Where did the laws of nature come from?

[KCfromNC]

KC, what is your case?

I have a Cooler Master CM690.

Do you want a push back?

To where?

Excuse me, but you cannot separate Him from the matter.

I thought He was supposed to be immaterial. If so, that's kinda separate from the matter by definition.

You need to answer to this.

My, aren't we demanding!

 

[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?

Well you havnt gone through many of them. You have questioned parts of a couple of those papers namely the one from Lynch and Behe. But you used a blog from an evolutionists site as support. You claimed I didn't understand Douglas Axes paper but you didn't seem to even know his name and used another blog in Panda thumbs as support. It seems evolutionists are strict on us presenting the highest level of support from peer reviewed papers and question everything that isn't. Yet you can post whatever support.

The only other thing you have tried to show was that witpress wasn't a valid journal. So you rejected any papers from it such as the design shown in the bird feathers and another on engineered design in nature. But thats all you did is object and reject them. You didn't show any peer reviewed evidence that they are all wrong. But I have disputed what you said about Behe and Lynch and posted some support for this as well.

There was a number of other papers I have posted either to you or to others that you should have seen that have supported what I have been saying which you havnt commented on or shown they are wrong. Simply objecting to them and claiming they are al bad science or have suspect sources isn't good enough without some verified support. The following have come from mainstream journals and scientists. Ones such as

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.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2651812/
The Capabilities of Chaos and Complexity
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2662469/
Universal genome in the origin of metazoa: thoughts about evolution.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17660714
Negative epistasis between beneficial mutations in an evolving bacterial population.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21636772
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
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12419661
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?
http://www.nature.com/news/does-evolutionary-theory-need-a-rethink-1.16080
The diminishing returns of beneficial mutations
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21636771

Lynn Margulis who is a prominent and well respected main stream scientist.
"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."
http://newsciencereview.com/?p=380

All these sources are from mainstream sites with mainstream scientists which you call bad science. They question evolution for which you havnt addressed. Some you have fobbed off without any evidence showing that they are not valid.

 

[stevevw]

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

Well that doesn't make sense. ID wants to be taken seriously as a scientific theory so it cannot use any supernatural aspects by appealing to God or a supernatural agent. That would negate its effort to establish a scientific basis for its theory. It may refer to God but it cannot use the idea of a creationist God that makes things supernaturally as that isn't science. That is why they say that ID doesn't get involved in religion or isn't a religion in that sense.

Yes, I know that ID is based in religion.

How do you know its based in religion. Like i said that would undo their scientific work. How can you use religion in science. Like i said that would undo their scientific work.

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

No that is why its called intelligent design. All we need to know for the time being is that intelligence is behind it. Whether that be an alien race that is way beyond our intelligence and seeded the earth or one of many gods or the creator God of the bible isn't relevant. You can deduce an argument after you have established that there is intelligent design in life as to who or what that source of design may be. You can make some observations and establish the likelihood as to who that may be. But that is a separate point and debate.

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.

It offers a theory and its up to the supporters to scientifically prove that. Just like evolution has to prove itself. Some of the evidence for evolution can also be supported by design. That is where the papers for showing that thing like proteins have complex 3D shapes which seem to be natural forms that are universal for all life. They go beyond the explanation for a chance and random explanation. Though this isn't completely validated it can be one piece of evidence that builds a case. ID hasn't been verified but it also hasn't been falsified either. It is a theory is process of being established. So thats why its important for ID not to get involved with any religion because this doesn't help the prove the case.

Citation needed.

Gee I think I have already posted this. Try some of the ones above this post that talk about Natural selection not being the source for change and complexity or at the least plays a minor role. Other sources which are more in line with design seem to be more dominate like HGT, Symbiosis, cross breeding especially in the early stages of life. Some of the other papers which talk about the genetic code being around from a very early stage which was too complex for evolution to have time to create.

