Where did the laws of nature come from?

[KCfromNC]

If I use some support for supporters of evolution well of course they are still going to believe that evolution is correct.

Then how do you determine which of their conclusions to cherry pick and which to ignore?

I havnt said anything about creationism and whether I support their beliefs.

You've been quite generous to many creationists/ID proponents. I can read between the lines.

You are polarizing the debate. There are many mainstream scientists who dont support the Darwinain version of things.

But very few people with education in biology which support ID/creationism.

No he is questioning an aspect of the evolutionary process and that is why I posted it.

Perhaps, but the thing he is questioning is not what you think he is. That's why I posted a direct quote of his which corrected your misunderstanding of his paper.

"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.

So? Who believes that natural selection is the only process driving evolution?

But I noticed you didn't mention the other expert underneath that link who also disagreed with Lynch about his assessment of Behe.

You did?

 

[KCfromNC]

I've seen this video and similar articles several times before. It all sounds good and makes sense on paper or in this case in a video. Something that sticks out is going to be recognized and eliminated. It also works for positive selection and not just elimination. Something with bright colors gains an reproductive attraction with its mate. It doesn't work out the way it is pictured in reality. Natural selection is limited and wont lead to one type of creature becoming another. Its fine for weeding out the weak maintaining the status qua. But it isn't going to those animals into a completely different one.
Darwinian evolution in the light of genomics
Evolutionary-genomic studies show that natural selection is only one of the forces that shape genome evolution and is not quantitatively dominant, whereas non-adaptive processes are much more prominent than previously suspected. Major contributions of horizontal gene transfer and diverse selfish genetic elements to genome evolution undermine the Tree of Life concept. An adequate depiction of evolution requires the more complex concept of a network or ‘forest’ of life. There is no consistent tendency of evolution towards increased genomic complexity, and when complexity increases, this appears to be a non-adaptive consequence of evolution under weak purifying selection rather than an adaptation.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2651812/

The idea that mutations and natural selection has been responsible for all of life being created from a single ancestor has not been verified by the science. Just because you have a nice video with an explanation doesn't mean that's the evidence in itself. Scientists can explain all sorts of things like in the quantum world but that doesn't mean that the description is also proving how it all happened. Darwin came up with a great idea but he didn't have access to all the info we have today. He couldn't have known about the genetic info we know about today. He speculated about animals gradually changing through evolution and it wasn't until 100 years after his idea that Bernard Kettlewell came along with the so called evidence for it with the peppered moth changing colors because of the industrial pollution in early England discoloring the tree the moth lived on.

But that still isn't evidence as creatures have the ability to change things like color in their genetics anyway.There is evidence that mutations and natural selection are limited and are not the major driving forces fro change as I have posted several times before. Tests show it is limited and bacteria are still bacteria even though they have an ability to change within their type. Breeders and cultivators have realized this with artificial selection. There are limits that cannot be crossed. When they are it brings a fitness cost as we see in crops and animals breeding that also inherit disease, sickness, or other consequences from playing around with the genetics.

“Mutations are rare phenomena, and a simultaneous change of even two amino acid residues in one protein is totally unlikely. One could think, for instance, that by constantly changing amino acids one by one, it will eventually be possible to change the entire sequence substantially… These minor changes, however, are bound to eventually result in a situation in which the enzyme has ceased to perform its previous function but has not yet begun its ‘new duties’. It is at this point it will be destroyed” Maxim D. Frank-Kamenetski, Unraveling DNA,

So the papers I linked dont relate to this. Even beneficial mutations can add up to a fitness cost when added together. Gains in a bacteria function came at the cost of losing another function of what was already good. Most if not all mutations are slightly negative if not harmful and a cost to fitness in the long run. I have posted papers on this several times. To say that this is nonsense or a bizarre claim seems like you are ignoring them.

Diminishing returns epistasis among beneficial mutations decelerates adaptation.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21636771
Negative Epistasis Between Beneficial Mutations in an Evolving Bacterial Population
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/1193

So as a comp sci student you disagree with fully qualified experts in the field.

So attack the source rather than the content. Witpress are not associated with any religion. They primarily post engineering papers. But still I have posted papers from other mainstream sources which talk about similar things.

