Where did the laws of nature come from?

[The Cadet]

I agree and havnt been proposing any answers. My main point has been that we dont really know and that some of the ideas we see from scientists are out there as much as what some may claim about God or in metaphysics. Part of the issue is that we are now having to include the effects of the quantum world and most of the ideas are theoretical ones trying to unite quantum physics with relativity. But I have only said that why cant we include a God or ID as a hypothesis because it can answer some of the issues just as good as anything.

Simple question. What would hypothetically prove the non-existence of God? What would show that the world is not designed? You offered some answers to that second one, but they fell flat, as it would be trivial to intelligently design a world without such qualities.

If there is no way the hypothesis could in theory be falsified, then there is functionally no difference between a universe where the hypothesis is true and one where the hypothesis is false. It is a useless hypothesis. Fundamentally, every supernatural explanation falls prey to these problems. There's no way to tell whether it's true or false; there's no way to distinguish a natural cause from a supernatural cause (did the aspirin cure my headache, or was it just a coincidence and the headache fairy actually did it?); there's no way to distinguish which supernatural cause is responsible... These problems are yet to be resolved, and until they can be resolved, there's simply no way to fit the supernatural into scientific inquiry, or rational inquiry in general.

It may not be verified completely and is based on indirect evidence but to an extent neither is some of the ideas that science has been coming up with lately.

And yet, if I were to ask for the falsification criteria for those theories, they could explain quite clearly what those are why they would falsify the theory. Otherwise, they wouldn't be real scientific theories and could safely be discarded.

I havnt tried to say that anyway. I am suggesting that God and/or ID or design in nature can be another idea that has some merit in describing what we see. As far as proving this well that can be a work in progress. Some predictions have been made which stand up and there are many papers out there to support design in nature beyond chance. But because its not completely verified doesn't mean it should be thrown out.

See, here's the problem. Sure, ID has made some predictions that have panned out. However, if the hypothesis is unfalsifiable, it is impossible to make a prediction that doesn't. Which makes it fairly trivial to make successful predictions based on it.

Like I said there are some papers out there and other supports that can show that there is design in life and existence.

Right, and these papers have found exactly no purchase within the scientific community. They are typically treated not as real scientific treatises, but rather as jokes, to the point where the discovery institute had to start its own journals, because they couldn't get into real peer-reviewed journals any more. The evidence is unimpressive and amounts, really, to just so much sophistry. It's ironic that you hold these papers up, and then later complain about bad science in peer review.

This idea that science is just after the truth is a bit out of date now. There are a lot of other things influencing it like funding and personal recognition ect.

"It's a conspiracy!"

Unfortunately, this doesn't help your case.

 

[stevevw]

Simple question. What would hypothetically prove the non-existence of God? What would show that the world is not designed? You offered some answers to that second one, but they fell flat, as it would be trivial to intelligently design a world without such qualities

What hypothesis did I post that has fallen flat. There are ample support for design in nature and existence including many papers on the subject. What would prove God doesn't exist is like trying to prove that a naturalistic process didn't create life. If a naturalistic method can be verified that created life from non life without the need for God or some sort of intelligent agent then I guess that would go a long way to disproving that life needed a God. So the scientific method is in a similar position. They can describe all the events they like about life but it doesn't tell us or verify how it happened.

If there is no way the hypothesis could in theory be falsified, then there is functionally no difference between a universe where the hypothesis is true and one where the hypothesis is false. It is a useless hypothesis. Fundamentally, every supernatural explanation falls prey to these problems. There's no way to tell whether it's true or false; there's no way to distinguish a natural cause from a supernatural cause (did the aspirin cure my headache, or was it just a coincidence and the headache fairy actually did it?); there's no way to distinguish which supernatural cause is responsible... These problems are yet to be resolved, and until they can be resolved, there's simply no way to fit the supernatural into scientific inquiry, or rational inquiry in general

Yes that is why more science is going into investigating events outside the scientific parameters. People have made claims for a long time and now the support is backing it. More scientists are looking into the things that seem to have some effect on things that science calls supernatural. Whether they are supernatural or because of some other reason time will tell. But even main stream science is starting to step into this realm a bit. But they will call it something else like the theoretical ideas of quantum physics or thought experiments.

When you consider some of the ideas that science has come up with to explain what the observe and to explain things that they find hard to answer they seem to be stepping into the realm of something that cant be verified or proven false as well. If you take string theory which has been around for some time. It has developed over time and has been added to with new aspects all the time. Its like it morphs into what is needed to deal with almost anything that is difficult to deal with when it comes to the universe. So this is very hard to disprove and harder to prove and never will be verified. It seems there are more ideas in this realm lately because thats where we are at. Quantum physics has taken us to a world where there seems to be many possibilities.

And yet, if I were to ask for the falsification criteria for those theories, they could explain quite clearly what those are why they would falsify the theory. Otherwise, they wouldn't be real scientific theories and could safely be discarded.

If your talking about science then when it comes to ideas like multiverses and even the big bang which is a popular theory or the inflation theory, black holes, hologram worlds, time travel, worm holes ect the science says they are possible according to the calculations and in some cases they need them to be true because the alternative is to be wrong in a big way with other things they have already stated are verified. These things are not verified and are only predicted. But like the big bang theory it best fits what needs to be there to fit the theory. But there are some big issues with these theories that havnt been sorted which more or less would render them false. Inflation for example has not been verified but is needed to deal with some difficult conclusions which would even make design look good.

