Where did the laws of nature come from?

[stevevw]

If in the beginning planets and stars formed according to the laws of chemistry and physics then those laws already existed in order to govern those processes. I have no problem believing that God (the maker of those laws) made sure the matter/energy followed these guidelines...He knew what He wanted and made it happen and this is how He made it happen.

Exactly and its the same for life itself.

 

[Gracchus]

You have seen other machines. You know they are designed. A savage might think a machine was just a strange sort of animal.
But the theist thinks everything is designed. It is all part of God's design. Therefore there is nothing un-designed. You can have your cake and eat it too, only if the cake is a fantasy.

That doesn't make sense.

It makes sense even you can't make sense of it.
God designed everything? Then everything is intelligently designed. The watch on the moor was designed, but so was the heather.

How can anyone tell if something is intelligently designed without comparing it to something thats not intelligently designed. You dont have to be a theist to realize something is intelligently designed. Everyone who is intelligent regardless of whether they are a theist has seen other machines and knows what is intelligently designed and what is not.

And here it is again: You make statements about "everyone". You are certain. Your god is in your mind and your god is omniscient.
But: What didn't your god design? How can you tell the difference between what is designed and what is not if your god designed everything? Are some of his designs less perfect? Simple observation would suggest that: Cancer, guinea worm, tornadoes, tsunamism, et cetera ad infinitum. Aside from your experience and bias, can you provide criteria of intelligent design, and what distinguishes it from what is natural? Remember, all of nature is your god's perfect design! Come to think of it, mosquitoes and fleas have undoubtedly killed more people than bombs and bullets. So your god's designs for killing are more effective, more intelligently designed, than man's.

But even if we didn't see designed things we intuitively know that something is designed.

"Intuition" is from the Latin "tueri", which means to "look at, examine". So "intuition" means "looking in". Thus,"intuition" is the sum of flawed understandings, incomplete perceptions, biases, rationalizations, superstitions, fantasies, and justifications. The output might be magic, religion, superstition, or just plain nonsense.

Thats why we are sending out certain intelligent signals that are different to natural signals into the universe to find intelligent life. Thats why even ancient people could tell the difference without ever seeing a machine.

And if an "ancient" person saw a television set he would "intuit" that it was magic. He would not be able to "intuit" that a transistor was designed, and without preparation you could not determine whether a tree, genetically modified to provide light was "natural" or not.

Even if we seen something from an alien race we would immediately know it is designed.

That is your unsupported assertion. You are begging the question.

To return to the subject: The "Laws of Nature" are patterns we can perceive in the chaos, the information we can pick out of the seemingly random noise. The more we learn the more we can come to understand the information in the "noise", and the order underlying the chaos. Thousands of years of philosophy and theology have been largely fruitless, and what has emerged from all that nonsense is the crystalline purity of logic, mathematics and the scientific method. Philosophy is the placenta of science and theology the meconium.

In Wolfram's "new mathematics" we see chaos emerge from order, and just so, we can see order emerge from chaos.

 

[stevevw]

It makes sense even you can't make sense of it.
God designed everything? Then everything is intelligently designed. The watch on the moor was designed, but so was the heather.

Yes exactly and atheist world view tries to make out that somehow one of them the heather or the baby, or the planet and stars wasn't designed when in fact it has more to it then the watch or any computer design we make. But you miss the important thing. The heather, the baby, the planets and everything else are just the material manifestation of what we see. Its the ordered laws and codes that make everything work. Otherwise they are just lumps of nothing. So the point is where did those highly ordered laws and codes which make any codes and systems humans make look like child's play come from. Did they make themselves, did order come from non order. We all are smart enough to realize that this doesn't happen and we know this from everything we have done whether we are believers of not. The strange thing is when it comes to life and existence we throw that logic out the window and try to make things like time the answer. Somehow time can do the impossible if you give it enough time.

And here it is again: You make statements about "everyone". You are certain. Your god is in your mind and your god is omniscient.