And Dembreski and others have come back and answered those criticisms. These papers and rebuttals go back a long way and much has been discovered since then. There are other papers which are similar and there are even mainstream articles which more or less agree with this. This area is growing all the time. You may not recognize it in the mainstream as design in life because you wont look for it. But like I said many papers in mainstream work is more or less talking along these lines. They just name it as something else without the evidence. If you notice mainstream science is acknowledging more design in nature but is claiming it is nature itself that is responsible for it with really explaining how that can be. So the acknowledgement of design is there its just a case of how it came about.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/jeffrey-shallit/

So attack the source rather than the content. You make a lot of assumptions and base your conclusions of logical fallacies. To assess that witpress is irrelevant based on your judgements that the scientific research is all false based on some mention of religion is ridiculous. It is known in the higher echelons of the scientific community that even the mere mention of religion and it sets off reactions of all sorts. Witpress is not associated with any religion and just because it includes some journals that delve into the design side of things doesn't make it irrelevant. They primarily post engineering papers and some of these include design in life concepts. But still I have posted papers from other mainstream sources which talk about similar things.

Some of those other papers talk about the genetic info for life having to have been around from a very early point in time to account for the complexity of early life. To early to have gradually evolved. Others talk about the variety and complexity of life being to great for evolution to have accounted for it. These papers are from mainstream sites and mainstream scientists. But it seems strange that you home in on anything you can to undermine what is being said. If you can cause some doubt about 1 source then maybe you can about the everything.

Here are a couple of the mainstream papers I was talking about which I think I have already posted. They speak about design in life but dont specifically go into ID or creationism. But they do bring up some challenging things about how life was preset and the instructions for all life was around very earlier on and seem to be something that is beyond a random naturalistic process.

This paper talks about the genetic info for all life was already around before the Cambrian explosion. The code for making all of life's structures can be switched on in some living things and lays dormant in others. So its not a case of everything being completely mutated into existence. The info is there ready to be used. This makes more sense in the light of the evidence we see today in that many creatures obtain genetic info from non adaptive driving sources like HGT, genomics, developmental biology and endosymbiosis.
Universal genome in the origin of metazoa: thoughts about evolution.
This model has two major predictions, first that a significant fraction of genetic information in lower taxons must be functionally useless but becomes useful in higher taxons, and second that one should be able to turn on in lower taxons some of the complex latent developmental programs, e.g., a program of eye development or antibody synthesis in sea urchin.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17660714
The following paper talks about the building blocks for life are preset and are a unique finely tuned set of 3D shapes that make up all life. The can be viewed as natural structures like the laws of physics.
The protein folds as platonic forms: new support for the pre-Darwinian conception of evolution by natural law.
The folds are evidently determined by natural law, not natural selection, and are "lawful forms" in the Platonic and pre-Darwinian sense of the word, which are bound to occur everywhere in the universe where the same 20 amino acids are used for their construction.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12419661
Heres a paper directly on design from a mainstream source for good measure.
The Capabilities of Chaos and Complexity
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2662469/

Even if your quote-mining is accurate and biology has failed to explain the modern diversity of life, how does that make ID/creationism any less of a failure scientifically?

It's weird - you'd think that if there were a case for religious-ID/creationism, people who believed there was would actually explain how it works rather than cherry-picking from debates at the fringes of our understanding of reality. To be more specific, debates between experts where neither side would support the conclusions drawn by ID/creationism proponents.

 

[KCfromNC]

I dont expect mainstream science to ever embrace ID or anything religious. Its going to be against their kind of views and so they are going to reject it even if it had something valid to say.

There's some world class levels of projection going on here.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I do understand how natural selection works. But I think you and others give it too much ability. It cannot account for a lot of what is seen in nature which seems to point to non adaptive processes for change. The info for life was already there and there are preset ways in which living things can adapt.

Bear in mind we already have evidence for the development of new genes with novel function, via gene duplication and modification, and other processes; so it's not necessary to have all the information in the genome from the start. And analysis of genomes shows that the sequences in both genes and 'junk' (including regulatory) DNA are not consistent with all the information being present from the start, but are consistent with common ancestry with ongoing development of new functional sequences.

I know I've already posted the links below, but it helps to have a reminder.

Here are links to an article and a paper about a simulation of evolution - in this case, the ever popular eye, which takes very pessimistic values for rate of beneficial mutation, inheritance, and selective advantage (figures supplied in the links) - they discovered a fish’s complex camera eye could evolve in 364,000 generations, which, assuming a small fish has a year per generation, is less than half a million years.

