Where did the laws of nature come from?

[stevevw]

Greater capacity than what? What's "very large" in numbers? Same question for "very high"? I see lots of weasel words but no actual specifics. Why is that?

The weasel word you talk about come from the scientists not me. None of the papers I have looked at have a specific number. But they mention most or majority so I would say its not all genes but the majority have come from HGT in micro organisms. As for more complex creatures this is harder to determine at the moment. But new research is coming out all the time. Once again scientists are not specific with numbers but mention a significant amount of HGT in complex life. One paper does mention that around 50% of genes in humans has been from HGT events. So it certainly isn't a minor thing. But if you notice the other thing that the scientists are saying is that HGT and/or symbiosis/endosymbiosis has been responsible for much of the genetic material rather then evolution via vertical transfer. So the scientists are even telling us this such as Carl Woese who is a atheist and supporter of evolution.

Nevertheless, the number of well-supported cases of transfer from both prokaryotes and eukaryotes, many with significant functional implications, is now expanding rapidly. Major recent trends include the important role of HGT in adaptation to certain specialized niches and the highly variable impact of HGT in different lineages.

The newly revised view is that early organisms constituted a soup of changing genetic entities with promiscuous horizontal (lateral) gene exchange.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1312238/

Initially … lateral gene transfer … was pandemic and pervasive to the extent that it, not vertical inheritance, defined the evolutionary dynamic.
Larger organisms are colonized by smaller ones, and organisms of similar size associate intimately without merging. Genomes have merged and coalesced since the early soup of lateral gene transfer.
Carl Woese
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1312238/

If you read the paper you were quote-mining from, you'd have an answer.

The problem with that is that I have posted several papers and what you perceive as difficulties may not be what I see as a difficulty.Your the one making the claim of difficulty. Its not a guessing game. If you believe there is a difficulty then you should be specific.

What percentage is "a lot"? Please be specific - how many fossils do you believe are miscategorized by scientists?

Put it this way, if there is a category for those who disagree with what is a transitional ie (splitters) and those who dont (lumpers) then the disagreement must be fairly common.

Given the ongoing battles between lumpers and splitters in the taxonomic community, one wonders whether the discovery of new species isn't just due to the elevation of varieties to the level of species.
http://sandwalk.blogspot.com.au/2009/06/taxonomic-inflation.html

 

[stevevw]

Funny how quiet things got once a few people started discussing the actual content of the papers being referenced and asked specific questions about them.

Sorry I have also had to do more study as I have had some assignments to do.

 

[stevevw]

Yes, it is. You said all of the body plans were present in the Cambrian. If you can't show us a mammalian body plan in the Cambrian, then your argument is refuted.

First off it isn't my argument. The statements for this come from the supporters of evolution. So you would be denying your own sides evidence which is an illogical thing to do in an argument.

All of the basic architectures of animals were apparently established by the close of the Cambrian explosion; subsequent evolutionary changes, even those that allowed animals to move out of the sea onto land, involved only modifications of those basic body plans.
http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/the-origin-of-animal-body-plans

All the basic body plans found in nature today are here: bodies with heads, tails, and appendages, all specialized segments performing specialized functions. All animal evolution for the last half billion years has come from tinkering with these Cambrian body plans.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/l_034_02.html

That's not what you said. You said that the modern body plans were already present in the Cambrian.

I have continually stated that the body plans are not going to be the exact animals we see today. But the basic structures for them were there and that is what the scientific support states as noted by the above papers.

If evolution were true, then of course we would expect to find the ancestors of modern species in the Cambrian. We would expect to find the base of major branches in the earliest parts of the fossil record. Where else would they be? All you are doing is pointing to evidence for evolution.

