Where did the laws of nature come from?

[Hoghead1]

I can't say as I agree with you, Stevewv. You talk about challenging the norm. That is how evolution got there in the first place. The old norm was precisely the assumptions that creation-science now makes. So all creation-science does is to try and turn the clock back. But the human quest for knowledge does not work that way. Once an idea is discarded, it stays discarded, no going b backwards. If science were to move beyond evolution, found something better someday, it would be very different from both evolution and creation science.
I find science is very well aware of fringe material and generally has responded to it. When van Daniken published "Chariot of the Gods," a professor published a major critics of it in a book "Crash Go the Chariots." When I was in gad. school, studying the ancient world of teh Bible, we had lectures by archaeologists who were very open to questions about the ancient-alien theory and, of course, Van Daniken. From my experience, is open to hearing fringe theories, then. Also, in science as well as in other academic disciplines, you can get away with anything you want, provided, and this is really important, you are big enough to pull it off and get away with it. The contemporary world of science is loaded with unorthodox ideas. The is rue of other fields. In my field, theology, it has been said, since the early 60's, that there is no orthodoxy. The reason why fringe theories, such as creation science, have been rejected by science is simply because these guys were not big enough.
As far as promoting fringe theories, the mass media almost goes to overkill with that. Look at al the TV programming o n ancient aliens, shows promoting the idea that the moon landing was a fake, we all know that biblical scholars got it all wrong and the Ark was brought to American and buried, possibly at Oak Island, etc. So don't give me this stuff about mainstream science not hearing or responding to fringe theories. We all are continually bombarded with them, 24/7, by the mass media.

 

[stevevw]

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.

Whether we call it design or not for the moment as that tends to evoke reactions and cloud peoples views. But certainly the complexity of life had been underestimated and even denied by some evolutionists in the past such as with the junk DNA and the Cambrian explosion. There has always been this view that life was more simple than it really was so that it was easier to explain how it happened. The Cambrian explosion was always seen as simple creatures that suddenly appeared without much explanation. Now they are being found to be very complex and as much as modern day creatures. Its easier to explain and justify 10 steps of evolution rather than 110 when we begin to see the real depth of detail in life.

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

This is true but only to a certain point. Mutations are basically a mistake in what is already good. Evolution can make limited change and can maintain the status qua but it cannot make anything new that is fit and functional. As Lynn Margulis who was famous for the role endosymbiosis plays in how living things change, evolution may give a chicken bigger eggs but it also give it wobbly legs.

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.

Ok power was the wrong word. I am talking about the ability scientists give it. Afterall its the description that people will give it that may be exaggerated that is the problem. Taking something that may happen and then assuming it happens beyond a certain point. As I have heard it being described, its like having a chain of islands and someone sees a bridge joining the first couple together. They then assume the rest of the islands also have a bridge joining them even though they cant see them.

 

[stevevw]

I can't say as I agree with you, Stevewv. You talk about challenging the norm. That is how evolution got there in the first place. The old norm was precisely the assumptions that creation-science now makes. So all creation-science does is to try and turn the clock back. But the human quest for knowledge does not work that way. Once an idea is discarded, it stays discarded, no going b backwards. If science were to move beyond evolution, found something better someday, it would be very different from both evolution and creation science

If anyone knows me and sees what I post, I dont use creation and rarely us religion as the basis for challenging Darwinian evolution. If I dont on those occasions I like to think it is the science that is the support and not the religious connection. I have learnt that using even a hint of religion is going to get you nowhere on threads like theses. Most of the challenges to darwinian evolution come from non religious sources. The fact is the evidence isn't there for Darwinian evolution as we have discovered more and n more about how life operates and changes. Darwin didn't know about all of this when he made his theory so he couldn't have seen the whole picture. But even if we consider the view from a religion stand point things have changed a lot from those days. There are many scientists who are experts in biology and are coming up with good evidence. But like I said it isn't just them and its evolutionists themselves that are saying this. I fact I am surprised that you and others on here are not aware of this.