Or Axes paper which talks about random mutations and natural selection not being able to make even small changes which are fit and functional that requires multiple mutations. Or even The paper about genomics which is saying that natural selection is a dominate force and that non adaptive forces are more responsible fro ho living things change. Evolution does consistently show increased complexity as stated by Darwinian evolution to be able to evolve things from simple to more complex life.

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/

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

I notice that you will find any reason to reject the support I post. If its not bad science, its a bad site, If its nots a bad site its a bad scientists or it has the slightest association to religion or it is religious and therefore totally invalid. Yet I have this feeling if someone posted support for evolution it would be subjected to such rigorous levels of objections. I didn't post a link as I though most people knew Lynn Margulis and her work. She formulated the symbiotic theory of evolution, which deals with the interconnection of prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells, explaining the emergence of new species by a mechanism known as “symbiogenesis”. The quote is mentioned on a few different sites but this one has a few more as well and tells you about her work as its a tribute to her when she passed away in 2011.
http://newsciencereview.com/?p=380[/QUOTE]

 

[KCfromNC]

Well that doesn't make sense.

I agree. Picking a textbook which was basically just thinly disguised Chrisitan creationism wasn't the smartest way for ID proponents to try and sneak their religion into science textbooks. But the facts are what they are.

That is why they say that ID doesn't get involved in religion or isn't a religion in that sense.

Who says this? It is well known that ID is just creationism for people who want to hide that they're talking about god.

How do you know its based in religion.

Because of the example I mentioned above - ID textbooks that were thinly disguised religious ones. You really should read the transcripts of the Dover trial.

Like i said that would undo their scientific work.

What scientific work is that again?

No that is why its called intelligent design. All we need to know for the time being is that intelligence is behind it.

Seems tough to have a theory based on the actions of an intelligent designer you know nothing about. Maybe that's why ID has failed to win any support from actual scientists. See the quote from your expert below for one such example of them seeing through the charade.

It offers a theory

Citation needed.

Just like evolution has to prove itself.

Just like it, except for the part where evolution is actually offering a theory and evidence.

Some of the evidence for evolution can also be supported by design.

It's kinda hard to test intelligent design without having a testable scientific theory of intelligent design.

Gee I think I have already posted this. Try some of the ones above this post that talk about Natural selection not being the source for change and complexity or at the least plays a minor role. Other sources which are more in line with design seem to be more dominate like HGT, Symbiosis, cross breeding especially in the early stages of life. Some of the other papers which talk about the genetic code being around from a very early stage which was too complex for evolution to have time to create.

Or Axes paper which talks about random mutations and natural selection not being able to make even small changes which are fit and functional that requires multiple mutations. Or even The paper about genomics which is saying that natural selection is a dominate force and that non adaptive forces are more responsible fro ho living things change. Evolution does consistently show increased complexity as stated by Darwinian evolution to be able to evolve things from simple to more complex life.

What does any of this have to do with proving ID? Even if every expert in the field concluded that evolution was a giant mistake and it went away you'd be no closer towards proving there was a disembodied magical intelligence which put some biological features together when our backs were turned.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2651812/

The phrase "intelligent design" doesn't appear a single time in that paper. Perhaps you had a different one in mind?

I notice that you will find any reason to reject the support I post.

It's hardly a stretch when the experts you cite explicitly disagree with your claims.

I didn't post a link as I though most people knew Lynn Margulis and her work.
http://newsciencereview.com/?p=380

On her disagreement with Behe and his buddies :
"It’s just that they’ve got nothing to offer but intelligent design or “God did it.” They have no alternatives that are scientific."

So again you point to an interview with someone you claim is an expert who undermines your entire post. And you wonder why people don't take your quote-mining and name dropping seriously.

 

[Loudmouth]

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

I have made tons of comments on some of the papers you keep referring to. You wait a little while until those posts fade into memory, and then you repost the same nonsense as if it hasn't already been refuted. It's very dishonest.

 

[Loudmouth]

Well you havnt gone through many of them.

Why go through any of them when our posts are ignored?