No it is logical thinking that uses reasoning and deduction. We use it for everything else in life and we also make decisions and show that we do the thinking of others all the time. But for some reason you exclude anyone who happens to believe in God from being allowed to use this thinking as well. If NASA who are some of the most intelligent people on this planet can make decisions about what is intelligent or not on behalf of planet earth then what is the difference. They decide what is classed as intelligent and they decided that coded signals and not some random noise would be the best to let other intelligent life know the difference between random noise and intelligent contact. Psychologists and other people including lay people have made statements about what humans are like and how they think all the time.

But: What didn't your god design? How can you tell the difference between what is designed and what is not if your god designed everything? Are some of his designs less perfect? Simple observation would suggest that: Cancer, guinea worm, tornadoes, tsunamism, et cetera ad infinitum. Aside from your experience and bias, can you provide criteria of intelligent design, and what distinguishes it from what is natural? Remember, all of nature is your god's perfect design! Come to think of it, mosquitoes and fleas have undoubtedly killed more people than bombs and bullets. So your god's designs for killing are more effective, more intelligently designed, than man's.

Like I said what we see is the material world and its the laws and codes that are behind these things that give it design. But like a car that is designed things can do damage when they were not intended to in the first place. I dont pretend to know all the reason why things happen. But I dont think its as simple as you make out. Cancer is when something that was designed well has gone wrong. Why it goes wrong is another thing and not Gods fault. Tsunami's are the product of weather. Weather has certain laws that cause it to act in certain ways. But it is also subject to many things like global warming and people living in areas that are prone to these things are at higher risk. So we could make things safer. There are many factors so its not as simple as it seems. But scientists and engineers who study design and its affects would know better. I have posted papers on this before.
Self-organization vs. self-ordering events in life-origin models
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1571064506000224
The Capabilities of Chaos and Complexity
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2662469/
The Coherence Of An Engineered World
http://www.witpress.com/elibrary/wit-transactions-on-ecology-and-the-environment/114/19279
"Intuition" is from the Latin "tueri", which means to "look at, examine". So "intuition" means "looking in". Thus,"intuition" is the sum of flawed understandings, incomplete perceptions, biases, rationalizations, superstitions, fantasies, and justifications. The output might be magic, religion, superstition, or just plain nonsense.
And if an "ancient" person saw a television set he would "intuit" that it was magic. He would not be able to "intuit" that a transistor was designed, and without preparation you could not determine whether a tree, genetically modified to provide light was "natural" or not.
That is your unsupported assertion. You are begging the question.

No it is supported by research. A mother has an intuition about her babies needs which is implying she knows by some inner connection and is tuned into her baby. That is the meaning I am saying is how humans understand that there is some sort of design and therefore a designer behind what they see. Maybe what we see in nature is beyond what we know deep within ourselves subconsciously that there is more to how things came about and it wasn't the results of some naturalistic self creating process.
Some recent findings suggest that two foundational aspects of religious belief – belief in divine agents, and belief in mind–body dualism – come naturally to young children.
http://philpapers.org/rec/BLORIN
Natural Born Believers
Evidence exists that children might find especially natural the idea of a non-human creator of the natural world possessing super powers etc.
http://impartialism.blogspot.com.au/2009/03/born-believers-naturalness-of-childhood.html

To return to the subject: The "Laws of Nature" are patterns we can perceive in the chaos, the information we can pick out of the seemingly random noise. The more we learn the more we can come to understand the information in the "noise", and the order underlying the chaos. Thousands of years of philosophy and theology have been largely fruitless, and what has emerged from all that nonsense is the crystalline purity of logic, mathematics and the scientific method. Philosophy is the placenta of science and theology the meconium.

And you accuse me of unsubstantiated nonsense. Sounds like a lot of nothing. What do you mean by noise. The laws of nature aren't some noise we somehow pickup. They are definite laws that have been there from the beginning. They are throughout all of existence and life. The point is where did they come from. They are some thing that just popped out of thin air or morphed themselves into existence. They had to be there from the beginning.