No you would expect scattered and erratic branches of varying degrees evolving varying complexities. You would expect that the branches leading up to the Cambrian explosion didn't produce such a variety of complexity in creatures at the same time. That means there had to be many branches prior to the Cambrian period leading back to single celled life. The evidence rather then a single trunk that there were many trunks from the beginning. Many trunks from the beginning means many occurrences of this unbelievable event of creating life from non life and complex life from more simple life happening many times at the same time. In fact the Cambrian explosion had more complex variety then we have today and life has actually diminished from that complexity and variety rather then increased in complexity.

Of course we are going to find the origin of structures for modern organisms in the early fossil record if evolution is true. Where else are we going to find them?

Not if evolution is a slow and gradual process. Not many creatures like the Cambrian ones suddenly at the same time. Evolution normally works on evolving on type of creature into another and another to get variety of species. But the Cambrian explosion has many different species happening suddenly at the same time showing many lines of decent with no trace of where they came from let alone even a single line or a few lines of decent.

By what measure?

By the measure of the same scientists you use for your support. Just because these creatures looked different doesn't mean they were not complex as today's creatures. Heres the logic and reasoning. Evolution claims that there are common features and therefore common genetic material that can be traced back to common ancestors. So when we see a similar trait to a modern trait millions and millions of years ago they say that the genes for this are also similar and this is evidence for common ancestry. So the features on the trilobite has similar features as today's creatures. Their eyes are very complex and similar to some insect eyes. So the genes for this were around back then. In fact the genes for all the major body plans were around back then very early in the appearance of complex life.

Are you saying that a vertebrate without bones, lungs, or limbs is as complex as a mammal?

I am saying that the basic genetic info that makes bones and limbs and all the other features we see in modern creatures
appeared relatively quick in evolutionary terms back in the Cambrian period. The modern examples we see are just tinkering with the existing genetic material that was established in the Cambrian explosion. IE the basic genetic info for a limb was first established in the Cambrian period. Whether it eventuates as a Giraffe, elephant, rabbit or human limb is just a variation of that basic body plan. I will leave it at that for the moment as I am a bit busy and see that the rest of the post will take some time to check and respond to.

 

[KCfromNC]

One paper does mention that around 50% of genes in humans has been from HGT events. So it certainly isn't a minor thing.

If 50% isn't minor, then you'd have to agree that the remaining 50% of genes arising from mutation, natural selection, drift and all of the other classical evolutionary methods aren't minor either. So your objection to modern evolutionary theory kinda falls apart when we actually get past the rhetoric into actual facts.

But let's dig in a bit more - how many of those events happened to human primate ancestors? Please be specific. So far, other posters have shown that the answer is basically zero. If you have a different opinion, let's see some data.

The problem with that is that I have posted several papers and what you perceive as difficulties may not be what I see as a difficulty.Your the one making the claim of difficulty. Its not a guessing game. If you believe there is a difficulty then you should be specific.

I did. I'm not going to post an entire paper here for you to read, especially when you claimed you've already read it. I'm also not going to bother because when I do post specific problems with your understanding of the research you're quote-mining from, you change the subject.

Put it this way, if there is a category for those who disagree with what is a transitional ie (splitters) and those who dont (lumpers) then the disagreement must be fairly common.

"Put it this way" - that's a complete non-answer.

 

[KCfromNC]

I have continually stated that the body plans are not going to be the exact animals we see today.

Yes, obviously. There's lots of novel features which have developed since then. 4 chambered hearts. Wings. 4 legged locomotion. Lungs. Flowering plants. The list goes on and on. Sure, if you use vague weasel words like "basic body plans" you can try to hand-wave those away, but it really isn't that convincing.

That means there had to be many branches prior to the Cambrian period leading back to single celled life. The evidence rather then a single trunk that there were many trunks from the beginning. Many trunks from the beginning means many occurrences of this unbelievable event of creating life from non life and complex life from more simple life happening many times at the same time.

This seems like a horribly muddled summary of 3 billion years of evolution. But even so, what's the problem?

In fact the Cambrian explosion had more complex variety

How much more, specifically, using what quantifiable measurement?

Not if evolution is a slow and gradual process. Not many creatures like the Cambrian ones suddenly at the same time.