Article: Evolution of the Eye: Nilsson & Pelger and Lens Evolution
Published paper (pdf): A Pessimistic Estimate of the Time Required for an Eye to Evolve

 

[stevevw]

Then how do you determine which of their conclusions to cherry pick and which to ignore?

Its hard enough to use anything that has any connection to religion as it can be rejected immediately without even anyone from your side taking a look at the content. So you have to choose carefully for it to have a chance. Its easy to verify things by checking them against other articles. Like I said what some of the articles are saying isn't to different to what some of the mainstream articles are saying.

You've been quite generous to many creationists/ID proponents. I can read between the lines.

So your reading between the lines also can read minds. Creationism make some specific claims which I havnt mentioned at all. They both make a religion out of their particular beliefs which I dont choose to adhere to. I just think they have some relevant points. At the end of the day my beliefs are my beliefs and anyone who believes in God is not going to be able to validate what they believe in God. Some choose to use science to show Gods design in life. Though its not the be all and end all of faith in God I think its a good way to see Gods work at a deeper level. But I dont expect you or any other atheists to see things that way.

But very few people with education in biology which support ID/creationism

of course not unless they are also believers in God for which some are. But there is a growing movement for questioning some of the core beliefs of Darwinian theory as I have posted several times which seems to be ignored.
Darwinian evolution in the light of genomics
"Now, 50 years after the consolidation of the Modern Synthesis, evolutionary biology undoubtedly faces a new major challenge and, at the same time, the prospect of a new conceptual breakthrough"....."By contrast, the insistence on adaptation being the primary mode of evolution that is apparent in the Origin, but especially in the Modern Synthesis, became deeply suspicious if not outright obsolete, making room for a new worldview that gives much more prominence to non-adaptive processes"......"Collectively, the developments in evolutionary genomics and systems biology outlined here seem to suggest that, although at present only isolated elements of a new, 'postmodern' synthesis of evolutionary biology are starting to be formulated, such a synthesis is indeed feasible. Moreover, it is likely to assume definitive shape long before Darwin's 250th anniversary"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2651812/
The Origin at 150: is a new evolutionary synthesis in sight?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2784144/
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?
Charles Darwin conceived of evolution by natural selection without knowing that genes exist. Now mainstream evolutionary theory has come to focus almost exclusively on genetic inheritance and processes that change gene frequencies. Yet new data pouring out of adjacent fields are starting to undermine this narrow stance. An alternative vision of evolution is beginning to crystallize, in which the processes by which organisms grow and develop are recognized as causes of evolution.

The number of biologists calling for change in how evolution is conceptualized is growing rapidly. Strong support comes from allied disciplines, particularly developmental biology, but also genomics, epigenetics, ecology and social science1, 2. We contend that evolutionary biology needs revision if it is to benefit fully from these other disciplines. The data supporting our position gets stronger every day.
http://www.nature.com/news/does-evolutionary-theory-need-a-rethink-1.16080

Perhaps, but the thing he is questioning is not what you think he is. That's why I posted a direct quote of his which corrected your misunderstanding of his paper.

Well in the light of other papers such as the above and below I think he touches on some of these views. Like I said there is a growing number of science who may not at this stage who are questioning the Darwinian Theory in the light of new evidence. But from what I can read in plain English from Lynch he is definitely questioning the role of natural selection which is a tenet of Darwinian evolution. A lot of this is interpretation and some is based on assumption that natural selection is the only driving force that makes changes in living things. In the light of new discoveries this is being challenged more and more.

So? Who believes that natural selection is the only process driving evolution?

No they believe that natural selection is not the only driving force or doesn't have much of a role for change in living things. The evidence is supporting non adaptive driving forces. It is far more complex then the Darwinian view. Like I said there are many scientists who question Darwinian evolution in the light of modern discoveries of how things change such as HGT, symbiosis, developmental biology, genomics, epigenetics ect.
Beyond neo-Darwinism—an epigenetic approach to evolution
We argue that the basic neo-Darwinian framework the natural selection of random mutations is insufficient to account for evolution. The role of natural selection is itself limited: it cannot adequately explain the diversity of populations or of species; nor can it account for the origin of new species or for major evolutionary change. The evidence suggests on the one hand that most genetic changes are irrelevant to evolution; and on the other, that a relative lack of natural selection may be the prerequisite for major evolutionary advance.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0022519379901917

Lynn Margulis who was the wife of Carl Sagan and famous for discovering the role of Symbiogenesis and for Gaia hypothesis
On the role of natural selection in evolution.
Question: And you don't believe that natural selection is the answer?
Margulis: "This is the issue I have with neo-Darwinists: They teach that what is generating novelty is the accumulation of random mutations in DNA, in a direct set by natural selection. If you want bigger eggs, you keep selecting the gens that are laying the biggest eggs, and you get bigger and bigger eggs. But you also get hens with defective feathers and wobbly legs. Natural selection eliminates and maybe maintains, but it doesn't create."