 

[Gracchus]

Yes exactly and atheist world view tries to make out that somehow one of them the heather or the baby, or the planet and stars wasn't designed when in fact it has more to it then the watch or any computer design we make.

You are missing the point: If it is all designed then there is nothing un-designed. Thus there can be no way to discriminate since there is no way to compare with the non-existent.

But you miss the important thing. The heather, the baby, the planets and everything else are just the material manifestation of what we see.

They are the manifestations of the real, differential flows of matter and energy in the one reality, which we have been taught to perceive as “separate things”.

Its the ordered laws and codes that make everything work.

The “laws” are not imperatives. They are observations.

Otherwise they are just lumps of nothing.

There is no such thing as “nothing”. Even fantasies are dynamic patterns in brain chemistry.

So the point is where did those highly ordered laws and codes which make any codes and systems humans make look like child's play come from.

There is no reason to suppose that they “come from” anywhere. All phenomena are basically periodic. Mathematics, physics, chemistry just are.

Did they make themselves, did order come from non order.

Given a flow or change of matter/energy order can indeed come from chaos.

We all are smart enough to realize that this doesn't happen and we know this from everything we have done whether we are believers of not.

First of all, we are not all that smart. Some of us are not that smart, and some of us are smarter. Order does come from disorder. A landslide deposits a jumble of boulders, pebbles, sand and clay into a riverbed, and flowing water will sort the jumble into a graded sediment of sizes.

The strange thing is when it comes to life and existence we throw that logic out the window and try to make things like time the answer.

We?! You throw logic out the window and try to make something that has never been observed the answer. Time is merely a differential of periodic phenomena.

Somehow time can do the impossible if you give it enough time.

Give time enough time?! Your straw man doesn't even make sense as a strawman.

No it is logical thinking that uses reasoning and deduction.

Reasoning and deduction without evidence are like music without sound. And you seem to claim that we base our decisions on intuition and then claim we use reason.

We use it for everything else in life and we also make decisions and show that we do the thinking of others all the time.

There is that royal “we” again.

But for some reason you exclude anyone who happens to believe in God from being allowed to use this thinking as well.

One of things you learn when you study logic is that a logical argument from faulty premises can give an absurd answer. If you start with contradictory premises you can deduce anything at all. If you assume "God" as a number of unexamined premises, reach ridiculous conclusions, you do not go back and examine your premises, you proclaim a "sacred mystery".

If NASA who are some of the most intelligent people on this planet can make decisions about what is intelligent or not on behalf of planet earth then what is the difference.

The SETI Project looks for patterns that cannot be explained by known phenomena.

They decide what is classed as intelligent and they decided that coded signals and not some random noise would be the best to let other intelligent life know the difference between random noise and intelligent contact.

As yet such efforts have met with no success. They thought they had an clue with pulsars, but they learned how such "signals" were caused. No intelligence was needed in the generation, only in the interpretation.

Psychologists and other people including lay people have made statements about what humans are like and how they think all the time.

And many of those statements have been shown to be wrong.

A mother has an intuition about her babies needs which is implying she knows by some inner connection and is tuned into her baby.

A mother knows because of chemical and behavioral clues that evolution has provided. Those mothers without such evolutionary programming do not leave living offspring. They are culled.

That is the meaning I am saying is how humans understand that there is some sort of design and therefore a designer behind what they see.

The “laws of nature”, pure mathematics and physics, produce design and order without a designer.

Maybe what we see in nature is beyond what we know deep within ourselves subconsciously that there is more to how things came about and it wasn't the results of some naturalistic self creating process.

When humans don't know, they usually just make stuff up. They see death, and it frightens them, so they posit an “afterlife”. Some one hurts them and they comfort themselves with fantasies of justice or revenge. Powerless in the face of tragedy they dream of a protecting magic parent. But: Science has given us better solutions to our problems than prayer

Some recent findings suggest that two foundational aspects of religious belief – belief in divine agents, and belief in mind–body dualism – come naturally to young children.