As I mentioned before it is very hard to verify these ideas according to the criteria for scientific falsification. It is more than likely that they never will be verified because they cannot be directly tested just like the God hypothesis. Now some scientists want to lower the falsification criteria because its to hard to prove their ideas and they know it. So whats the difference between support for design in nature and support for some of the ideas that scientists have come up with for what they see in the quantum world or theories for the universe for example.
Scientific method: Defend the integrity of physics
This year, debates in physics circles took a worrying turn. Faced with difficulties in applying fundamental theories to the observed Universe, some researchers called for a change in how theoretical physics is done. They began to argue — explicitly — that if a theory is sufficiently elegant and explanatory, it need not be tested experimentally,
http://www.nature.com/news/scientific-method-defend-the-integrity-of-physics-1.16535
Science Will Never Explain Why There's Something Rather Than Nothing
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...ain-why-theres-something-rather-than-nothing/

See, here's the problem. Sure, ID has made some predictions that have panned out. However, if the hypothesis is unfalsifiable, it is impossible to make a prediction that doesn't. Which makes it fairly trivial to make successful predictions based on it

I think the design question can be verified a lot. Its the verification of the designer that is the hard part. So that is why some are looking into the design of life and existence. ID states it has nothing to do with religion and is purely a science. But maybe design can not be completely verified to distinguish it from what may appear designed in natural processes. This is where a lot of research needs to be done to show the differences. This is where a lot of research is coming from engineering. There are many papers on this subject some of which I have posted in the past and on this thread from memory.

Right, and these papers have found exactly no purchase within the scientific community. They are typically treated not as real scientific treatises, but rather as jokes, to the point where the discovery institute had to start its own journals, because they couldn't get into real peer-reviewed journals any more. The evidence is unimpressive and amounts, really, to just so much sophistry. It's ironic that you hold these papers up, and then later complain about bad science in peer review

What they are from the scientific community. They are done within scientific departments of universities. They are posted by proper scientific journals.

"It's a conspiracy!"

Unfortunately, this doesn't help your case.

But it shows that just because something has a scientific label on it doesn't mean it is the truth or that it has discovered how something came about.
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
The Coherence Of An Engineered World
http://www.witpress.com/elibrary/wit-transactions-on-ecology-and-the-environment/114/19279
The Capabilities of Chaos and Complexity
Chaos and complexity can produce some fascinating self-ordered phenomena. But can spontaneous chaos and complexity steer events and processes toward pragmatic benefit, select function over non function, optimize algorithms, integrate circuits, produce computational halting, organize processes into formal systems, control and regulate existing systems toward greater efficiency?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2662469/

 

[KCfromNC]

What hypothesis did I post that has fallen flat. There are ample support for design in nature and existence including many papers on the subject.

Really? The leaders of the creationism/intelligent design movement disagree with you. Or at least they did when they were under oath and there were actual penalties for telling lies. Why is that?

 

[The Cadet]

What hypothesis did I post that has fallen flat. There are ample support for design in nature and existence including many papers on the subject.

And you are still missing the point.

Is god falsifiable? Is there some hypothetical event that would prove that god does not exist?
Is intelligent design falsifiable? Is there some hypothetical event that would prove that intelligent design did not happen?

If not, these hypotheses are useless, and have nothing to do with science.

So the scientific method is in a similar position. They can describe all the events they like about life but it doesn't tell us or verify how it happened.

You're right. It could be that when I take an aspirin, the pill itself is not what helps. Rather, there is a supernatural being that controls when we get headaches, and is appeased by aspirin. If that sounds like utter nonsense to you, maybe you can follow my train of thought. The scientific method does not assume the existence of the supernatural. It works with the natural, because that is what we know exists. Could we prove that the natural was not responsible for any given thing? No. But that question is quite simply outside the scope of what science can handle. If you ask that question, you've fundamentally misunderstood something about science.

I think the design question can be verified a lot.

Then you don't understand what "unfalsifiable" means.

 

[stevevw]

And you are still missing the point

[/quote]Is god falsifiable? Is there some hypothetical event that would prove that god does not exist?
Is intelligent design falsifiable? Is there some hypothetical event that would prove that intelligent design did not happen?

If not, these hypotheses are useless, and have nothing to do with science[/quote] Yeah the hypothetical event would be if evolution was proven true. Many evolutionists would claim that evolution is true. That life came from a naturalistic source that didn't need a intelligent creator or God. So if that the case and evolution is proven to be true wouldn't that falsify God. is the falsification that you need to prove that ID if false according to evolutionists. But the problem is that the evolution can falsify ID and God and God can falsify evolution. So its a catch 22 situation.

Darwin's theory is this: all natural biological complexity arose by the mechanism of random non-teleological heritable variation and non-teleological natural selection. Intelligent design theory is this: some aspects of natural biological complexity show evidence of teleology. By teleology, I mean purpose, intelligent agency -- design. It is on the question of evidence for intelligent design in biology that the ID-Darwinism debate turns.

Thus ID and Darwinism are merely two opposite conclusions drawn from the same question: is there teleology in biology? If there is, ID is true. If there isn't, Darwinism is true. The falsification of intelligent design is Darwinism. The falsification of Darwinism is intelligent design. Either biology shows evidence of intelligent agency, or it doesn't. Either intelligent design and Darwinism are both science, or neither is science. If you can't test the hypothesis of intelligent agency in biology, then you can't test Darwinism, and Darwinism is immune from evidence and must simply be accepted on faith.
Darwinism is intelligent design's doppelganger.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/04/is_intelligent_design_falsifia005061.html

You're right. It could be that when I take an aspirin, the pill itself is not what helps. Rather, there is a supernatural being that controls when we get headaches, and is appeased by aspirin. If that sounds like utter nonsense to you, maybe you can follow my train of thought. The scientific method does not assume the existence of the supernatural. It works with the natural, because that is what we know exists. Could we prove that the natural was not responsible for any given thing? No. But that question is quite simply outside the scope of what science can handle. If you ask that question, you've fundamentally misunderstood something about science.