James A. Shapiro
Shapiro integrates advances in symbiogenesis, epigenetics, and saltationism into a unified approach that views evolutionary change as an active cell process, regulated epigenetically and capable of making rapid large changes by horizontal DNA transfer, inter-specific hybridization, whole genome doubling, symbiogenesis, or massive genome restructuring.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Non-Darwinian_evolution

 

[KCfromNC]

So your reading between the lines also can read minds. Creationism make some specific claims which I havnt mentioned at all.

Claims such as there being a supernatural intelligent designer.

OK, if you're not promoting ID/creationism or any of the other modern political movements to get evangelical Chrisitanity taught in public school classrooms, what exactly are you promoting?

None of the quotes you mention have anything to do with ID, so I'm not sure how they're relevant to anything here.

But from what I can read in plain English from Lynch he is definitely questioning the role of natural selection which is a tenet of Darwinian evolution.

He's also flatly said that Behe is wrong. If you want to have him accepted as an authority I'm OK with it.

 

[stevevw]

Claims such as there being a supernatural intelligent designer.

Well not exactly. I think they dont emphasize ID. they believe in the creator God from the Bible and if is fundamental to their belief. I think they are very literal and can be dogmatic sometimes. I think when a group makes it a particular way and comes out saying there's no other way then it becomes very religious and I disagree with that. There are grey areas that need discussion and investigation. I dont think it is a case that salvation depends on a particular set of beliefs when it comes to some of the details surround events in the bible. The important thing is that you believe that God who ever He may be is the Creator and life and existence could not have happened without Him.

OK, if you're not promoting ID/creationism or any of the other modern political movements to get evangelical Chrisitanity taught in public school classrooms, what exactly are you promoting?

I assume you are from the US where the issue of creationism/ID is a political hotcake. Its is not just about a persons personal belief but it has become a political agenda to push into society. I dont necessarily agree with that. But I do think we have a right to state out views and we should discuss the matters. We have an obligation as Christians to spread the word of God. I just disagree with the way some do it. Some Christians will not bother will the scientific side of things and some will such as myself. It doesn't really matter when it comes to salvation that you have to be scientifically trained and aware. I just like discussing the issues and it gives me a deeper appreciation of things. Personally I think we can show God in all of existence and the more we look into how things work the more we will see Gods qualities.

None of the quotes you mention have anything to do with ID, so I'm not sure how they're relevant to anything here.

I disagree. Like I said earlier it depends on how you see things. I see that the things that some of these scientists mention like genetic code for life has been around since earlier times and all life can switch on and off various genes that can help them change indicates design. Things like HGT, symbiosis, developmental biology, epigentics ect are things which allow living things to share genetic material also points to it being made that way.

There is a bigger picture here of a mechanism that all life and the environment they occupy is all part of the same thing. Its a well designed machine that is living and functioning and all connected to allow life to grow and change. If functions at deeper levels then just darwinian evolution does which shows it is much more complex which indicates design. Certainly if Darwinian evolution is under question and there is evidence that life has other ways of developing and changing then it is open for more interpretation. That is the most important thing. That all possible ideas for how life came about and grows should be allowed to be considered.

He's also flatly said that Behe is wrong. If you want to have him accepted as an authority I'm OK with it.

yes and Behe and others have come back with a response to address his claims. thats how it works. Experts will disagree and then new discoveries and evidence will be shown. Behe may have been wrong about certain aspects back then. He may also have been right about some things as well. The same with Lynch. But there have been several other scientists who have come out since that have more or less supported Behes basic ideas.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Where did the laws of nature come from?

They are without material form or substance. They are abstract as opposed to material / matter.

Perhaps it depends on perspective. Which reminds me of this hilarious scene in a movie:

.

 

[Loudmouth]

Its hard enough to use anything that has any connection to religion as it can be rejected immediately without even anyone from your side taking a look at the content. So you have to choose carefully for it to have a chance. Its easy to verify things by checking them against other articles. Like I said what some of the articles are saying isn't to different to what some of the mainstream articles are saying.