Lots of things come “naturally to humans. Greed, selfishness, bigotry and malice are natural. And remember that half of all people are below average in intelligence. Even very smart people can be ignorant or deluded. How much do you know, for instance about how the brain functions, how it processes sensory information, how it stores and retrieves memories, how it reacts to stimuli?

And you accuse me of unsubstantiated nonsense.

That is not an accusation, it is not about a character flaw. It is an observation.

Sounds like a lot of nothing.

There is information, even in noise.

What do you mean by noise.

Turn on a television. Turn it to an unused channel. Do you see all those apparently random flecks on the screen? Do you hear the static? Every fluctuation of light and sound has a cause, many causes, and you have no way to know what those causes are, unless you have studied enough to recognize that some are the fields generated by electrical devices and some are distant lightning and some are charged particles or fluctuating fields emitted by nuclear decay. If you don't know what they are, they are noise. The patterns you can discern in the noise are information.

The laws of nature aren't some noise we somehow pickup.

The "laws of nature" are patterns in the noise that we can discern.

They are definite laws that have been there from the beginning.

Physicists would disagree with you. At some point the patterns became self-propagating, as when a seed determines the structure of a crystal.

They are throughout all of existence and life.

OK! So what?

The point is where did they come from. They are some thing that just popped out of thin air or morphed themselves into existence.

The "laws of nature" did not “come from” anywhere. They are patterns we have learned to pull from the chaos. They did not pop out of nothing. The more we learn, the more patterns we can see. The trick is to discriminate between the real patterns like a human face and the ones we only imagine like a face on the moon or on a water-stained wall.

 

[KCfromNC]

I linked an article about 3 or 4 posts back. But the problem is you are not looking at things in proper context. When you say bird and bat wings they are not exactly the same.

So? You were claiming things about similar features, not identical ones. Even your source says the wings are similar features - so you should be able to demonstrate the similar DNA which produces them. You're using a lot of words to avoid doing so.

http://www.boundless.com/biology/te...tinguishing-between-similar-traits-542-11751/

http://www.boundless.com/biology/te...tinguishing-between-similar-traits-542-11751/

Surprise! Another source which confirms evolution can add new genetic information to a genome. It seems you have a lot of trouble finding legitimate sources which don't disagree with your claims these days. Wonder why.

 

[KCfromNC]

That doesn't make sense. How can anyone tell if something is intelligently designed without comparing it to something thats not intelligently designed.

Good question. Seems like something that ID would be able to answer, assuming it was more than creationism dressed up to be more politically correct.

 

[stevevw]

Good question. Seems like something that ID would be able to answer, assuming it was more than creationism dressed up to be more politically correct.

Its not a case of answering anything with an explanation about how something is intelligently designed. Its a logical conclusion that to tell if something is intelligently designed you have to compare it against something thats not. We all may not be able to work out the more technical levels of design engineering to understand more complex reasons for what makes something designed. But I think most people can tell that a machine on a beach is not a natural thing and has some connection with technology even if they dont know what that word means. Every human or alien or even primitive would understand from their own experiences of making something even if its something simple that it has different elements from something that may happen by chance naturally.

 

[VirOptimus]

Its not a case of answering anything with an explanation about how something is intelligently designed. Its a logical conclusion that to tell if something is intelligently designed you have to compare it against something thats not. We all may not be able to work out the more technical levels of design engineering to understand more complex reasons for what makes something designed. But I think most people can tell that a machine on a beach is not a natural thing and has some connection with technology even if they dont know what that word means. Every human or alien or even primitive would understand from their own experiences of making something even if its something simple that it has different elements from something that may happen by chance naturally.

Your post is devoid of content.

What you fail to understand is that the features of all living things can be explained without invoking the supernatural or a designer. The theory of evolution fits the facts. Its only your religious belief that hinders you to accept physical reality, i.e. science.

 

[stevevw]

So? You were claiming things about similar features, not identical ones. Even your source says the wings are similar features - so you should be able to demonstrate the similar DNA which produces them. You're using a lot of words to avoid doing so.