There can be certain aspects of ID in nature that can be scientifically tested and falsified. IE
Predictions of Design (Hypothesis):
(1) High information content machine-like irreducibly complex structures will be found.
(2) Forms will be found in the fossil record that appear suddenly and without any precursors.
(3) Genes and functional parts will be re-used in different unrelated organisms.
(4) The genetic code will NOT contain much discarded genetic baggage code or functionless "junk DNA".
http://www.ideacenter.org/content1156.html

But there is also aspects of science that is moving into areas that make theoretical and philosophical ideas and experiments for testing. This area is dealing with the mind and possible effects in the material world. So this area is hard to prove with conventional science as well. The mind seems to be able to have an effect on peoples bodies such as switching off pain sensors. There is some evidence for the mind affecting the material world. Some scientists say that according to quantum physics it is our consciousness that controls reality. This area is fairly new and still has to be research. But how do we know what we use to call mind over matter, coincidence, intuition, sixth sense ect isnt some part of our minds that can effect our reality.

Then you don't understand what "unfalsifiable" means.

fair enough.

 

[stevevw]

Really? The leaders of the creationism/intelligent design movement disagree with you. Or at least they did when they were under oath and there were actual penalties for telling lies. Why is that?

Things have moved on and changed a lot sinse then. But even Behe disagreed with the findings of the court case. Much of that has now been refuted and shown to be wrong from what they claimed about ID. Plus there is a lot more evidence now that can be drawn upon. There is also more evidence to show that Darwinian evolution from random mutations and natural selection doesn't have much support. Tests show that it is hard to evolve new functions that are fit that need multi mutations. So it isn't just about finding evidence for design in nature. It is also showing that a naturalistic process cannot account for the level of design in nature.

 

[KCfromNC]

Things have moved on and changed a lot sinse then. But even Behe disagreed with the findings of the court case. Much of that has now been refuted and shown to be wrong from what they claimed about ID.

You should try to be more vague. That'll make your case seem even more convincing.

Plus there is a lot more evidence now that can be drawn upon.

Yep. The tough part forcreationists is that all the evidence seems to be consistent with the modern theory of evolution. ID still isn't taken seriously by anyone who studies this evidence.

There is also more evidence to show that Darwinian evolution from random mutations and natural selection doesn't have much support.

Even if this were true, it does nothing to turn creationism into a viable scientific theory.

 

[The Cadet]

Darwin's theory is this: all natural biological complexity arose by the mechanism of random non-teleological heritable variation and non-teleological natural selection.

No, actually, looking over Darwin's work you will find no such claims to a necessarily non-teleological nature. Evolution News and Views seems to be crafting a strawman both of what the intelligent design movement proposes (it ain't theistic evolution) and what evolution actually is.

The modern theory rejects claims of teleology because there's no evidence for such claims, and no well-established way to detect "design". But it is by no means a core element of the theory. Whether these decisions are "guided" by some outside intelligence or not is about as relevant to the theory of evolution as whether or not aspirin is merely an offering to the headache fairy is relevant to the modern medical evidence behind Aspirin.

Thus ID and Darwinism are merely two opposite conclusions drawn from the same question: is there teleology in biology? If there is, ID is true. If there isn't, Darwinism is true. The falsification of intelligent design is Darwinism. The falsification of Darwinism is intelligent design. Either biology shows evidence of intelligent agency, or it doesn't. Either intelligent design and Darwinism are both science, or neither is science. If you can't test the hypothesis of intelligent agency in biology, then you can't test Darwinism, and Darwinism is immune from evidence and must simply be accepted on faith.

Evolution News and Views can always be counted on to provide a completely inaccurate picture of the science.

You want some things that will refute the modern theory of evolution in whole or in large part?

• Finding some hard limit on natural genetic variation that prevents speciation
• Finding fossil bunnies in cambrian rock layers
• A dog giving birth to a cat
• Finding a crocoduck

None of these have anything to do with intelligent design. You don't prove a theory wrong by proving another theory right, because that's not how science works. You cannot prove a theory right, you can only support it and have it not be proven wrong. A theory must be disprovable by observations.

Predictions of Design (Hypothesis):
(1) High information content machine-like irreducibly complex structures will be found.
(2) Forms will be found in the fossil record that appear suddenly and without any precursors.
(3) Genes and functional parts will be re-used in different unrelated organisms.
(4) The genetic code will NOT contain much discarded genetic baggage code or functionless "junk DNA".
http://www.ideacenter.org/content1156.html

Except that we've been over this already, and none of this would disprove design. It'd be trivial for an all-power designer to design a being with junk DNA, to design a series of beings that appear to be precursors to other species, to design every species completely differently, or to design things without irriducible complexity. None of this would actually falsify the hypothesis.

Some scientists say that according to quantum physics it is our consciousness that controls reality.

I've mostly avoided talking about the parts of your responses that deal with theoretical physics for a few reasons:

• I know very little about the field
• I've heard that there's some rather problematic things going on, and a lot of scientists are disappointed in them, so I'm not about to say that there's nothing there
• Bad science in one field does not somehow excuse bad science in another, so it's not really helping your case anyways

Despite that, I feel the need to chime in here and say, no, our consciousness does not control reality. This is a complete misunderstanding of what "observer effect" actually means and implies, typically pushed by woo-peddlers who want us to believe that our consciousness is necessarily non-physical. There is nothing about it that demands the observer be conscious. And regardless of whether you've heard of the guy or accept his work, this is just good advice anyways: Deepak Chopra is not a quantum physicist. He's a walking joke.