I find science is very well aware of fringe material and generally has responded to it. When van Daniken published "Chariot of the Gods," a professor published a major critics of it in a book "Crash Go the Chariots." When I was in gad. school, studying the ancient world of teh Bible, we had lectures by archaeologists who were very open to questions about the ancient-alien theory and, of course, Van Daniken. From my experience, is open to hearing fringe theories, then. Also, in science as well as in other academic disciplines, you can get away with anything you want, provided, and this is really important, you are big enough to pull it off and get away with it. The contemporary world of science is loaded with unorthodox ideas. The is rue of other fields. In my field, theology, it has been said, since the early 60's, that there is no orthodoxy. The reason why fringe theories, such as creation science, have been rejected by science is simply because these guys were not big enough.

Its a bit like the climate change debate. There are scientists on both sides who are claiming a lot of things. Much of the claims have been motivated by funding and they have their reasons for saying what they do. Just because its connected to a science journal doesn't mean it is automatically true. But once again it isn't about 100 year old ideas or even 20 year old ideas. A lot has happened and much of the challenges is from non religious sources.

As far as promoting fringe theories, the mass media almost goes to overkill with that. Look at al the TV programming o n ancient aliens, shows promoting the idea that the moon landing was a fake, we all know that biblical scholars got it all wrong and the Ark was brought to American and buried, possibly at Oak Island, etc. So don't give me this stuff about mainstream science not hearing or responding to fringe theories. We all are continually bombarded with them, 24/7, by the mass media.

Its the same for things like Jurassic park and all the docos about evolution that take a lot of poetic license and making claims that havnt been verified. Thats just the media. But in the inner circles of the top people there is a fixed view and nothing is going to shake that. The fact is if you lok at those who have challenged the main consensus in the past, they have been made out to be loopy or wrong to begin with and cast out to the fringes. It isn't until time goes by that the rest start to acknowledge things. Just like evolution tries to claim more then it actually does, science tries to claim it represents the truth more than it does. We are talking about humans who are behind the science. Scientists can be just as religious about their belief in evolution as anyone.

 

[VirOptimus]

-snip-

Its a bit like the climate change debate. There are scientists on both sides who are claiming a lot of things. Much of the claims have been motivated by funding and they have their reasons for saying what they do. Just because its connected to a science journal doesn't mean it is automatically true. But once again it isn't about 100 year old ideas or even 20 year old ideas. A lot has happened and much of the challenges is from non religious sources.
-snip-.

No, there are science (climate change) and science deniers (climate change sceptics). Just as there are science (toe) and science deniers (YEC).

There are no real science on either deniers side. The science is pretty much settled, there is no real debate.

 

[Derek Meyer]

If anyone knows me and sees what I post, I dont use creation and rarely us religion as the basis for challenging Darwinian evolution.

Yes you do. Some words you use, such as "Darwinian evolution" are dead give-aways. You're a religious fanatic.

 

[Derek Meyer]

One way of knowing that you don't tell the truth, stevevw, is that the Cambrian explosion is discussed in the books written by Darwin. Why do you tell untruths about what Darwin wrote, stevevw?

The Cambrian explosion was always seen as simple creatures that suddenly appeared without much explanation.

It looks like old stevevw doesn't tell the truth here.

 

[Larniavc]

Multiverses, hologram worlds, time travel, string theory, the big bang, black holes, dark matter, the expanding universe, even gravity when it comes to uniting it with quantum physics. There are many more examples that are associated with the quantum world.

You're mistaking 'can't deal with' and 'cannot explain thoroughly, yet'.

Two very different things.

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

Disagreement does not make the refutation go away. For example, the protein folding paper has been thoroughly refuted. It doesn't support the argument you claim it does. For example, Axe only tested for beta-lactamase activity in his mutated protein folds. That's it. He never tested for any other enzymatic or protein function. You can't make the argument that there is a limited combination of amino acids that will result in function if you only look at one function.