 

[stevevw]

I have made tons of comments on some of the papers you keep referring to. You wait a little while until those posts fade into memory, and then you repost the same nonsense as if it hasn't already been refuted. It's very dishonest.

That an exaggeration. You havnt made tons of comments. Yes you have made comments on some of the papers which are only a small % of what I have posted. The comments you have made have been unsupported. I dont wait until things go quite to re-post these articles. I am constantly posting them in one forum or another because people keep asking for support and they keep ignoring them. You say they are nonsense yet you dont prove this. There are many papers you havnt said a word about which support what I am saying. It was only a few posts back where I posted a heap of papers you claimed were nonsense which you havnt said a word about. It seems you find some fault in a couple of papers and focus on them and then ignore all the others.

 

[stevevw]

Why go through any of them when our posts are ignored?

I dont ignore your posts. When you claim something like a paper is false or disputed I reply with some counter claims and support. Disagreeing with you is not ignoring you. The difference is you dont do the same. Like I said you dont hesitate to focus on the ones you may find some fault in. But make all sorts of excuses about not acknowledging the others that challenge what you say about Darwinian evolution.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Naturally as opposed to theoliogically I think they (natural laws) are realisation of of abstract math which floats round in hyper space somewhere. As 2+2 is always true, so also is e=mc2, and therefore it is embodied.

Were emerging from Platos cave to look at the DNA of the universe.

But some say "God created maths".

 

[Loudmouth]

That an exaggeration. You havnt made tons of comments. Yes you have made comments on some of the papers which are only a small % of what I have posted. The comments you have made have been unsupported.

And that is just it. They are well supported. You ignore my posts, and then keep posting the same nonsense.

 

[stevevw]

And that is just it. They are well supported. You ignore my posts, and then keep posting the same nonsense.

I thought I may have missed something so I went back over all the post from when you started out with the spaghetti monster comment. But I cant see how your comments are well supported. You havnt posted any links to anything to support what you have said. Yes you have made comments but they are just your comments without any support. I was trying to show some scientific support for design in nature. You kept taking it back to a religious argument that I was trying to prove God. Hense your spaghetti monster comment.

I have posted around a dozen links most of which have been mainstream sites with mainstream scientists. You havnt shown or disputed them apart form trying to claim its all nonsense from your own view without any verification. When I linked several sites rather than comment on any individual ones you just fobbed them all into the one basket as nonsense without any backup. So are you saying that I am to take your word for it and believe that you are correct without backup.

 

[Loudmouth]

I thought I may have missed something so I went back over all the post from when you started out with the spaghetti monster comment. But I cant see how your comments are well supported. You havnt posted any links to anything to support what you have said.

In other threads I have gone to great effort to show that your claims are false, and you ignore them.

For example, your protein fold argument has been thoroughly destroyed by the information found at Panda's Thumb:

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/01/92-second-st-fa.html

I have discussed it several times as well, echoing what the author at PT said.

Will you reuse this same argument again and again and again as if no one has ever completely refuted it? Probably. In fact, I can almost guarantee it.

 

[stevevw]

In other threads I have gone to great effort to show that your claims are false, and you ignore them.

For example, your protein fold argument has been thoroughly destroyed by the information found at Panda's Thumb:

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/01/92-second-st-fa.html

I have discussed it several times as well, echoing what the author at PT said.

Will you reuse this same argument again and again and again as if no one has ever completely refuted it? Probably. In fact, I can almost guarantee it.

Ok Well I was referring to this thread and I cant be expected to remember every interaction Ive had with many different people and who exactly said what. Never the less as Panda thumbs is a blog and not a peer reviewed article. Though i think that there is good support from articles besides peer review and that peer reviewed is not the be all and end all it is normally pro evolutionists who insist anyone speaking out against them use peer reviewed sources or sources from reputable sites. A sit that is a personal opinion such as a thumb site hardly counts as being credible according to this criteria.

