more by increasing knowledge and ability to interface -and knowledge of all coupled with the ability to interface with all at any level is not -in and of itself -an impossibility.

Point one is as I said, simply news of the well known.

Number two there is also kinda obvious and, why
even talk about it?

Tho you lost me with that thing about impossibility.

But you are getting way better with the plain talk!

 

[Etritonakin]

Point one is as I said, simply news of the well known.

Number two there is also kinda obvious and, why
even talk about it?

Tho you lost me with that thing about impossibility.

But you are getting way better with the plain talk!

To be completely honest.... I do not know what you are trying to say.

Is there something I am saying -or you believe I am saying -with which you disagree?

 

[Audie]

To be completely honest.... I do not know what you are trying to say.

Is there something I am saying -or you believe I am saying -with which you disagree?

I is sayin' that you used a whole lot of words in complex structures to overstate the obvious.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

In the absence of that ability, certain things are not possible in nature, but nature would have had to lead to that ability.

What are those "certain things", and what evidence led to that conclusion?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Perhaps I do not understand your basic point or version.

That which came into existence BY change obviously CAN change -and that is most certainly a universal principle.

WE are able to change only some things due to our limited knowledge and interface -we have become able to change more by increasing knowledge and ability to interface -and knowledge of all coupled with the ability to interface with all at any level is not -in and of itself -an impossibility.

(Command not the DNA? The electron? Split not the atom? Command not the ocean until you learn how and are made able.)

Genomes naturally mutate on their own due to known natural laws. Natural selection is completely natural and doesn't require any intelligence that I am aware of. Where exactly do you see a role of intelligence in the process of evolution?

 

[Etritonakin]

Precisely -just as understanding how the most simple can be or is now arranged into the complex can give power over it.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Hate to interupt but hoping this comes to a good discussion

We are. That's pretty positive evidence to me.

How are we evidence?

We exist. There are many of us. We communicate. We seem to breed. We ALL

Trull. This sounds like a conclusion you've made that helps you make sense of the world around you. We all do that. With evidence, it is universal-something we can all study, understand, and used to proove or disproove a said argument.

We exist doesnt cut it. We exists because of our parents. We exist because of life giving chemicals and accidents that sustains life. We exist because the earth is in a good spot to sustain life. We exist just because. How do you connect that conclusion to a specific creator?

There are many of us just means we had more babies. Increase in population doesnt proove god,....if it does, go deeper. How so?

Communication is a given. Something we do, all living, regardless. Its how we survive. What about this can you describe that when I think of communication (many people and our existence) means there Is a god rather than assuming their is one because it helps -me- understand life and the conlusions I came up with that helps me?

We breed is the same. We ALL???

Our existence, how,when,why, and who doesnt prove a creator. If it does, go deeper. How so?

 

[Audie]

What are those "certain things", and what evidence led to that conclusion?

The Lexus RX probably is a example of a certain thing that is possible, but only with intelligent design.

I think the whole things is too obvious to be worth saying.