What is your response to this?

 

[stevevw]

No, there are science (climate change) and science deniers (climate change sceptics). Just as there are science (toe) and science deniers (YEC).

There are no real science on either deniers side. The science is pretty much settled, there is no real debate.

Thats because you polarize the debate. Its either one extreme or the other ie out of all opposing groups you choose (YEC) for which I would say the majority of people who challenge darwinian evolution dont belong to including myself. Then on the supported there are those who dont agree with the traditional Darwinian view of evolution but still support evolution. Then there are those who believe in theistic evolution. So there are many areas in between including supporters of evolution who dont agree with everything that the tradition theory states and those who disagree with evolution who are no religious. The science isn't settle and even evolution acknowledges this.

The fact is there were deniers of climate change and there were those who disagreed with the exaggerated propaganda that were being pumped out. There wasn't just two camps. Both sides had good scientists who had some good support for what they said. In the beginning most supporters of climate change were presenting false exaggerated info like sea levels rising 60 feet and everyone bought into it. Just like evolution there is some truth but then its exaggerated without the support. Show me the evidence where evolution has been verified. Not patchy observational support or assumptions based on a couple of bits of evidence but empirical evidence from tests that show that its proven. Show the links through scientific verification not a couple of links which then are assumed to be the case for every link. Thats not how science works.

 

[stevevw]

Disagreement does not make the refutation go away. For example, the protein folding paper has been thoroughly refuted. It doesn't support the argument you claim it does. For example, Axe only tested for beta-lactamase activity in his mutated protein folds. That's it. He never tested for any other enzymatic or protein function. You can't make the argument that there is a limited combination of amino acids that will result in function if you only look at one function.

What is your response to this?

So you claim that I ignore the evidence. You have already made this claim at post #532. Yet I posted Douglas Axe's response to those claims with his detailed reply and a podcast which I stated was easier to use as it was a summary. I also post several other non religious and mainstream scientists and papers who have found similar conclusions to Axes findings. Yet you dont even mention this as though you just ignored it all and then repeat the claim. Here it is again #533 just in case you want to read his response.

 

[VirOptimus]

Thats because you polarize the debate. Its either one extreme or the other ie out of all opposing groups you choose (YEC) for which I would say the majority of people who challenge darwinian evolution dont belong to including myself. Then on the supported there are those who dont agree with the traditional Darwinian view of evolution but still support evolution. Then there are those who believe in theistic evolution. So there are many areas in between including supporters of evolution who dont agree with everything that the tradition theory states and those who disagree with evolution who are no religious. The science isn't settle and even evolution acknowledges this.

The fact is there were deniers of climate change and there were those who disagreed with the exaggerated propaganda that were being pumped out. There wasn't just two camps. Both sides had good scientists who had some good support for what they said. In the beginning most supporters of climate change were presenting false exaggerated info like sea levels rising 60 feet and everyone bought into it. Just like evolution there is some truth but then its exaggerated without the support. Show me the evidence where evolution has been verified. Not patchy observational support or assumptions based on a couple of bits of evidence but empirical evidence from tests that show that its proven. Show the links through scientific verification not a couple of links which then are assumed to be the case for every link. Thats not how science works.

Just be honest, the only reason you oppose evolution is your religious belief.

 

[digitalgoth]

Whether we call it design or not for the moment as that tends to evoke reactions and cloud peoples views. But certainly the complexity of life had been underestimated and even denied by some evolutionists in the past such as with the junk DNA and the Cambrian explosion. There has always been this view that life was more simple than it really was so that it was easier to explain how it happened. The Cambrian explosion was always seen as simple creatures that suddenly appeared without much explanation. Now they are being found to be very complex and as much as modern day creatures. Its easier to explain and justify 10 steps of evolution rather than 110 when we begin to see the real
depth of detail in life.