 

[stevevw]

Took me a while to get back and reply. I don't have a ton of time at the moment, so I can't address everything though. One running error I see in many of these treatment, which you appear to have gotten caught by as well, is the difference between precision and magnitude. I was addressing the cosmological constant claim from both perspectives:
1. The precision to which the current observed values would appear to be turned is only an order of magnitude
2. The backward tracing which gets larger tuning requirements assumes no inflationary period. When factoring in the inflationary period, virtually any initial state tends towards what we observe.
3. Even if we were to conflate magnitude with precision, predicted values of the cosmological constant from different areas of physics disagree by a lot. experimental measurement seems to favor the small number, but we are not certain if we are really able to determine the full scope of it, so we can't rule out larger values. No worries, The math is well beyond me as well. I understand enough to get the gist of the results, but I am far from an expert on it. We both must rely on people who have significantly more training and experience in modern physics. Appreciated

I have read mostly that it is a small number and it would be very small. The inflationary aspect of the big bang was an added part to deal with some problems of the big bang such as the flatness and horizon problems. But inflation theory hasn't been verified and in fact maybe false. They havnt been able to find any signs of the waves that should be there if inflation of the early universe happened.
Big Disappointment: 'Cosmic Inflation' Theory is Wrong
http://www.cosmosup.com/big-disappointment-cosmic-inflation-theory-is-wrong/

Theories like this can fit the evidence well and help deal with some of the difficulties that come up in trying to find an explanation for how the universe developed. Inflation theory also predicts multiverse where the inflation doesn't stop and creates these bubble universes. This helps deal with our fine tuned universe as well as it means that there are our universe is just one of many. But how do you verify this. Its a great idea that deals with a lot of problems that were faced with our sole universe but at the moment thats all it is an idea.
Eternal Inflation
Guth and other cosmologists reasoned that inflation would almost inevitably beget an infinite number of universes. “Once inflation starts, it never stops completely,”
https://www.quantamagazine.org/20141103-in-a-multiverse-what-are-the-odds/
One of the problems with the big Bang and inflation
(10) If the open universe we see today is extrapolated back near the beginning, the ratio of the actual density of matter in the universe to the critical density must differ from unity by just a part in 10/59. Any larger deviation would result in a universe already collapsed on itself or already dissipated.

Inflation failed to achieve its goal when many observations went against it. To maintain consistency and salvage inflation, the Big Bang has now introduced two new adjustable parameters: (1) the cosmological constant, which has a major fine-tuning problem of its own because theory suggests it ought to be of order 10/120, and observations suggest a value less than 1; and (2) “quintessence” or “dark energy”. [[35],[36]] This latter theoretical substance solves the fine-tuning problem by introducing invisible, undetectable energy sprinkled at will as needed throughout the universe to keep consistency between theory and observations. It can therefore be accurately described as “the ultimate fudge factor”.
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp

Had to skip a bit to get to what you said is the most relevant link. Looking at the referenced section, there are three aspects:
1. The existence of the laws of nature. This one is unhelpful, as if we postulate what would happen if a law of nature didn't exist, we must likewise take into account that nonexistent laws must them be possible in such scenarios. Under such situations, life as it exists here might not exist, but we cannot even begin to consider what other forms of life could emerge in such drastically different universes which would be impossible in ours.

2. The fine tuning of the physical constants. (the most relevant one)

Fine tuning of gravity: He begins by comparing the strength of gravity to the strong force. This is not a tuning argument but a magnitude argument. Yes, if gravity was a billion time stronger than it is, earth would be uninhabitable (though other rocks might still be) but "can't be a billion times larger" is a FAR cry from "fine tuned"

I've got to stop there, but if you would like to point me to a specific case in either that paper or another in which tuning, rather than magnitude is addressed, I'll focus on that one when i get back.

Ok thanks for the reply. I find it hard going as I have to read and re read things as I am not trained in this field. Some of this goes over my head so I can appreciate the full context of what is being said. I have to rely on experts and try and find plain speaking commentary to help me understand. I do understand the basic concept but not the more technical detail.

But from what I do understand form the experts they keep saying that if something like the force of gravity was changed even a little it would have an effect on life. Some of the physical constants if changed wont be the end to life. But it seems some will. It is also the combinations of their effects on each other that can have the accumulated effect. Maybe there can be other universe with life as predicted be some theories but how do we prove this. All we can do is talk about our universe and measure this.

From the same paper
Of course, a billion fold increase in the strength of gravity is a lot, but compared with the total range of the strengths of the forces in nature (which span a range of 10/40),it is very small, being one part in 10 thousand, billion, billion, billion. Indeed, other calculations show that stars with lifetimes of more than a billion years, as compared with our Sun’s lifetime of 10 billion years, could not exist if gravity were increased by more than a factor of 3,000 (Collins 2003). This would significantly inhibit the occurrence of embodied moral agents.

This latter fine-tuning of the strength of gravity is typically expressed as the claim that the density of matter at the Plank time (the time at which we have any confidence in the theory of Big Bang dynamics) must have been tuned to one part in 10/60 of the so-called critical density (e.g. Davies 1982, p. 89). Since the critical density is inversely proportional to the strength of gravity (Davies 1982, p. 88, eqn. 4.15), the fine-tuning of the matter density can easily be shown to be equivalent to the aforementioned claim about the tuning of the strength of gravity. Of course, if one cites this fine-tuning of gravity, one cannot then treat the fine-tuning of the force of the Big Bang or matter density of the Big Bang as an independent fine-tuning.

 

[stevevw]

You should try to be more vague. That'll make your case seem even more convincing.