By "at the same time" here you mean over a span of 25-100 million years or so.

But the Cambrian explosion has many different species happening suddenly at the same time showing many lines of decent with no trace of where they came from let alone even a single line or a few lines of decent.

Citation needed.

Just because these creatures looked different doesn't mean they were not complex as today's creatures.

"You can't prove that I'm not right" isn't exactly a convincing evidence that you are.

Evolution claims that there are common features and therefore common genetic material that can be traced back to common ancestors. So when we see a similar trait to a modern trait millions and millions of years ago they say that the genes for this are also similar and this is evidence for common ancestry. So the features on the trilobite has similar features as today's creatures.

Do you really need us to list all of the features which differentiate humans from trilobites?

Their eyes are very complex and similar to some insect eyes.[/UQOTE]

Since you're doing that already, I guess not.

So the genes for this were around back then. In fact the genes for all the major body plans were around back then very early in the appearance of complex life.

The genes for traits that were around at that time were around at that time. Got it. Any other game-changing insights you'd like to share?

I am saying that the basic genetic info that makes bones and limbs and all the other features we see in modern creatures appeared relatively quick in evolutionary terms back in the Cambrian period. The modern examples we see are just tinkering with the existing genetic material that was established in the Cambrian explosion. IE the basic genetic info for a limb was first established in the Cambrian period. Whether it eventuates as a Giraffe, elephant, rabbit or human limb is just a variation of that basic body plan. I will leave it at that for the moment as I am a bit busy and see that the rest of the post will take some time to check and respond to.

Sounds like standard evolutionary theory here. No need for a supernatural creator as proposed by ID. What's your point?

 

[stevevw]

Yes, obviously. There's lots of novel features which have developed since then. 4 chambered hearts. Wings. 4 legged locomotion. Lungs. Flowering plants. The list goes on and on. Sure, if you use vague weasel words like "basic body plans" you can try to hand-wave those away, but it really isn't that convincing.

The important thing is the genetic info for those body plans was there early on in the history of life and that any change has been an adjustment of what was already there. The other factor is that there may have been more genetic info that was available to be used when needed ie switched on when animals needed it which is what the evidence shows. Plus the addition of HGT and other non adaptive forces that have been discovered and highlighted through areas such as genomics and developmental biology which can cause change like selfish gene elements and epigentics. It makes evolution according to how Darwin proposes it to be a small player in the scheme of things.

All of the basic architectures of animals were apparently established by the close of the Cambrian explosion; subsequent evolutionary changes, even those that allowed animals to move out of the sea onto land, involved only modifications of those basic body plans.
http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/the-origin-of-animal-body-plans
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 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
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

This seems like a horribly muddled summary of 3 billion years of evolution. But even so, what's the problem?

Basically the problem is there is too much variety and too much complexity of life too early in the scheme of things which suddenly appears for Darwin's theory of evolution to account for. Evolution is a slow process that gradually builds up variety and complexity. So we should see the same level of variety and complexity we see today way back in the tree of life. In fact there was more variety with high levels of complexity then there is now.

How much more, specifically, using what quantifiable measurement?

Its hard to be specific as none of the research is mentioning exact numbers. But thats not the important thing. The important point is that life may be less complex then in the past or at least as complex.
The researchers say that the discovery, of ghostly remains of gene neighbourhoods that once existed in a 550 million year old ancestor, suggests that the earliest animal was more complex than previously thought.

The findings, published later today in the journal, Current Biology, appear to contradict the common perception of evolution – that creatures have advanced by becoming genetically more complex over time.
Until this latest research, scientists had argued over whether these genes evolved in a step-wise fashion, during early animal evolution, or instead were present in the very first animals.
http://phys.org/news/2012-09-evolution-meant-simpler-complex.html

By "at the same time" here you mean over a span of 25-100 million years or so.