It evokes reactions because evolution isn't designed, its a description of what is occurring, and invoking a designer makes no sense because the evolutionary process has nothing to do with any kind of God concept. And people that use "design" generally mean the specific Christian God mythos as written in the creation section of the Christian bible, which is what makes it difficult to use in scientific discussions. As it was used in court cases to try and insert Creationsim into education it is probably why people have an issue with the term.

Life only appears complex because you've decided it's complex. Its a subjective opinion that has yet to be sufficiently defined in any objective fashion. What is complexity? I would say that life is quite simple, and based on various simple operations.

Now if you want to argue the consciousness is complex, or what forms of life possess that trait, or the philosophical or spiritual ramifications of it, that's certainly an avenue of thought.

As far as the Cambrian explosion, first off, its a long period of time, millions of years, so explosion is a description that sounds a little more exciting than it is. A bunch of life started raditating out into different forms of life and evidence of it was being found around a common time period. It certainly would make sense that more advanced forms of life would be discovered as they leave evidence to be discovered, and under different environmental pressures populations of organisms evolving in different ways makes complete sense, because there's no design or rule to how natural evolution occurs. Small changes add up to make large changes over time.

This is true but only to a certain point. Mutations are basically a mistake in what is already good. Evolution can make limited change and can maintain the status qua but it cannot make anything new that is fit and functional. As Lynn Margulis who was famous for the role endosymbiosis plays in how living things change, evolution may give a chicken bigger eggs but it also give it wobbly legs.

Mutations are not mistakes to what was good. First off, what is good. If you mean good is "the organism is able to live in its environment" then I guess we can use that. Mutations are changes that occur due to imperfect reproduction of the creature. You can say its a mistake in the sense that the DNA of the reproduced organism does not perfectly match the DNA of the original organism, but that's about it, and only makes sense in the context of that copying operation.

Evolutionary changes, taken as between a single generation, are not going to create giant novel new features, however I can think of one case where you can see a fascinating change in one generation, and that is the mutation CCR5-delta 32. For those individuals who have both parents that pass on the mutation, it gives total immunity to HIV. I'm sure you're thinking of a novel mutation as a horn growing out of a forehead or wings suddenly appearing in thin air, but immunity to a disease that's killed 25 million people is a pretty impressive feature I would think.

Also, major feature changes don't really occur in one change, "novel features" which also needs to be defined, requires multiple changes over time. Much like you don't win a war in one battle, but of a series of tactical victories, large changes to a genome requires a multitude of changes, all of which won't occur at the same time, but over time, because DNA doesn't mutate 100% of itself every time it replicates and start the organism over from scratch with all new features.

Ok power was the wrong word. I am talking about the ability scientists give it. Afterall its the description that people will give it that may be exaggerated that is the problem. Taking something that may happen and then assuming it happens beyond a certain point. As I have heard it being described, its like having a chain of islands and someone sees a bridge joining the first couple together. They then assume the rest of the islands also have a bridge joining them even though they cant see them.

Evolution still isn't a power. Scientists are merely saying that given time, and really that's just generations of reproduction that's meant, mutations will be created every generation, and the environment will cause a selection process of those mutations that lead to reproductive success of the organism. That's it. Small mutations occurring, sometimes building on each other, over generation after generation, some of which allow it to respond better to changes in the environment.

 

[Loudmouth]

So you claim that I ignore the evidence. You have already made this claim at post #532. Yet I posted Douglas Axe's response to those claims with his detailed reply and a podcast which I stated was easier to use as it was a summary. I also post several other non religious and mainstream scientists and papers who have found similar conclusions to Axes findings. Yet you dont even mention this as though you just ignored it all and then repeat the claim. Here it is again #533 just in case you want to read his response.

If they found similar things to Axe, then they did not find what you are claiming. That's the whole point. Also, I am not listening to a podcast. Summarize the points in your own words.