So your reading between the lines also can read minds. Creationism make some specific claims which I havnt mentioned at all. They both make a religion out of their particular beliefs which I dont choose to adhere to. I just think they have some relevant points. At the end of the day my beliefs are my beliefs and anyone who believes in God is not going to be able to validate what they believe in God. Some choose to use science to show Gods design in life. Though its not the be all and end all of faith in God I think its a good way to see Gods work at a deeper level. But I dont expect you or any other atheists to see things that way.

of course not unless they are also believers in God for which some are. But there is a growing movement for questioning some of the core beliefs of Darwinian theory as I have posted several times which seems to be ignored.
Darwinian evolution in the light of genomics
"Now, 50 years after the consolidation of the Modern Synthesis, evolutionary biology undoubtedly faces a new major challenge and, at the same time, the prospect of a new conceptual breakthrough"....."By contrast, the insistence on adaptation being the primary mode of evolution that is apparent in the Origin, but especially in the Modern Synthesis, became deeply suspicious if not outright obsolete, making room for a new worldview that gives much more prominence to non-adaptive processes"......"Collectively, the developments in evolutionary genomics and systems biology outlined here seem to suggest that, although at present only isolated elements of a new, 'postmodern' synthesis of evolutionary biology are starting to be formulated, such a synthesis is indeed feasible. Moreover, it is likely to assume definitive shape long before Darwin's 250th anniversary"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2651812/
The Origin at 150: is a new evolutionary synthesis in sight?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2784144/
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?
Charles Darwin conceived of evolution by natural selection without knowing that genes exist. Now mainstream evolutionary theory has come to focus almost exclusively on genetic inheritance and processes that change gene frequencies. Yet new data pouring out of adjacent fields are starting to undermine this narrow stance. An alternative vision of evolution is beginning to crystallize, in which the processes by which organisms grow and develop are recognized as causes of evolution.

The number of biologists calling for change in how evolution is conceptualized is growing rapidly. Strong support comes from allied disciplines, particularly developmental biology, but also genomics, epigenetics, ecology and social science1, 2. We contend that evolutionary biology needs revision if it is to benefit fully from these other disciplines. The data supporting our position gets stronger every day.
http://www.nature.com/news/does-evolutionary-theory-need-a-rethink-1.16080

Well in the light of other papers such as the above and below I think he touches on some of these views. Like I said there is a growing number of science who may not at this stage who are questioning the Darwinian Theory in the light of new evidence. But from what I can read in plain English from Lynch he is definitely questioning the role of natural selection which is a tenet of Darwinian evolution. A lot of this is interpretation and some is based on assumption that natural selection is the only driving force that makes changes in living things. In the light of new discoveries this is being challenged more and more.

No they believe that natural selection is not the only driving force or doesn't have much of a role for change in living things. The evidence is supporting non adaptive driving forces. It is far more complex then the Darwinian view. Like I said there are many scientists who question Darwinian evolution in the light of modern discoveries of how things change such as HGT, symbiosis, developmental biology, genomics, epigenetics ect.
Beyond neo-Darwinism—an epigenetic approach to evolution
We argue that the basic neo-Darwinian framework the natural selection of random mutations is insufficient to account for evolution. The role of natural selection is itself limited: it cannot adequately explain the diversity of populations or of species; nor can it account for the origin of new species or for major evolutionary change. The evidence suggests on the one hand that most genetic changes are irrelevant to evolution; and on the other, that a relative lack of natural selection may be the prerequisite for major evolutionary advance.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0022519379901917

Lynn Margulis who was the wife of Carl Sagan and famous for discovering the role of Symbiogenesis and for Gaia hypothesis
On the role of natural selection in evolution.
Question: And you don't believe that natural selection is the answer?
Margulis: "This is the issue I have with neo-Darwinists: They teach that what is generating novelty is the accumulation of random mutations in DNA, in a direct set by natural selection. If you want bigger eggs, you keep selecting the gens that are laying the biggest eggs, and you get bigger and bigger eggs. But you also get hens with defective feathers and wobbly legs. Natural selection eliminates and maybe maintains, but it doesn't create."