More like around the 25 million year period. Some parts evolving large groups in 5 to 10 million year periods. But these are estimates and who knows the accuracy of dating methods. The point is there is a sudden appearance of variety and complexity that doesn't show traces of slowing evolving. Then it disappears showing little trace of life evolving into today's creatures. This is what the fossil records mostly show. Well defined creatures suddenly appearing without much trace of how they were suppose to have slowly evolved.

Citation needed.

Charles Darwin considered this sudden appearance of a solitary group of trilobites, with no apparent antecedents, and absence of other fossils, to be "undoubtedly of the gravest nature" among the difficulties in his theory of natural selection.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion

"You can't prove that I'm not right" isn't exactly a convincing evidence that you are.

Thats not what I have said and thats not my argument. I have supplied plenty of support for the Cambrian creatures being just as varied and complex as today's in their own way and thats is the real point to this argument.

Do you really need us to list all of the features which differentiate humans from trilobites?

As I said you are trying to rail road the debate with a false comparison. The evidence for variety and levels of complexity in the Cambrian period isn't based on what sort of animals we should find whether they are mammals or some other strange looking creature. Its about the level of complexity and variety we see no matter what kind of creature. What we find is creatures that are on today's level just as complex genetically appearing suddenly with no clear trace of where they came from which is a problem for the theory of evolution.

 

[KCfromNC]

The important thing is the genetic info for those body plans was there early on in the history of life and that any change has been an adjustment of what was already there.

I'll anxiously await the results of your DNA sequencing of Cambrian organisms to demonstrate that this claim is anything more than hot air. This isn't the first time I've asked, and I'm not the only one. Were you hoping we'd have forgotten?

The other factor is that there may have been more genetic info that was available to be used when needed ie switched on when animals needed it which is what the evidence shows

If the evidence really showed this, you wouldn't need "may have been" as weasel words.

It makes evolution according to how Darwin proposes it to be a small player in the scheme of things.

Not by your estimates from just a few posts ago. Why are you changing your mind.

http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/the-origin-of-animal-body-plans

http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/the-origin-of-animal-body-plans

Hey look, an article which says mutation gives rise to the genetic between species. Guess even your own references don't think it is a "small player".

Basically the problem is there is too much variety and too much complexity of life too early in the scheme of things which suddenly appears for Darwin's theory of evolution to account for.

Citation needed.

In fact there was more variety with high levels of complexity then there is now. Its hard to be specific as none of the research is mentioning exact numbers. But thats not the important thing.

Maybe not to you. To people who actually care about the facts, though, it is kinda important.

The important point is that life may be less complex then in the past or at least as complex.

Or maybe it is greater. But is isn't important that we actually have facts to back up claims when we can just pretend we do.

More like around the 25 million year period. Some parts evolving large groups in 5 to 10 million year periods. But these are estimates and who knows the accuracy of dating methods.

People who actually read the research rather than just searching for quotes to mine to support a pre-determined religious belief?

The point is there is a sudden appearance of variety and complexity that doesn't show traces of slowing evolving.
Then it disappears showing little trace of life evolving into today's creatures. This is what the fossil records mostly show. Well defined creatures suddenly appearing without much trace of how they were suppose to have slowly evolved.

Hey look, more weasel words. I guess if one avoids actually saying anything there's no way their faith-based claims will be proven wrong.

Charles Darwin

considered this sudden appearance of a solitary group of trilobites, with no apparent antecedents, and absence of other fossils, to be "undoubtedly of the gravest nature" among the difficulties in his theory of natural selection.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion

I thought creationists were more attached to misrepresenting his questions about eye evolution, but I guess even their arguments can evolve.

Thats not what I have said and thats not my argument. I have supplied plenty of support for the Cambrian creatures being just as varied and complex as today's

Or maybe less or possibly more varied and complex. Who's to know for sure? This science stuff sure is hard.

in their own way and thats is the real point to this argument.

What argument, exactly? What does any of this have to do with intelligent designers designing stuff you admit you have no way to know is designed or not?