The source did say that if you read it properly. it stated that, Such features that overlap both morphologically and genetically are known as homologous structures. It then states the wings or birds and bats are homologous structures. So in other words the wings of birds and bats are both morphologically and genetically the same.

In general, organisms that share similar physical features and genomes tend to be more closely related than those that do not. Such features that overlap both morphologically (in form) and genetically are referred to as homologous structures; they stem from developmental similarities that are based on evolution. For example, the bones in the wings of bats and birds have homologous structures .

But the other point I was making that you need to consider is even without the support if you support the theory of evolution then logically you have to acknowledge that the bone structures for birds and bats which is also connected to other animals and they were all connected through common ancestors which produced the same bone structures and therefore the same genetic info to make them. Doesn't evolution claim that similar features should show similar molecular info as well. That the molecular trees should match in a round about way the morphological trees. You are making a case against evolution if you want to say they dont have similar genetic info. See this is what happens. You will happily accept the evidence when it supports evolution but then start placing a higher criteria on anyone who disagrees with it. But the same criteria should be applied to what I am saying even without any support because thats the consensus of the theory you support.

Surprise! Another source which confirms evolution can add new genetic information to a genome. It seems you have a lot of trouble finding legitimate sources which don't disagree with your claims these days. Wonder why.

Where is the support, I must have missed it. If your talking about the one I was just using, there was no support. It just said that similar features should have similar genetics. That doesn't prove evolution. Besides wheres the scientific tests or are you saying claims are good enough to prove evolution.

 

[stevevw]

Your post is devoid of content.

What you fail to understand is that the features of all living things can be explained without invoking the supernatural or a designer. The theory of evolution fits the facts. Its only your religious belief that hinders you to accept physical reality, i.e. science.

First off we were not talking about supernatural things. We were talking about how to tell design in nature or existence. The example I used was finding a machine on a beach can be seen as the product of human intelligent design. We were not or at least I wasn't going into anything about the supernatural as that doesn't conform to scientific verification. As far as evolution fitting the facts it will depend on what you mean by evolution. Changes within a species or animals type can happen such as the beaks on Darwin's finches changing to become larger and tougher to crack the seed husks. But when the conditions changed again back to normal so did the finches as was observed. So those changes happen within certain limits and are using existing genetic material.

But what Darwinian evolution does is claim that this process goes even further and can change dinos into those birds or dog like creatures into whales. The evidence they use for this is observational such as the comparison of similar features in fossil records. But this has been found to be an unreliable method and certainly cannot be the basis for scientific verification on it. As for other evidence such as antibiotic resistance ect well these have been shown to be cases of a loss of genetic info. Mutations are mostly a cost to fitness and not the creators of more fitter life.

This is the big debate not whether evolution happens but what kind it is and how far can it happen. The trick Darwinian evolution uses is using what has been verified and spreading that into what hasn't been verified. Plus I beg to differ that Darwinian evolution fits the evidence better. It has been found that non adaptive forces such as HGT, epigenetics, symbiosis, selfish gene elements, niche adaptation, and other discoveries through genomics and developmental biology have cast doubt on Darwinian evolution in playing much or a role if any in how creatures change. I have posted links for these things many times if you go back and check this thread.

 

[SkyWriting]

The "laws of nature" are observations that seem to be consistent. Reality simply is. We can, within limits, observe how it functions and sometimes determine, tentatively, why it functions as it does. The "laws of nature" can't be any different because they are what they are. If they could change, they wouldn't be laws.

The fact that they do remain consistent and applicable is why they are termed "Laws" even though they are not.
For example the "laws" of standard physics fail at the quantum level. But we still call them laws becasue they
are useful most of the time.

 

[VirOptimus]

First off we were not talking about supernatural things. We were talking about how to tell design in nature or existence. The example I used was finding a machine on a beach can be seen as the product of human intelligent design. We were not or at least I wasn't going into anything about the supernatural as that doesn't conform to scientific verification. As far as evolution fitting the facts it will depend on what you mean by evolution. Changes within a species or animals type can happen such as the beaks on Darwin's finches changing to become larger and tougher to crack the seed husks. But when the conditions changed again back to normal so did the finches as was observed. So those changes happen within certain limits and are using existing genetic material.