James A. Shapiro
Shapiro integrates advances in symbiogenesis, epigenetics, and saltationism into a unified approach that views evolutionary change as an active cell process, regulated epigenetically and capable of making rapid large changes by horizontal DNA transfer, inter-specific hybridization, whole genome doubling, symbiogenesis, or massive genome restructuring.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Non-Darwinian_evolution

Why do you keep repeating the same bad science that I have exposed time and time again?

 

[Gracchus]

Why do you keep repeating the same bad science that I have exposed time and time again?

He does it because he cannot deal with the fact that he has spent himself on fantasy. He really can't let himself understand.

 

[KCfromNC]

Well not exactly. I think they dont emphasize ID. they believe in the creator God from the Bible

Are you saying that the creator God from the Bible isn't an intelligent designer?

But I do think we have a right to state out views and we should discuss the matters. We have an obligation as Christians to spread the word of God.

I continue to get mixed messages here. Are you spreading the word of God or doing science?

I disagree. Like I said earlier it depends on how you see things. I see that the things that some of these scientists mention like genetic code for life has been around since earlier times and all life can switch on and off various genes that can help them change indicates design. Things like HGT, symbiosis, developmental biology, epigentics ect are things which allow living things to share genetic material also points to it being made that way.

You're going to have to come up with a scientific formulation of creationism before you start claiming that scientific evidence supports it. So far, that's been a total failure, but maybe you'll be the first. Once we get an actual theory of creationism we can start testing it. But claiming that so and so supports a theory which doesn't even exist yet seems kinda premature.

That all possible ideas for how life came about and grows should be allowed to be considered.

They have been. ID has been reviewed by multiple experts in the field and roundly rejected.

yes and Behe and others have come back with a response to address his claims. thats how it works.

Of course Behe will defend his work (cases where he's under oath not withstanding). As I've stated before, the problem isn't dueling experts. It is that your expert's description of his concluions are more than a little bit different than your summary. That's not doing wonders for your credibility.

 

[KCfromNC]

Why do you keep repeating the same bad science that I have exposed time and time again?

Could be that's the best there is to back up his point of view.

 

[Jfrsmth]

Perhaps it depends on perspective. Which reminds me of this hilarious scene in a movie:

Perspective, as it pertains to the laws of nature? Are they not laws that are reliable from a variety of perspectives? 1+1 = 2 no matter how you look at it. Matter cannot be created or destroyed, chemical reactions in stars take place in predictable ways... etc. How is that a matter of perspective? God tells us in His Word:

"Thus says the LORD, 'If My covenant for day and night stand not, and the fixed patterns of heaven and earth I have not established" (Jeremiah 33:25); and Psalm 119:91, "Your laws endure to this day, for all things serve you"

Furthermore, if what you say could even be true, than there would be no reliability as there would be innumerable perspectives and no reliability - we would all be just fumbling around according to our own view of things. As the "LittleLambofJesus", I would expect you are familiar with Judges 21:25, "In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did that which was right in his own eyes" which has some bearing on your comment.

 

[stevevw]

Why do you keep repeating the same bad science that I have exposed time and time again?

So I have posted many peer reviewed journals and you have rejected every one of them without any support. The last came from well respected scientists who are specialists in their fields.These scientists and their work is supported by a number of other scientists for which I have posted papers and articles on. So it is not just isolated scientists but a number of them all agreeing that Darwinian evolution is not a dominate force in how living things change. That there are other non adaptive influences that are more dominate.

Lynn Margulis is a well known biologists whose work on the origin of cells helped transform the study of evolution. She had the title of distinguished university professor of geosciences at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, since 1988. Though her theory challenged the presumptions of many prominent scientists, it has since become accepted evolutionary doctrine.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/25/s...blazing-theorist-on-evolution-dies-at-73.html

Shapiro can't be that bad if he has been at the Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at the University of Chicago for the last 34 years and has received numerous awards for his work.

James Alan Shapiro [4] is an American biologist, an expert in bacterial genetics and a professor in the Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at the University of Chicago. He won the Darwin Prize Visiting Professorship of the University of Edinburgh in 1993.[2] In 1994, he was elected as a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science for "innovative and creative interpretations of bacterial genetics and growth, especially the action of mobile genetic elements and the formation of bacterial colonies."[3][25] And in 2001, he was made an honorary officer of the Order of the British Empire for his service to the Marshall Scholarship program.[2] In 2014 he was chosen to give the 3rd annual "Nobel Prize Laureate - Robert G. Edwards" lecture.