As I said you are trying to rail road the debate with a false comparison.

Yeah, no fair on me actually comparing the features of humans and trilobytes after you saying they share similar features. That's going to show your claims to be empty and that's just mean.

 

[Loudmouth]

First off it isn't my argument.

Yes, it is.

The statements for this come from the supporters of evolution. So you would be denying your own sides evidence which is an illogical thing to do in an argument.

All of the basic architectures of animals were apparently established by the close of the Cambrian explosion; subsequent evolutionary changes, even those that allowed animals to move out of the sea onto land, involved only modifications of those basic body plans.
http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/the-origin-of-animal-body-plans

That doesn't say the same thing you have been saying. Here is what you said before in post #766:

"This was the point I was making earlier that the Cambrian creatures had most of today's modern body plans . . ."--stevew

You didn't say basic. You said modern.

A mammal is a modern animal. Where is the mammal body plan in the Cambrian?

Also, finding the earliest ancestors of animals in the Cambrian is exactly what we would expect to see if evolution is true.

No you would expect scattered and erratic branches of varying degrees evolving varying complexities.

Why?

You would expect that the branches leading up to the Cambrian explosion didn't produce such a variety of complexity in creatures at the same time.

Why?

That means there had to be many branches prior to the Cambrian period leading back to single celled life. The evidence rather then a single trunk that there were many trunks from the beginning. Many trunks from the beginning means many occurrences of this unbelievable event of creating life from non life and complex life from more simple life happening many times at the same time. In fact the Cambrian explosion had more complex variety then we have today and life has actually diminished from that complexity and variety rather then increased in complexity.

That doesn't change the fact that lineages after that point to trace back to a single branching point.

Not if evolution is a slow and gradual process.

Evolution can be fast and sporadic.

By the measure of the same scientists you use for your support. Just because these creatures looked different doesn't mean they were not complex as today's creatures.

That is a massive shift in the burden of proof. YOU are the one claiming that they were as complex as today. Where is your proof?

Evolution claims that there are common features and therefore common genetic material that can be traced back to common ancestors. So when we see a similar trait to a modern trait millions and millions of years ago they say that the genes for this are also similar and this is evidence for common ancestry.

You also have to add on the genetic information that has been added over time to change the original feature. That's what you forget every single time.

I am saying that the basic genetic info that makes bones and limbs and all the other features we see in modern creatures
appeared relatively quick in evolutionary terms back in the Cambrian period. The modern examples we see are just tinkering with the existing genetic material that was established in the Cambrian explosion. IE the basic genetic info for a limb was first established in the Cambrian period. Whether it eventuates as a Giraffe, elephant, rabbit or human limb is just a variation of that basic body plan. I will leave it at that for the moment as I am a bit busy and see that the rest of the post will take some time to check and respond to.

Basic genetic features is not the same as modern genetic features.

 

[Loudmouth]

The important thing is the genetic info for those body plans was there early on in the history of life and that any change has been an adjustment of what was already there.

Where is your proof that the genetic info for the mammalian body plan was present in the Cambrian?

The other factor is that there may have been more genetic info that was available to be used when needed ie switched on when animals needed it which is what the evidence shows.

What evidence?

Plus the addition of HGT and other non adaptive forces that have been discovered and highlighted through areas such as genomics and developmental biology which can cause change like selfish gene elements and epigentics. It makes evolution according to how Darwin proposes it to be a small player in the scheme of things.

Only 3 human genes have been acquired by the human lineage since the common ancestor of all primates. Just 3.

Basically the problem is there is too much variety and too much complexity of life too early in the scheme of things which suddenly appears for Darwin's theory of evolution to account for.

Stuff you make up with no evidence to back it is not a problem for any scientific theory.

 

[stevevw]

I'll anxiously await the results of your DNA sequencing of Cambrian organisms to demonstrate that this claim is anything more than hot air. This isn't the first time I've asked, and I'm not the only one. Were you hoping we'd have forgotten?