Putting this aside, the article from Panda thumbs is a good one and Axe acknowledges that Hunt is mostly correct though his understanding of his analysis was off in several respects. Axe points out 4 things that he has misunderstood and therefore comes to the wrong conclusions. The 15 minute podcast is probably a better and quicker way to get the gist of how Douglas Axe explains how Art Hunt has misunderstood the paper.
http://www.biologicinstitute.org/post/19310918874/correcting-four-misconceptions-about-my-2004
http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2011-06-01T15_59_43-07_00

Another point about Axes paper which shows that he is not the only one who is thinking along these lines and produced evidence. The basic point Axes is making is that functional proteins for all life have very specific structures and are very complex beyond the capabilities of evolution to create in the first place or to create even small functions in the time needed for evolution. There are thousands of possible forms that will be non functional for which a random process can take or have to deal with. Out of all these possibilities proteins there is a very narrow parameter for its complex shape. This can be seen right down to the quantum level in recent evidence.

There is a physical structure that is similar to the laws of physics that seems to be pre determined by natural forms that are beyond a materialistic natural chance process of evolution to produce. Proteins don't just have have preset shapes they also have mechanisms to maintain those structures by correcting any mutations that will attempt to change them and restore things back to the optimum working order.
Proteins with cruise control provide new perspective:
“A mathematical analysis of the experiments showed that the proteins themselves acted to correct any imbalance imposed on them through artificial mutations and restored the chain to working order.”
http://www.princeton.edu/main/...../60/95O56/

Anyone who has studied the protein folding problem will have met the famous Levinthal paradox, formulated in 1969 by the molecular biologist Cyrus Levinthal. Put simply, the Levinthal paradox states that when one calculates the number of possible topological (rotational) configurations for the amino acids in even a small (say, 100 residue) unfolded protein, random search could never find the final folded conformation of that same protein during the lifetime of the physical universe. Therefore, concluded Levinthal, given that proteins obviously do fold, they are doing so, not by random search, but by following favored pathways.

The Levinthal paradox of the interactome.
Unlike protein folding, self-assembly of the interactome has not yet prompted such widespread attention, and for understandable reasons. It is a problem of bewildering complexity...Where does one begin? Our goal here is to show that assembly of the interactome in biological real-time is analogous to folding in that the functional state is selected from a staggering number of useless or potentially deleterious alternatives.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21987416

You’re powered by quantum mechanics. No, really…
Schrödinger suggested that life was based on a novel physical principle whereby its macroscopic order is a reflection of quantum-level order, rather than the molecular disorder that characterises the inanimate world. He called this new principle “order from order”
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/oct/26/youre-powered-by-quantum-mechanics-biology

Physicists Discover Quantum Law of Protein Folding
To put this in perspective, a relatively small protein of only 100 amino acids can take some 10^100 different configurations. If it tried these shapes at the rate of 100 billion a second, it would take longer than the age of the universe to find the correct one.
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/423087/physicists-discover-quantum-law-of-protein-folding/
Quantum coherent-like state observed in a biological protein for the first time - October 13, 2015
http://phys.org/news/2015-10-quantum-coherent-like-state-biological-protein.html
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

 

[Heissonear]

I have a Cooler Master CM690.



To where?



I thought He was supposed to be immaterial. If so, that's kinda separate from the matter by definition.



My, aren't we demanding!

It is called "exclusion by ignorance."

You have "arrived in knowing" but do not have enough awareness.

You are only aware of the physical realm. I've been one like this, front and center, for many years and through many discussions/arguements. And through years of learning and years in academia.

But meeting Him who made all things was not what I expected from years of learning and then like you "arriving through knowing" through the physical realm knowledge. By meeting Him I quickly learned I had only learned from and of the physical, as He had set it up.

Since then I have been learning also through the spiritual, as mentioned in the Bible, like John 3:6: that born [comes from or originates] from flesh is flesh.

That which is born of Spirit is spirit. The last bring a whole and different domain.

Like my position in the past, many do not have awareness of it, tangibly. Only words.

Only words.