Eugene V. Koonin is the senior investigator with the U.S. government-funded national resource for molecular biology information, National Library of Medicine (NLM) and National Institutes of Health (NIH) that hosts scientific papers. According to wiki He is a recognized expert in the field of evolutionary and computational biology. As of 2014, Koonin serves on the advisory editorial board of Trends in Genetics,[11] and is co-Editor-in-Chief of the open access journal Biology Direct.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/CBBresearch/Koonin/

So these are prominent scientists whose work has been acknowledged and accepted. It seems you will reject anything no matter what if it disagrees with your views. Believe it or not there are many non religious scientists out there that disagree with some of the core tenets of darwinian evolution.

 

[durangodawood]

So I have posted many peer reviewed journals and you have rejected every one of them without any support. The last came from well respected scientists who are specialists in their fields.These scientists and their work is supported by a number of other scientists for which I have posted papers and articles on. So it is not just isolated scientists but a number of them all agreeing that Darwinian evolution is not a dominate force in how living things change. That there are other non adaptive influences that are more dominate.

Lynn Margulis is a well known biologists whose work on the origin of cells helped transform the study of evolution. She had the title of distinguished university professor of geosciences at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, since 1988. Though her theory challenged the presumptions of many prominent scientists, it has since become accepted evolutionary doctrine.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/25/s...blazing-theorist-on-evolution-dies-at-73.html

Shapiro can't be that bad if he has been at the Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at the University of Chicago for the last 34 years and has received numerous awards for his work.

James Alan Shapiro [4] is an American biologist, an expert in bacterial genetics and a professor in the Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at the University of Chicago. He won the Darwin Prize Visiting Professorship of the University of Edinburgh in 1993.[2] In 1994, he was elected as a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science for "innovative and creative interpretations of bacterial genetics and growth, especially the action of mobile genetic elements and the formation of bacterial colonies."[3][25] And in 2001, he was made an honorary officer of the Order of the British Empire for his service to the Marshall Scholarship program.[2] In 2014 he was chosen to give the 3rd annual "Nobel Prize Laureate - Robert G. Edwards" lecture.

Eugene V. Koonin is the senior investigator with the U.S. government-funded national resource for molecular biology information, National Library of Medicine (NLM) and National Institutes of Health (NIH) that hosts scientific papers. According to wiki He is a recognized expert in the field of evolutionary and computational biology. As of 2014, Koonin serves on the advisory editorial board of Trends in Genetics,[11] and is co-Editor-in-Chief of the open access journal Biology Direct.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/CBBresearch/Koonin/

So these are prominent scientists whose work has been acknowledged and accepted. It seems you will reject anything no matter what if it disagrees with your views. Believe it or not there are many non religious scientists out there that disagree with some of the core tenets of darwinian evolution.

If these people are trusted sources, then I expect you agree with them about the general course of evolution of life on earth.

 

[stevevw]

Are you saying that the creator God from the Bible isn't an intelligent designer?

No I am speaking about the different views between creationists and ID supporters. Creationists just dont speak that language. Of course they are going to say God created everything and that includes the laws of physics, the quantum world ect. But they just dont get into that way. ID isn't a religion in that they preach about the bible and God. They keep religion out of ID and say it is based on the science only. Creation signifies a supernatural event. Whereas ID is about showing design in life through science.

I continue to get mixed messages here. Are you spreading the word of God or doing science?

Why, cant you separate the two. You are making things one way or the other. Why cant someone do both or do one things at one time and the other at another time. Why does every time someone mentions design that they have to also preach the word. They are two different things but they can also compliment each other. Both can play their roles.

You're going to have to come up with a scientific formulation of creationism before you start claiming that scientific evidence supports it. So far, that's been a total failure, but maybe you'll be the first. Once we get an actual theory of creationism we can start testing it. But claiming that so and so supports a theory which doesn't even exist yet seems kinda premature.

Creationism doesn't base itself on the science. You are talking about the book of Genesis which isn't a scientific book or can be explained scientifically. ID is a science and doesn't involve religion. It goes about trying to prove design in life and doesn't say anything about who did it. That is a separate matter which is harder to prove based on the science.

They have been. ID has been reviewed by multiple experts in the field and roundly rejected.