I have already answered this. I am using the same logic and reasoning that the supporters of evolution use. That is similar traits require similar similar genetic makeups. This is how scientists determine what the genetic info was many millions of years ago when they talk about the past. It is worked out through the features found in the fossils and comparing those features to the present. If they have similar features then they say they have similar genetics. So in other words we know what the genetic makeup is for the Cambrian period is from the similar body plans they have to modern creatures. Similar body plans means similar genetic info.

If the evidence really showed this, you wouldn't need "may have been" as weasel words.

See this is where you go wrong. Your expecting me to say "definitely" that this is the case. When no one can say that. I am just taking the proper approach which is to have a hypothesis and form a theory. Thats all science does and thats all evolution is doing. No one can say they are definitely sure because we are looking back at millions of years and we were not there. But based on the evidence this may be or is likely to be the case and thats about as far as we can go. At least I am being honest rather then some that support ideas of Darwin's theory of evolution describe something back in time like it definitely happened that way. No one can do that. So you are mocking your own argument because you cant say you are definitely sure as well.

Not by your estimates from just a few posts ago. Why are you changing your mind.

I am not sure what you are talking about. I think you are the one that keeps changing the terms of engagement. I keep repeating the support for what I say and then you ignore it and keep asking the same questions I just supplied the support for and it keeps going around in circles. I have never said that there is no evolution and its just a matter of how and how much. I have never stated that there is no evolution. This comes back to me saying above that no one can say definitely. It seems you think you can by the fact you mock someone who is honest enough to admit that we cant say definitely for sure what and how things exactly happened in the past.

Hey look, an article which says mutation gives rise to the genetic between species. Guess even your own references don't think it is a "small player".

What by saying that mutations gave rise to new genes in the Cambrian period. So how did they prove that. Go back in time and test it. So what about the papers and tests done today which show the opposite which I have posted by the box load. Talk about quote mining but your even making up the quotes to mine.

Citation needed.

Already dont it 20 times over if you check. You are just ignoring them and now that I am busier with my assignments I havnt got time to keep repeating myself. I will have to leave it at that for the moment as its getting late.

Steve.

 

[stevevw]

Yes, it is.

In what way is it my argument when I am supplying citations with everything I have said.

That doesn't say the same thing you have been saying. Here is what you said before in post #766:

"This was the point I was making earlier that the Cambrian creatures had most of today's modern body plans . . ."--stevew

Yes it does. The last time I looked architecture and plans are the same thing.

You didn't say basic. You said modern.

Talk about pedantic. Go back and look at what I have written over and over again and not one sentence. Look at what I have stated in my descriptions. I have even gone into details with others before you on this same thread. I have describe that we will not find the exact animals like today and it is all about the body plans that make up the basic things like the muscles, bones, limbs, eyes, brains,tails, and other body parts.

Here is a post well before the one at 766 at number #649.
The evidence talks about the basic body plans. The wing for example is basically a limb. The basic plan for hearts was around during the Cambrian period. A four chambered heart is a variation of the basic heart that suddenly appeared during the Cambrian period. The same as the eye, brain, gut, limbs, tails, digestive systems ect ect

I could find others where I have repeated the same thing. If I have slipped and not mentioned the word basic once sorry. But I would have thought by the way I have been talking and the papers and articles I have been linking that its about the basic body plans.

A mammal is a modern animal. Where is the mammal body plan in the Cambrian?

Like I said its the basic body plans that were established and not a complete mammal or human or pig or which ever. We know that a lot of the basic structures were there. The eye and brain were there for example and mammals use a different brain today but the basis for it was established in the Cambrian period.

Also, finding the earliest ancestors of animals in the Cambrian is exactly what we would expect to see if evolution is true.

Not when there is a wide variety of complex creatures even more then we have today suddenly coming on the scene all at once.

I will have to leave it at that for now.

Bye Steve.