But what Darwinian evolution does is claim that this process goes even further and can change dinos into those birds or dog like creatures into whales. The evidence they use for this is observational such as the comparison of similar features in fossil records. But this has been found to be an unreliable method and certainly cannot be the basis for scientific verification on it. As for other evidence such as antibiotic resistance ect well these have been shown to be cases of a loss of genetic info. Mutations are mostly a cost to fitness and not the creators of more fitter life.

This is the big debate not whether evolution happens but how far can it happen. The trick Darwinian evolution uses is using what has been verified and spreading that into what hasn't been verified. Plus I beg to differ that Darwinian evolution fits the evidence better. It has been found that non adaptive forces such as HGT, epigenetics, symbiosis, selfish gene elements, niche adaptation, and other discoveries through genomics and developmental biology have cast doubt on Darwinian evolution in playing much or a role if any in how creatures change. I have posted links for these things many times if you go back and check this thread.

No, you are very incorrect. You really have nothing, and you are deliberately misrepresenting the science.

Evolution isnt "changing dinos into birds". All it says is that the offspring isnt exactly like the parents and that the forces of evolution will gradually evolve species to new species in a nested hierarchy. The facts fit, there is no controversy about the big picture in the biology field.

 

[stevevw]

No, you are very incorrect. You really have nothing, and you are deliberately misrepresenting the science.

Evolution isnt "changing dinos into birds". All it says is that the offspring isnt exactly like the parents and that the forces of evolution will gradually evolve species to new species in a nested hierarchy. The facts fit, there is no controversy about the big picture in the biology field.

There is no evidence for this. Evolution interprets nested hierarchy as being the results of mutations and natural selection. But there is not consistent evidence for this. In fact the molecular evidence doesn't fit and that is what is important in proving whether it happens or not. Darwin evolution assumes a lot through observation without the solid evidence. A bat is a bat and has been for millions of years. Many animals havnt changed for millions of years but there is also a lot of gene swapping and interaction between creatures especially in the past. The entire beginning of life was one big gene swapping exercise. They had vast amounts of existing genetic material to draw upon. The environment also allowed living things to share genetic material and was and is part of the process. Rather then be a dominate force in changing creatures through adaptations it is a facilitator for change.

The fact is at the end of the day evolution says that an ape can become human, a Dino can eventually become a bird, a dog like creature Pakicetus will eventually become a aquatic creature that will become a whale. Evolution claims there's a bunch of smaller stages in between them but the fossil record does not show that. There is a very large range of variation within a species or type of creature. Humans have great variation and so do apes and monkeys. Dogs have great variations and so do the dinos and all the other major animal types. But what Darwinian evolution does is take those variations and mistake them for transitional stages between creatures rather then within them. Even Darwin said that there was great variation which was often interpreted as new species.

What is the line that determines a new species even evolution isn't sure. There are many bat species but they all look and act like bats. Just because some can't mate with each other doesn't mean they will become another completely different shaped animal eventually. The spectrum of variation in shapes with a type of animal is so great that evolution mistakes it for a new type of animal. This was shown in the skulls found at Georgia recently. Several different shaped skulls were found together which were interpreted as different species in the past be evolution. But they were all found to be the natural variation within the same species. So this has now made several species into one. It happens all the time.

There are limits to how much an animal can change and how mutations can create new functional proteins and this has been done through tests not speculation. When it gets down to the evidence for the actual detail of the steps involved Darwinian evolution cannot show this. It is based on speculation. Science is based on testing. Show me some evidence for this other then speculation and assumption through observation which can so easily be misinterpreted.