 

[Loudmouth]

Ok Well I was referring to this thread and I cant be expected to remember every interaction Ive had with many different people and who exactly said what. Never the less as Panda thumbs is a blog and not a peer reviewed article.

Just another affirmation that you will ignore all of our refutations and keep posting the same nonsense. Do we have to publish our posts in a peer review journal before you will consider them?

 

[Hoghead1]

The first thing I look at, Stevewv, is the author's credentials and the publisher. Nobody has time to sit and read everything out there. There has to be some selectivity. I want to go on credentialed scholars who have passed critical reviews of their work before it was published. I don't want to read material that someone just grabs off the shelf and shoves out there. When you anticipate that you will be submitting your work to a peer-reviewed journal, that really keeps you on your toes. Ask me how I know. Been there, done that. If someone is self-publishing or not submitting peer-reviewed material, the question is why. And my guess is that they do not know their stuff and want to duck out of any critical review. Of course, the peer-review system has its problems. Many publishers and journals have a definite agenda about the kinds of material they want to published, and no matter how good your work is, if it doesn't fit their agenda, it doesn't get published. I'm sorry, we are now interested in publishing books only in northern studies. Try elsewhere. Also, there is a huge number of us out there, trying to publish, and only a limited number of publishers with limited space in their journals. So the system is far from perfect. And since it has definite problems, that is a stern warning how much more trouble we would get into listening to unqualified amateurs who have free reign and can publish just about anything they want, with no quality check in the process.

 

[stevevw]

Just another affirmation that you will ignore all of our refutations and keep posting the same nonsense. Do we have to publish our posts in a peer review journal before you will consider them?

No it shows the opposite. I have just gone back over all your threads so I am revising what you said and not ignoring it. You interpret disagreeing with you as ignoring you. The point was about backing up what you say and not just continually making claims and statements without any support. Anyone can do that and then say you are not listening and ignoring me.

The point is if I was to post something with my own words you would say exactly the same and ask for evidence. If I was to post that evidence from a site that was not peer reviewed or at least from something that you regarded as OK it would also be thrown out. Yet you say you can make posts from your own words and this is sufficient to make you right. You can post articles from blogs and other non scientific sites and claim they are also good enough to pass as evidence. It seems that this is unfair and shows that you hold a very high criteria for anything that disagrees with your views. So all I am saying is to have an even playing field for what is acceptable and what is not.

 

[stevevw]

The first thing I look at, Stevewv, is the author's credentials and the publisher. Nobody has time to sit and read everything out there. There has to be some selectivity. I want to go on credentialed scholars who have passed critical reviews of their work before it was published. I don't want to read material that someone just grabs off the shelf and shoves out there. When you anticipate that you will be submitting your work to a peer-reviewed journal, that really keeps you on your toes. Ask me how I know. Been there, done that. If someone is self-publishing or not submitting peer-reviewed material, the question is why. And my guess is that they do not know their stuff and want to duck out of any critical review. Of course, the peer-review system has its problems. Many publishers and journals have a definite agenda about the kinds of material they want to published, and no matter how good your work is, if it doesn't fit their agenda, it doesn't get published. I'm sorry, we are now interested in publishing books only in northern studies. Try elsewhere. Also, there is a huge number of us out there, trying to publish, and only a limited number of publishers with limited space in their journals. So the system is far from perfect. And since it has definite problems, that is a stern warning how much more trouble we would get into listening to unqualified amateurs who have free reign and can publish just about anything they want, with no quality check in the process.

Fair enough but the problem is I have the time to read and read and read. Over time I have got to know whats out there. I agree that peer review isn't the be all and end all and a lot of shoddy and even false work has got through. I agree that there can be agendas and sometimes its the accepted consensus that gets through easier then something that challenges it. Thats part of the problem. There is a bias towards whats already accepted. There are reputations and careers as well as funding hinged on it. So the % of articles that are going to be questioned, frowned upon or gain a bad reputation are going to be the ones that make claims against the general consensus.