I didn't want to get into posting more evidence for this unless you wanted to challenge it.
Michael Behe Hasn't Been Refuted on the Flagellum
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/03/michael_behe_hasnt_been_refute044801.html
The main argument that irreducible complexity was refuted came from the example of the eubacterial flagellum which is a secretory system that was suppose to have arisen before the Flagellum and therefore used as a evolutionary stage to show how a stage for the Flagellum complexity. But the truth is since the trial is that they have found that this didn't come form the Flagellum and is a separate organism as it has over 30 different proteins that the Flagellum hasn't got. There is also a few other things that show it is impossible to be an earlier less evolved stage one of which would be fatal to the flagella.But more important they got irreducible complexity wrong. It doesn't say that another organism can have similar parts to each other. It says that if we take away certain parts of a complex machine it will not be able to operate properly. each organism is complex and an entity in itself. each has many components which need to be explained where they came from. Evolution hasn't even begun to explain this let alone prove it in tests.
Michael Behe's Critics Misunderstand Irreducible Complexity and Make Darwinian Evolution Unfalsifiable
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/03/michael_behes_critics_make_dar044511.html

Yep. The tough part of creationists is that all the evidence seems to be consistent with the modern theory of evolution. ID still isn't taken seriously by anyone who studies this evidence.

It depends how you view the evidence. There is a lot of evidence from mainstream science which more or less confirms design. You just have to be willing to look for it. If your closed minded and only want to see support for evolution then you will miss it. The other side is like I said there is evidence that disputes Darwinian evolution and shows that it isn't what they say it is. Darwinian evolution not only commonly fails to explain the "arrival of the fittest" via mutations, but also often struggles to explain the "survival of the fittest" via natural selection.
Here's a couple of papers for showing how evolution via random mutations and natural selection can't produce functional complex variety.
Evolutionary layering and the limits to cellular perfection.
Michael Lynch, an evolutionary biologist at Indiana University, who writes that "random genetic drift can impose a strong barrier to the advancement of molecular refinements by adaptive processes."50 He notes that the effect of drift is "encouraging the fixation of mildly deleterious mutations and discouraging the promotion of beneficial mutations.
http://www.pubfacts.com/detail/23115338/Evolutionary-layering-and-the-limits-to-cellular-perfection
Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds
The prevalence of low-level function in four such experiments indicates that roughly one in 10/64 signature-consistent sequences forms a working domain. Combined with the estimated prevalence of plausible hydropathic patterns (for any fold) and of relevant folds for particular functions, this implies the overall prevalence of sequences performing a specific function by any domain-sized fold may be as low as 1 in 10/77, adding to the body of evidence that functional folds require highly extraordinary sequences.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022283604007624
In other words it is virtually impossible to evolve a functional protein fold that requires multiple mutations.
Heres a paper showing the evidence for design in nature.
Evidence Of Design In Bird Feathers And Avian Respiration
http://www.witpress.com/elibrary/dne-volumes/4/2/399

Like I say there plenty out there you just have to look.

Even if this were true, it does nothing to turn creationism into a viable scientific theory.

I'm not trying to turn creationism into a viable scientific theory.

 

[Loudmouth]

I didn't want to get into posting more evidence for this unless you wanted to challenge it.
Michael Behe Hasn't Been Refuted on the Flagellum

Behe hasn't supported his argument. He has never shown that the flagellum could not evolve.

Time and again, you don't require the ID crowd to evidence their own claims. Why is that?

 

[Michael]

Simple question. What would hypothetically prove the non-existence of God?

You can't. You also can't prove the non-existence of gravitons, or exotic matter, or exotic, unseen on Earth forms of energy, or additional spacetime dimensions. In fact one cannot prove a negative. That's pretty much a given in science. The best you could ever hope to do is provide evidence to support (a) God theory, or (one specific) inflation theory.

What would show that the world is not designed? You offered some answers to that second one, but they fell flat, as it would be trivial to intelligently design a world without such qualities.

How did you come to the hold that particular belief, and what does that have to do with anything?

If there is no way the hypothesis could in theory be falsified, then there is functionally no difference between a universe where the hypothesis is true and one where the hypothesis is false. It is a useless hypothesis.

I'm afraid that puts all cosmology theories in general directly into the category of "useless hypothesis". Your logic doesn't really fly in terms of "science". Science often cannot tell the difference between a universe where there is no functional difference without the hypothetical entity in question.

Fundamentally, every supernatural explanation falls prey to these problems.

Anytime and every time that science relies upon a hypothetical entity, it also falls prey to those very same problems. There's often no empirically functional difference between "supernatural" and "hypothetical" claims.

There's no way to tell whether it's true or false; there's no way to distinguish a natural cause from a supernatural cause (did the aspirin cure my headache, or was it just a coincidence and the headache fairy actually did it?);

How would one go about functionally falsifying all forms of inflation theory or string theory, or exotic matter theories in general?

there's no way to distinguish which supernatural cause is responsible... These problems are yet to be resolved, and until they can be resolved, there's simply no way to fit the supernatural into scientific inquiry, or rational inquiry in general.

This is an example of someone blatantly applying a "non scientific" standard to the to topic of God. All of your criticisms apply to any and all "hypothetical" entities in "science". Science cannot falsify every potential string theory, or every potential graviton oriented concept of gravity. It simply accepts that limitation and does the best that it can to provide some sort of "evidence" to support the idea, even "evidence" that has no direct cause/effect justification in the lab at the moment.

 

[The Cadet]

Michael Behe Hasn't Been Refuted on the Flagellum
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/03/michael_behe_hasnt_been_refute044801.html
The main argument that irreducible complexity was refuted came from the example of the eubacterial flagellum which is a secretory system that was suppose to have arisen before the Flagellum and therefore used as a evolutionary stage to show how a stage for the Flagellum complexity. But the truth is since the trial is that they have found that this didn't come form the Flagellum and is a separate organism as it has over 30 different proteins that the Flagellum hasn't got. There is also a few other things that show it is impossible to be an earlier less evolved stage one of which would be fatal to the flagella.But more important they got irreducible complexity wrong. It doesn't say that another organism can have similar parts to each other. It says that if we take away certain parts of a complex machine it will not be able to operate properly. each organism is complex and an entity in itself. each has many components which need to be explained where they came from. Evolution hasn't even begun to explain this let alone prove it in tests.