Darwin's Tree of Life May Be More Like a Thicket
But more recently, evidence suggests that complex organisms also have an evolutionary history of horizontal gene transfer and hybridization. It seems that viruses are constantly cutting and pasting DNA from one genome to another; in humans, up to half of our DNA may have been imported horizontally by viruses. In addition, hybridization occurs more commonly than previously thought.
http://phys.org/news152274071.html#jCp
Pattern pluralism and the Tree of Life hypothesis
there is no independent evidence that the natural order is an inclusive hierarchy, and incorporation of prokaryotes into the TOL is especially problematic. The only data sets from which we might construct a universal hierarchy including prokaryotes, the sequences of genes, often disagree and can seldom be proven to agree. Hierarchical structure can always be imposed on or extracted from such data sets by algorithms designed to do so, but at its base the universal TOL rests on an unproven assumption about pattern that, given what we know about process, is unlikely to be broadly true.
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/7/2043.full
Estimating the prevalence of protein sequences adopting functional enzyme folds.
Combined with the estimated prevalence of plausible hydropathic patterns (for any fold) and of relevant folds for particular functions, this implies the overall prevalence of sequences performing a specific function by any domain-sized fold may be as low as 1 in 10(77), adding to the body of evidence that functional folds require highly extraordinary sequences.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15321723
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/
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?
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
Beyond neo-Darwinism—an epigenetic approach to 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
Stability effects of mutations and protein evolvability. October 2009
The accepted paradigm that proteins can tolerate nearly any amino acid substitution has been replaced by the view that the deleterious effects of mutations, and especially their tendency to undermine the thermodynamic and kinetic stability of protein, is a major constraint on protein evolvability,,
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19765975

 

[Hoghead1]

It is accepted now, Vir, that birds did evolve from dinosaurs and exhibit many dinosaur features.

 

[VirOptimus]

It is accepted now, Vir, that birds did evolve from dinosaurs and exhibit many dinosaur features.

My post may be a bit unclear, but I dont dispute that!

 

[VirOptimus]

There is no evidence for this. Evolution interprets nested hierarchy as being the results of mutations and natural selection. But there is not consistent evidence for this. In fact the molecular evidence doesn't fit and that is what is important in proving whether it happens or not. Darwin evolution assumes a lot through observation without the solid evidence. A bat is a bat and has been for millions of years. Many animals havnt changed for millions of years but there is also a lot of gene swapping and interaction between creatures especially in the past. The entire beginning of life was one big gene swapping exercise. They had vast amounts of existing genetic material to draw upon. The environment also allowed living things to share genetic material and was and is part of the process. Rather then be a dominate force in changing creatures through adaptations it is a facilitator for change.

The fact is at the end of the day evolution says that an ape can become human, a Dino can eventually become a bird, a dog like creature Pakicetus will eventually become a aquatic creature that will become a whale. Evolution claims there's a bunch of smaller stages in between them but the fossil record does not show that. There is a very large range of variation within a species or type of creature. Humans have great variation and so do apes and monkeys. Dogs have great variations and so do the dinos and all the other major animal types. But what Darwinian evolution does is take those variations and mistake them for transitional stages between creatures rather then within them. Even Darwin said that there was great variation which was often interpreted as new species.

What is the line that determines a new species even evolution isn't sure. There are many bat species but they all look and act like bats. Just because some can't mate with each other doesn't mean they will become another completely different shaped animal eventually. The spectrum of variation in shapes with a type of animal is so great that evolution mistakes it for a new type of animal. This was shown in the skulls found at Georgia recently. Several different shaped skulls were found together which were interpreted as different species in the past be evolution. But they were all found to be the natural variation within the same species. So this has now made several species into one. It happens all the time.

There are limits to how much an animal can change and how mutations can create new functional proteins and this has been done through tests not speculation. When it gets down to the evidence for the actual detail of the steps involved Darwinian evolution cannot show this. It is based on speculation. Science is based on testing. Show me some evidence for this other then speculation and assumption through observation which can so easily be misinterpreted.