 

[lesliedellow]

It's possible there is no alternative. The 'laws' are the only consistent way that things can be.

Why do there have to be any laws at all? Why not just a universe with subatomic particles rushing around, doing their own thing, and observing no physical laws whatsoever?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Why not just a universe with subatomic particles rushing around, doing their own thing

That's what we have.

, and observing no physical laws whatsoever?

The regularities of what "doing their own thing" looks like are what we describe as laws. It's hard for me to conceive what a completely irregular universe would look like. Release an apple, it falls to the ground. Release a second apple, the 5th Brandenburg Concerto plays in your left ear. Release a third apple, it turns into a dragon and flies off into the sun.

But then again... many other things don't obey strict physical laws. There is no law of conservation of color, or position, or volume, or... The regularities we see in the universe are interesting because of their rarity. There are only four forces, and a handful of conserved quantities and constants.

 

[lesliedellow]

That's what we have.

You mean an electron can go flying past a positive charge, deigning not to even notice that it is there?

The regularities of what "doing their own thing" looks like are what we describe as laws. It's hard for me to conceive what a completely irregular universe would look like.

You can't have much of an imagination. Imagine the molecules in a gas which appear to move about at random. Now replace those molecules with sub atomic particles whose behaviour does not just look completely random, but which are completely random, and whose randomness is unconstrained by the laws of quantum mechanics or any other physical laws.

If there is regularity, then you can try to ignore the question of where it comes from with you like, but it won't allow itself to be ignored by the rest of us.

 

[essentialsaltes]

You mean an electron can go flying past a positive charge, deigning not to even notice that it is there?

Depending on the circumstance, it may be unlikely, but if the dice roll so that those two particles do not exchange any virtual photons, then yes, the electron will go whizzing past, not even noticing the other charge.

You can't have much of an imagination. Imagine the molecules in a gas which appear to move about at random. Now replace those molecules with sub atomic particles whose behaviour does not just look completely random, but which are completely random, and whose randomness is unconstrained by the laws of quantum mechanics or any other physical laws.

But one of the laws of quantum mechanics is that certain aspects of particle behavior is inherently random. The extremely hypothetical physicists in that world would ultimately come to the conclusion that the law of particle behavior is that it is entirely random.

If there is regularity, then you can try to ignore the question of where it comes from with you like, but it won't allow itself to be ignored by the rest of us.

I'm not ignoring it. I gave a tentative answer, 'It's possible there is no alternative. The 'laws' are the only consistent way that things can be.'

Some of the laws, we know where they come from. We know the origin of Mendel's Law, Dalton's Law, and the conservation of momentum. They have more fundamental explanations. It's possible that there are still more fundamental explanations underpinning those explanations. We'll find them, or we won't.

 

[lesliedellow]

I'm not ignoring it. I gave a tentative answer, 'It's possible there is no alternative. The 'laws' are the only consistent way that things can be.'

It's an answer which presupposes that there have to be laws there in the first place. Clearly, if there were no laws, the question of their self consistency would not arise.

 

[essentialsaltes]

It's an answer which presupposes that there have to be laws there in the first place.

We observe these regularities. We don't have to 'presuppose' them.

 

[lesliedellow]

We observe these regularities. We don't have to 'presuppose' them.

Merely to observe that they are there is to offer no explanation as to why they are there, or where they came from, which was the question posed by the OP.

 

[Derek Meyer]

Merely to observe that they are there is to offer no explanation as to why they are there, or where they came from, which was the question posed by the OP.

Actually, it does. We can observe that phenomena are there, we can discover the mechanisms of how they got to be there why they are there and where they came from. It's called the natural sciences.

 

[lesliedellow]

Actually, it does. We can observe that phenomena are there, we can discover the mechanisms of how they got to be there why they are there and where they came from. It's called the natural sciences.

That post makes no sense at all. The physical sciences presuppose the existence of physical laws. Some of the more philosophically minded scientists, such as Paul Davies, might ponder the question of where they came from.