How about this paper? There is a functional model by which the flagellum could evolve, piece by piece.

But beyond that, if the definition of "irreducible complexity" is "if we remove any part, it won't work", then it's trivial to evolve such systems, because evolution doesn't just add things, it also removes them.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022283604007624
In other words it is virtually impossible to evolve a functional protein fold that requires multiple mutations.

I don't think you understood the David Axe paper you're citing.

 

[The Cadet]

You can't. You also can't prove the non-existence of gravitons, or exotic matter, or exotic, unseen on Earth forms of energy, or additional spacetime dimensions. In fact one cannot prove a negative. That's pretty much a given in science. The best you could ever hope to do is provide evidence to support (a) God theory, or (one specific) inflation theory.

I have little understanding of or interest in theoretical physics. Bad science in this case does not excuse bad science in intelligent design.

 

[Michael]

I have little understanding of or interest in theoretical physics. Bad science in this case does not excuse bad science in intelligent design.

Even the term "intelligent design" means many different things to many different individuals. I was simply noting that whatever standard you're using with respect to the topic of God (in general) was certainly not a "scientific" standard by any stretch of the imagination. Science is full of hypothetical entities and constructs that defy empirical falsification, including string theory, QM oriented concepts of gravity, etc. That's never stopped any scientists from studying the idea seriously.

 

[KCfromNC]

I didn't want to get into posting more evidence for this unless you wanted to challenge it.
Michael Behe Hasn't Been Refuted on the Flagellum
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/03/michael_behe_hasnt_been_refute044801.html

Wait, an author from intelligentdesign.org thinks that ID is still valid? Stop the presses.

Get back to us when you manage to convince an actual biologist. And it'll take more than "well, you can't conclusively prove it false" for it to get much interest from real scientists.

It depends how you view the evidence.

Obviously. If you have theological commitments to creationism being true, of course you're going to be biased towards that conclusion, and probably try to mislead others to the same bad conclusion. Except for cases where there are actual penalties for lying, of course, which is why the Dover trial didn't go so well for ID proponents and their usual tactics.

There is a lot of evidence from mainstream science which more or less confirms design.

What percentage of mainstream scientists support the Intelligent Design movement? You'd think that if a lot of evidence supported it then it would be the overwhelming view of practicing scientists. What do they say?

Here's a couple of papers for showing how evolution via random mutations and natural selection can't produce functional complex variety.

Michael Lynch

I'll take his words over your guess as to what he meant. Let's see :

"It will be shown that the contrarian interpretations of Behe and Snoke are entirely an artifact of incorrect biological assumptions and unjustified mathematical oversimplification."

"Thus, it is clear that conventional population-genetic principles embedded within a Darwinian framework of descent with modification are fully adequate to explain the origin of complex protein functions."

- Michael Lynch (http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2015/12/waiting-for-multiple-mutations-michael.html, l)

Uh oh, you've claimed someone is an expert and he's telling you Behe doesn't know what he's talking about and that conventional genetics is capable of explaining something you say it can't. Who to believe, your expert or you?

In other words it is virtually impossible to evolve a functional protein fold that requires multiple mutations.

Does the paper say this, or are you saying this?

Evidence Of Design In Bird Feathers And Avian Respiration
http://www.witpress.com/elibrary/dne-volumes/4/2/399

Hey cool, creationists finally have enough money to publish their own journal. Get back to use when they figure out how peer-review works.

I'm not trying to turn creationism into a viable scientific theory.

You're talking about ID, which is the same thing as creationism just repackaged in an attempt to sneak it into science classrooms.

 

[stevevw]

Behe hasn't supported his argument. He has never shown that the flagellum could not evolve.

Time and again, you don't require the ID crowd to evidence their own claims. Why is that?

I am not necessarily a ID supporter so its not my job to prove them right. I am merely using the best evidence I believe supports design in life no matter where that comes from. I have posted ample support for this if you have read my posts.

Irreducible complexity doesn't mean that we wont find parts of the Flagellar motor in other organisms and those parts can't work in other organisms. Thats where the opponents get it wrong. Irreducible complexity is about the operation of a number of parts working together. It isn't about the workings of individual parts. Even if you can find a use for a small section or a part of the whole thing that doesn't mean that the irreducible complexity of the whole thing is not true. Plus it doesn't prove anything about the way the whole thing evolves in a step by step way.

Evolution says that there should be a gradual step by step building up from simple into a complex living things and each step must be functional. We can find some parts of a complete system that are useful outside that complete system. But we can also find many points along the gradual evolution of that complete system that would still be non functional through the small steps on the way to it being complete. The opponents of Irreducible complexity misrepresent the argument and concentrate on the non working of sub parts when it is really about the ability of the whole system or complex creature to assemble itself in a step by step way even if the some of those sub parts have function outside the complete thing.

The ironic thing is that evolution hasn't shown these many stages in living things that are functional. They can cite certain stages which represent complete organisms or creatures in themselves that are complex and have many parts. But these are only a few and may just represent variety of life reusing parts. But to show fro example the step by step evolution of the Flagellum you would need many many stages all showing each step and not just one or two. Mutations dont evolve a large chunk of a system or creature. They only mutate small function within a complete system. But even so it hasn't been verified that these small mutated changes can remain and go on to add up to making something more complex. They normally end up being a cost to the fitness of the creature and therefore being selected out.

 

[Gracchus]

I am not necessarily a ID supporter so its not my job to prove them right. I am merely using the best evidence I believe supports design in life no matter where that comes from. I have posted ample support for this if you have read my posts.