The problem is if you want to find something that challenges the norm then you are going to have to look at those fringe journals or scientists. That includes scientists with religious connections. But the thing is many main stream scientists and supporters will reject them based on association and not content. Some very good scientists have religious backgrounds. So it becomes a stock standard response to anything from fringe sites to say its all rubbish without even checking the content. I disagree that basing your criteria for whether its reputable or not should be based on the name alone. You need to check the content as well.

The best way to check if something is said to be controversial or wrong is to compare it to a wide section of other articles. That is what I do and I find that some of the religious or fringe articles are even supported by mainstream articles. They are more or less saying the same thing but in different ways. The difference is the main stream will come up with an unsupported reason for why something is contradictory. Part of the problem is that people see the evidence in different ways. Evolution may be true but it is taken beyond the bounds of what has been proven to be true. So much of the evidence that is challenging evolution is about its limits.

Proving design in life is another challenge and this is also something that can be viewed differently. I have noticed that evolution has been claiming more and more design capability with the many new discoveries about how complex and designed life looks. They have to because thats what we see. We are finding more and more layers of complex order far beyond what evolution ever thought. The explanation for this is beyond what evolution can do and if anything the evidence for change in life is showing non adaptive forces for which Darwinian evolution theory is secondary or even non existent.

So the issue is how did that design get there. Evolution gives nature itself the power to do it but without the explanation or evidence. There is a lot of assumption. I simply challenge that as well as the evidence is not there and I believe it has limits. If you may have noticed there are more and more scientists calling for a review of evolution. This may be another way to say there is something wrong with it.

 

[digitalgoth]

But the thing is many main stream scientists and supporters will reject them based on association and not content. Some very good scientists have religious backgrounds. So it becomes a stock standard response to anything from fringe sites to say its all rubbish without even checking the content. I disagree that basing your criteria for whether its reputable or not should be based on the name alone. You need to check the content as well.

That's very true, and is a problem in any sort of analysis or challenge to an opinion. Divorcing the message from the messenger is an important thing when addressing any challenge.

I have noticed that evolution has been claiming more and more design capability with the many new discoveries about how complex and designed life looks. They have to because thats what we see. We are finding more and more layers of complex order far beyond what evolution ever thought. The explanation for this is beyond what evolution can do and if anything the evidence for change in life is showing non adaptive forces for which Darwinian evolution theory is secondary or even non existent.

I'm not sure that's entirely true. What design capability has proponents of evolution proclaimed that couldn't be explained by evolutionary processes which lack design and direction in the first place? I'm not sure I've read anything where change in life and adaptation is not due to evolution in response to environmental pressures.

So the issue is how did that design get there. Evolution gives nature itself the power to do it but without the explanation or evidence. There is a lot of assumption. I simply challenge that as well as the evidence is not there and I believe it has limits. If you may have noticed there are more and more scientists calling for a review of evolution. This may be another way to say there is something wrong with it.

There isn't any design inherent in evolution, as there is no goal to it. It isn't directed. It isn't a power or force. Its a description of what happens when an environment conflicts with change and that change can be selected for, in biological evolution it is which organisms have more successful reproduction.

Evolution isn't a power. Or a competing God. Or anything mystical. It is just descriptive of how change occurs. And change does occur that way. You can say you don't understand how a particular feature of something changed the way it did, and want some sort of explanation or description of how it came to be, but to think that scientists are all suddenly disagreeing with the fundamental tenants of how change occurs, is really not the case.

 

[Hoghead1]

I disagree, Jfrsmth, that they are immaterial. If they were, they would not be able to interact with matter. That was the majo0r problem with Descartes and his mind/body dualism. There was not way an immaterial mind could influence matter. I know that many people hold with a kind of container theory, that time, space, natural laws are big containers into which material events have been placed. I disagree. Such containers are nothing but abstractions from the more concrete world of events. If there was no universe, nothing happening, there would be no time, for example. Same with the laws of nature. Like time and space, they have no independent existence. No universe, no laws.