ID is just one angle for design in life. I disagree it has been falsified. Even mainstream scientists speak of design in life. The field of engineering uses reverse engineering of nature for their ideas quite often. We all see that design in nature and its everywhere. You cant help not see it. Its in our genetic codes, its in the complex systems inside our brains and bodies, its in the galaxies and universe which are said to be explained through the maths. Its in the physics of things and even quantum physics has a complex multidimensional shape that is well beyond any calculations we can do. What does Dawkins say, life has the appearance of being designed. Its just some say its not just an appearance and there is evidence showing that. Natural processes cannot account for the level of design in life.

Of course Behe will defend his work (cases where he's under oath not withstanding). As I've stated before, the problem isn't dueling experts. It is that your expert's description of his concluions are more than a little bit different than your summary. That's not doing wonders for your credibility.

Well I can read plain English and when they say the that the evidence for a part of evolution is not supported I think I can understand that. Lynch goes on to explain why in that the evidence inst there for adaptive forces making changes but for non adaptive influences. There are other non religious scientists who also agree with this and Lynn Margulis happens to be one of them. Either we all have got it wrong or there is some support to it. I havnt said anything about Lynches critique of Behe's ID. You brought that up which took things to another place and confused the point. As far as their disagreement is concerned it is another debate that is more involved and wasn't really covered in what I was talking about.

 

[Heissonear]

Claims such as there being a supernatural intelligent designer.

OK, if you're not promoting ID/creationism or any of the other modern political movements to get evangelical Chrisitanity taught in public school classrooms, what exactly are you promoting?

None of the quotes you mention have anything to do with ID, so I'm not sure how they're relevant to anything here.



He's also flatly said that Behe is wrong. If you want to have him accepted as an authority I'm OK with it.

KC, what is your case? Do you want a push back?

I was raised in understanding how all things around me came about through natural processes. God or the supernatural was not needed, nor had they been detected.

I'm educated through academia in radiometric dating, paleontology, historical geology, genetics, biochemistry, and the like.

But I then found the One on High. You know, the One you said Stevevw should not present to the subject matter.

Excuse me, but you cannot separate Him from the matter. Yes, I once did. I now know where I missed it. You seem to be in those tracks, making simeone explain life on Earth only by natural processes and conditions. That an't going work, Mate. There is a push back. The One on High is controlling even who is conceived. Yes, time and molecular scale events with purpose.

And you state Evolution as a fact? Then why have you ignored Him?

You need to answer to this.

 

[Loudmouth]

So I have posted many peer reviewed journals and you have rejected every one of them without any support.

That is false. I have gone through many of them and SHOWN how you are misrepresenting the material. How many more times do I need to do it before you will stop repeating the same nonsense?

 

[stevevw]

That is false. I have gone through many of them and SHOWN how you are misrepresenting the material. How many more times do I need to do it before you will stop repeating the same nonsense?

No you only made some comment about the paper by Lynch o

If these people are trusted sources, then I expect you agree with them about the general course of evolution of life on earth.

That is the problem the general course of the evolution of life could mean more than one thing. I believe evolution is true to a certain point. The thing is with Darwinian evolution theory is that it takes something that happens and then makes claims that are not supported. So it is true to a point and thats why it can be tricky to determine what is supported by the evidence and what is assumed. So Some evolutionists will question some of that assumption and show that the evidence is not there even though they still support the basic idea. I am just doing the same.

 

[KCfromNC]

No I am speaking about the different views between creationists and ID supporters. Creationists just dont speak that language.

Sure they do. Look at the Dover trial - ID textbooks were simply creationist ones with references to God lightly hidden.

Why, cant you separate the two.

Yes, I know that ID is based in religion.

ID is a science and doesn't involve religion. It goes about trying to prove design in life and doesn't say anything about who did it.

How can it identify design without knowing what the designer is and how it works? Seems like putting the cart before the horse.

ID is just one angle for design in life. I disagree it has been falsified.

I imagine you do. Too bad you and the rest of the ID proponents can't seem to convince any significant number of experts in biology that your opinion has any weight.

Natural processes cannot account for the level of design in life.

Citation needed.

Well I can read plain English and when they say the that the evidence for a part of evolution is not supported I think I can understand that. Lynch goes on to explain why in that the evidence inst there for adaptive forces making changes but for non adaptive influences. There are other non religious scientists who also agree with this and Lynn Margulis happens to be one of them. Either we all have got it wrong or there is some support to it. I havnt said anything about Lynches critique of Behe's ID. You brought that up which took things to another place and confused the point. As far as their disagreement is concerned it is another debate that is more involved and wasn't really covered in what I was talking about.

It is actually quote mining if there are no quotes given?