In other words, you are "cherry picking". You pick out the "...the best evidence I believe supports design in life no matter where that comes from." You would not do that were you not an "ID supporter".

Irreducible complexity doesn't mean that we wont find parts of the Flagellar motor in other organisms and those parts can't work in other organisms. Thats where the opponents get it wrong. Irreducible complexity is about the operation of a number of parts working together. It isn't about the workings of individual parts. Even if you can find a use for a small section or a part of the whole thing that doesn't mean that the irreducible complexity of the whole thing is not true. Plus it doesn't prove anything about the way the whole thing evolves in a step by step way.

You make a bunch of unsupported statements and demand "the opponents" provide "proof". That is not how science works.

Evolution says that there should be a gradual step by step building up from simple into a complex living things and each step must be functional.

No! The theory of evolution says no such thing. Simpler forms can evolve from more complex forms.

We can find some parts of a complete system that are useful outside that complete system.

The "parts" are always found in a system. They don't function out of a system.

But we can also find many points along the gradual evolution of that complete system that would still be non functional through the small steps on the way to it being complete.

Can you give some examples?

The opponents of Irreducible complexity misrepresent the argument and concentrate on the non working of sub parts when it is really about the ability of the whole system or complex creature to assemble itself in a step by step way even if the some of those sub parts have function outside the complete thing.

The "sub parts" function as part of some system.

The ironic thing is that evolution hasn't shown these many stages in living things that are functional.

Evolution doesn't guarantee functionality. You could get along just fine without your appendix, tonsils, or little toes. And the "small changes" you demand are not such as will show up in fossils, since they will be just "normal variations".

They can cite certain stages which represent complete organisms or creatures in themselves that are complex and have many parts.

It is not clear to me what you mean by this. Could you clarify. You seem to be saying that "they" can point to fully functional organisms. That would seem ... trivial.

But these are only a few and may just represent variety of life reusing parts. But to show fro example the step by step evolution of the Flagellum you would need many many stages all showing each step and not just one or two.

Would you accept that Fermat's Last Theorem has been proven without a close examination of 140 pages of logical calculus? It is quite possible to take the stairs two and three at a time and still arrive at the top. It is not always necessary to step on and count every step, and indeed it may be impossible.

Mutations dont evolve a large chunk of a system or creature.

Mutations can be small or large. Large mutations are usually fatal, or at least prohibit successful reproduction.

They only mutate small function within a complete system. But even so it hasn't been verified that these small mutated changes can remain and go on to add up to making something more complex. They normally end up being a cost to the fitness of the creature and therefore being selected out.

In which case they are selected out. The failures don't reproduce and leave the field clear for those that are more successful. That is how evolution works!

You have admitted that the only data you consider is that which supports your position. You have made assertions unsupported by evidence, examples, or reasoning. You have misrepresented evolution, which you obviously do not understand, and cannot understand because of confirmation bias. You seem to assume a designer who picks parts out of a recycle bin, even when those parts are less than optimal. This designer adds parts that are unnecessary and may even be a source of trouble (e.g. the appendix, tonsils). This designer uses designs that are far less than optimal (e.g. the recurrent laryngeal nerve). And this designer is, in fact, your god, to whom you have sacrificed time, money, intellect, and dignity. Of course you must "double down" on the foolishness. It is important to everyone to maintain a flattering self-image.

In any case, this thread is supposed to be about the "laws of nature", what they are, and why they are called laws. There is a special forum for the discussion of creation/intelligent design and evolution.

 

[stevevw]

Wait, an author from intelligentdesign.org thinks that ID is still valid? Stop the presses.

Get back to us when you manage to convince an actual biologist. And it'll take more than "well, you can't conclusively prove it false" for it to get much interest from real scientists.

I have already posted papers and links to biologists and scientists from mainstream sources such as Nature, phys.org, plos.org, pnas.org, witpress ect who show that there is design in nature and that Darwinian evolution doesn't support itself with scientific evidence. But you seem to ignore it. Besides if I did post support from a biologists from a site connected to ID or creation what has that got to do with the content if its still based in science and subject to scientific research. Rather then attack the site and author how about reading the content and then refuting that. This just shows that you are prejudging things based on where it comes from and not what its about or whether it is true which is biased.

Obviously. If you have theological commitments to creationism being true, of course you're going to be biased towards that conclusion, and probably try to mislead others to the same bad conclusion. Except for cases where there are actual penalties for lying, of course, which is why the Dover trial didn't go so well for ID proponents and their usual tactics.

I dont have any connections to any religious organizations and dont support creationism of ID as a religion. I try to look at the evidence as it is and check out all sources. Most of what I post is from scientific sources if you check my past history. But if I throw in a religious link here and there so what. This will be backed up with non religious support as well. The ironic thing is that some who have a world view of things and are atheists will blindly support the science sits or scientists like their gods anyway and believe anything they say just because they claim it. Yet we find that there is also science material that has a poor track record in posting poor or false peer reviewed work that is biased towards a preexisting view as well.
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false. The probability that a research claim is true may depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the same question, and, importantly, the ratio of true to no relationships among the relationships probed in each scientific field.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/

What percentage of mainstream scientists support the Intelligent Design movement? You'd think that if a lot of evidence supported it then it would be the overwhelming view of practicing scientists. What do they say?

You are polarizing the debate as do people who stereotype anyone who disagrees with evolution. Many mainstream scientists dont have to believe in creationism or ID to support evidence showing design in nature. If they are honest and look at the evidence then the evidence will show this regardless of what religious or non religious affiliation they have. I have posted many links if you check and from memory to you as well showing mainstream support for design.

I'll take his words over your guess as to what he meant. Let's see :

"It will be shown that the contrarian interpretations of Behe and Snoke are entirely an artifact of incorrect biological assumptions and unjustified mathematical oversimplification."