The other papers have the same weakness. They focus on a single function. The question is what it takes to get ANY function, not a specific function. You can't answer that question by looking for a single protein function.

 

[KCfromNC]

It is called "exclusion by ignorance."

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

Is it irony when people who believe they are mind-readers tell other people they lack awareness?

 

[KCfromNC]

Mutations are basically a mistake in what is already good.

When you make simple mistakes like this, it is really hard to take seriously your claims that you're successfully able to summarize research on the cutting edge of our understanding of biology.

As Lynn Margulis who was famous for the role endosymbiosis plays in how living things change, evolution may give a chicken bigger eggs but it also give it wobbly legs.

See, here's an example of ignoring posts you don't want to read. A page back I posted a quote from your linked interview of Margulis where she explicitly said that ID is a scientific dead end. Despite this, you continue to rely on her to support your pro-ID claims. Why do even your own sources show that you're making this all up?

 

[KCfromNC]

Thats because you polarize the debate.

To be fair, so has the vast majority of the scientific and legal community who has investigated it. Thinking that ID and creationism are simply tools for theocrats to force religion onto public school students is hardly a fringe view.

 

[Gracchus]

The hallmark of good design is not complexity, it is simplicity.
"A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." --- Antoine de Saint-Exupery

 

[Hoghead1]

The issue for debate, Stevevw, is how the process of evolution works. There is no doubt about their being an evolutionary process taking place. The question is how does it work? Here is where the debate is. For example, I do not agree that it is a random process. And I believe evolution would be impossible without God. I am sure there are others who will disagree, yet both of us may well agree that the is an evolutionary process, that reality is not static, but an interconnected web of events that are continually changing.

 

[stevevw]

Just be honest, the only reason you oppose evolution is your religious belief.

As I have said many times and posted evidence for I base things on the scientific evidence. I have rarely used religion as the basis for my views. If I did then there would be no coherent reason for disagreeing with Darwinian evolution. You dont seem to get it and cant accept that people with no religious reasons disagree with evolution. We are not talking about a complete rejection of evolution but the extent to which Darwinian evolution claims it can change living things. There is no evidence for it and its as simple as that.

I dont think anyone disagrees that there is evolution where living things may change within their species such as with the beaks on Darwin's finches. But they remain birds and dont become another animal. The changes in beak sizes (micro evolution) on the finches has been verified. The change from one animal to another (macro evolution) has not. There is a limit to evolution and when things go beyond that limit there is a cost to fitness not the making of better and fitter living things. If anything those who believe in an assumption without scientific evidence have as much faith in their theory as someone who is religious.

 

[stevevw]

The issue for debate, Stevevw, is how the process of evolution works. There is no doubt about their being an evolutionary process taking place. The question is how does it work? Here is where the debate is. For example, I do not agree that it is a random process. And I believe evolution would be impossible without God. I am sure there are others who will disagree, yet both of us may well agree that the is an evolutionary process, that reality is not static, but an interconnected web of events that are continually changing.

I would say that you and I are in agreement then as that is more or less what I believe. Yes there is evolution at work but its limited. There is a great capacity for living things to share genetic material and it was even greater in the past when there wasn't such a great separation of all life. Micro organisms have the greatest ability to share genetic material and they make up 95% of all life. Micro organisms can also transfer genetic material to more complex living things. The evidence for change supports non adaptive driving forces and not Darwinian evolution which may play a minor role.

This is where the debate lies in what role it plays and to what extent is happens. modern advances and discoveries show it isn't as dominate as first thought. The evidence shows that the code for life has been around from the beginning of existence and that all life can tap into a vast amount of genetic material available in their own DNA and those of others. The environment plays an active part of this and is a living thing as much as the animals that live in it. But the important thing is the code for life didn't just appear out of nothing or was somehow mutated into existence. There is evidence for a designer in life and everything about life shows design rather than a self creating natural process that somehow makes more complex life from simple life without any code there to produce it.