Darwin's Tree of Life May Be More Like a Thicket
But more recently, evidence suggests that complex organisms also have an evolutionary history of horizontal gene transfer and hybridization. It seems that viruses are constantly cutting and pasting DNA from one genome to another; in humans, up to half of our DNA may have been imported horizontally by viruses. In addition, hybridization occurs more commonly than previously thought.
http://phys.org/news152274071.html#jCp
Pattern pluralism and the Tree of Life hypothesis
there is no independent evidence that the natural order is an inclusive hierarchy, and incorporation of prokaryotes into the TOL is especially problematic. The only data sets from which we might construct a universal hierarchy including prokaryotes, the sequences of genes, often disagree and can seldom be proven to agree. Hierarchical structure can always be imposed on or extracted from such data sets by algorithms designed to do so, but at its base the universal TOL rests on an unproven assumption about pattern that, given what we know about process, is unlikely to be broadly true.
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/7/2043.full
Estimating the prevalence of protein sequences adopting functional enzyme folds.
Combined with the estimated prevalence of plausible hydropathic patterns (for any fold) and of relevant folds for particular functions, this implies the overall prevalence of sequences performing a specific function by any domain-sized fold may be as low as 1 in 10(77), adding to the body of evidence that functional folds require highly extraordinary sequences.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15321723
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/
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?
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
Beyond neo-Darwinism—an epigenetic approach to 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
Stability effects of mutations and protein evolvability. October 2009
The accepted paradigm that proteins can tolerate nearly any amino acid substitution has been replaced by the view that the deleterious effects of mutations, and especially their tendency to undermine the thermodynamic and kinetic stability of protein, is a major constraint on protein evolvability,,
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19765975

Your post is full of mirepresentation, misunderstandings and outright lies.

F.ex. humans are apes.

Just educate yourself. Enroll in a biology 101.

 

[Derek Meyer]

There is no evidence for this. Evolution interprets nested hierarchy as being the results of mutations and natural selection.

This one is funny. Actually, natural selection is a conclusion based on the existence of nested hierarchies. Nested hierarchies are the facts. Nested hierarchies exist whether you like them or not.

Mutations and natural selection are the explanations for the existence of nested hierarchies.

 

[KCfromNC]

The source did say that if you read it properly. it stated that, Such features that overlap both morphologically and genetically are known as homologous structures. It then states the wings or birds and bats are homologous structures. So in other words the wings of birds and bats are both morphologically and genetically the same.

You're now claiming that bat wings and bird wings are identical? If this is your version of "read"ing "properly" no wonder you have so many strange ideas about biology.

But the other point I was making that you need to consider is even without the support if you support the theory of evolution then logically you have to acknowledge that the bone structures for birds and bats which is also connected to other animals and they were all connected through common ancestors which produced the same bone structures and therefore the same genetic info to make them.

Same? You keep confidently claiming this and then running away from chances to actually show that the DNA coding for these features is identical. That's very telling.

Doesn't evolution claim that similar features should show similar molecular info as well.

As well? You're claiming the same coding, not similar. In other words, the actual science is very different from what you're wishing it as.

Where is the support, I must have missed it.

It's the first bullet under "Key Points" and there's an entire section about it at the end. If you weren't in such a rush to try and quote-mine you would have seen it.

 

[KCfromNC]

There is no evidence for this. Evolution interprets nested hierarchy as being the results of mutations and natural selection. But there is not consistent evidence for this.

Even if any of these vague claims and questions led somewhere, why do you think the answers have anything to do with a supernatural creator such as the one proposed by Intelligent Design?

 

[pshun2404]

It is accepted now, Vir, that birds did evolve from dinosaurs and exhibit many dinosaur features.

The problem is that if we actually go by the fossil record, birds (Avian species) existed nearly 100,000 years BEFORE the "dinosaurs" they allegedly evolved FROM...(not possible...the offspring cannot precede their predecessors)...besides as these arguments have demonstrated, different unrelated species can develop similar characteristics. It is the casual fallacy....just because two things appear similar or function similarly in some way does not equal one causing the other. Another form of this same error in logic is sometimes called the fallacy of the false cause which states that just because one thing precedes another, it does necessitate that the first caused the second. Thus the actual data here is not called into question but rather the hypothesis based conclusion (thus the "interpretation" of the data)