"Thus, it is clear that conventional population-genetic principles embedded within a Darwinian framework of descent with modification are fully adequate to explain the origin of complex protein functions."
- Michael Lynch (http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2015/12/waiting-for-multiple-mutations-michael.html, l)

Uh oh, you've claimed someone is an expert and he's telling you Behe doesn't know what he's talking about and that conventional genetics is capable of explaining something you say it can't. Who to believe, your expert or you?

So one expert is questioning another expert. And heres another expert questioning Lynches appraisals and says he also gets it wrong.
The Limits of Complex Adaptation: An Analysis Based on a Simple Model of Structured Bacterial Populations
Axe's paper then goes through a technical analysis of Lynch and Abegg's calculation and finds that they made mistakes.
Having identified mistakes in the model of Lynch and Abegg, Axe presents his own analysis, aiming to accurately model the evolution of a multi-mutation feature.
https://www.researchgate.net/public...ple_Model_of_Structured_Bacterial_Populations
The above paper shows that a function that requires 6 or more mutations is very unlikely to happen. Axe found with the evidence despite high mutation rates and generous assumptions favoring a Darwinian process, molecular adaptations requiring more than six mutations before yielding any advantage would be extremely unlikely to arise in the history of the Earth.

If you noticed that the original challenge to Behe's paper from Durrett, R. and Schmidt, D. (2008) Waiting for two mutations: Their finding agreed with Behe that it would take far to long for evolution to mutate even 2 mutations for a change in function.
Durrett and Schmidt found that to obtain only two specific mutations via Darwinian evolution "for humans with a much smaller effective population size, this type of change would take > 100 million years." The critics admitted this was "very unlikely to occur on a reasonable timescale."
In other words considering that humans took 6 million years to evolve from apes the ability of evolution to achieve such complex change which would involve thousands of mutations let alone for measly two mutations is way beyond the ability and time scale.

Does the paper say this, or are you saying this?

I didn't use Lynches paper for disputing Behes paper. I used his paper because he questions evolution's ability to create cellular perfection.
IE He states,
"What is in question is whether natural selection is a necessary or sufficient force to explain the emergence of the genomic and cellular features central to the building of complex organisms.

Though he is a supporter of evolution there are many who question its ability. Or they state that most of the driving forces for evolution come from other sources.

Hey cool, creationists finally have enough money to publish their own journal. Get back to use when they figure out how peer-review works.

Witpress has nothing to do with creationism or any religion. It is a scientific journal which mainly covers engineering related areas of research. Major Publisher of Science & Engineering Research for scientists by scientists.
WIT Press is a publisher of high-end scientific books and journals, available both electronically and in print. With over 30 years of experience in scitech publishing, WIT Press produces books that enable researchers, engineers, scientists, graduate students and managers within industry to remain up-to-date with the latest developments in their fields.

WIT Press currently publishes five International journal titles, "Sustainable Development and Planning", "Design & Nature and Ecodynamics", "Safety and Security Engineering" and "Computational Methods and Experimental Measurements", and new for 2016 "Energy Production and Management". Two further International journal titles will be released in 2017; these are "Transport Development and Integration" and "Heritage Architecture".

You're talking about ID, which is the same thing just repackaged in an attempt to sneak it into science classroms.

[/QUOTE] I am talking about the evidence for design in nature based on scientific support. How you choose to make it only shows where your coming from and what realm you want to put it in. It seems your the one who is making it more about religion v evolution.

 

[Loudmouth]

I am not necessarily a ID supporter so its not my job to prove them right.

You are bringing those arguments forward, so it is your job to support them with evidence. If you don't have evidence to back a claim, then don't make the claim.

Irreducible complexity doesn't mean that we wont find parts of the Flagellar motor in other organisms and those parts can't work in other organisms.

Yes, it is. Behe argues that IC systems have to come together all at once because there is no use for the parts by themselves or as part of a reduced system. If we can find systems that have function which also use just a few of those parts or just one, then the claim that IC can not evolve is falsified. If there are intermediate steps with fewer parts and selectable function then Behe's claims are refuted.

Plus it doesn't prove anything about the way the whole thing evolves in a step by step way.

You are arguing that IC systems can not evolve. WHERE IS THAT EVIDENCE????

Evolution says that there should be a gradual step by step building up from simple into a complex living things and each step must be functional. We can find some parts of a complete system that are useful outside that complete system. But we can also find many points along the gradual evolution of that complete system that would still be non functional through the small steps on the way to it being complete.

That is completely made up.

The opponents of Irreducible complexity misrepresent the argument and concentrate on the non working of sub parts when it is really about the ability of the whole system or complex creature to assemble itself in a step by step way even if the some of those sub parts have function outside the complete thing.

When we show you the steps, you deny that it falsifies IC. What are we to do?

The ironic thing is that evolution hasn't shown these many stages in living things that are functional.

You haven't shown that they are non-functional. If you can't show that they are non-functional, then how can you say that they are designed? If we don't know one way or another, then we say that we don't know. We don't say that if we can't find evidence for evolution right now that it must be designed. That is an argument from ignorance.

They can cite certain stages which represent complete organisms or creatures in themselves that are complex and have many parts. But these are only a few and may just represent variety of life reusing parts. But to show fro example the step by step evolution of the Flagellum you would need many many stages all showing each step and not just one or two. Mutations dont evolve a large chunk of a system or creature.

First, you haven't shown that mutations don't evolve large chunks.

Second, you haven't shown that mutations could not produce those steps.

But even so it hasn't been verified that these small mutated changes can remain and go on to add up to making something more complex. They normally end up being a cost to the fitness of the creature and therefore being selected out.

Yet another bare assertion.