Where did the laws of nature come from?

[KCfromNC]

I have already answered this. I am using the same logic and reasoning that the supporters of evolution use.

Really? Which "supporters of evolution" conclude the same things you do? Please be specific.

That is similar traits require similar similar genetic makeups.

Which has nothing to do with your wacky ideas about the origins of those traits. Try again.

I am just taking the proper approach which is to have a hypothesis and form a theory.

Weird - whenever I asked you to explain what this designer was and how it worked you ran away as fast as you could. So what's this hypothesis of yours again? That a mysterious designer did something somehow? That's not exactly going to set the scientific world on fire.

I am not sure what you are talking about.

One paper does mention that around 50% of genes in humans has been from HGT events.

Even if this referenced claim of yours is true, that still makes normal evolutionary processes a major part of the story. All of these grandiose claims about your research skills would be a lot easier to believe if you could remember what you wrote a few posts up.

Look, I know it is hard to keep track of your claims when you're just throwing stuff out there and hoping something sticks, but try to keep up.

What by saying that mutations gave rise to new genes in the Cambrian period. So how did they prove that.

It was your reference. If you doubt it, why did you bring it up in the first place?

That's the danger of quote-mining from the introductions of papers you don't read and understand.

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'd be shocked if you could find a reference which backs up your claims that "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." I guess you could surprise me by actually posting one, but it looks like it is easier to make claims than actually back them up.

 

[KCfromNC]

That post makes no sense at all. The physical sciences presuppose the existence of physical laws.

No, they're derived from observing them in action.

 

[lesliedellow]

No, they're derived from observing them in action.

We do not "derive" the laws of nature, any more than we "derive" atoms, we discover them. That leaves unanswered the question as to their origin.

 

[VirOptimus]

We do not "derive" the laws of nature, any more than we "derive" atoms, we discover them. That leaves unanswered the question as to their origin.

Not really. The laws so to speak are just properties of physical reality. Just as three dimensions is a property of observable space.

 

[Loudmouth]

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

Your citations aren't saying the same things you are.

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.

Then show me an animal from the Cambrian that has a front limb with a humerus, radius, ulna, and carpal bones.

The evidence talks about the basic body plans. The wing for example is basically a limb.

Then show me an animal from the Cambrian with a bird's wing.

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.

So you are saying that it took additional genetic information to arrive at the structures we see today?

Like I said its the basic body plans that were established and not a complete mammal or human or pig or which ever.

That is exactly what we should see in the Cambrian if evolution is true.

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

No supporter of evolution makes that claim. All biologists agree that you could drastically change the genetic makeup of a genome and get very similar features. The only reason we see similar genetic makeup is because of common ancestry, not a requirement for a specific feature.

Even more, evolution could add a lot of genetic complexity over time without drastically changing a feature. For example, genomes have gone through several whole genome duplications (WGD), and that applies to the Hox genes as well.

"The increased number of Hox clusters in vertebrates compared with their invertebrate counterparts illustrates clearly the history of genome duplications. Following the 2R-WGD at the base of the vertebrates, tetrapods retained four clusters, whereas teleost fishes expanded to seven or eight clusters arising from a teleost-specific 3R-WGD [5] and salmonids up to 13 clusters after an additional salmonid-specific 4R-WGD [54, 55] (Figure 2). In all WGD events, the duplication of the Hox cluster was followed by differential Hox gene losses, eventually resulting in a unique combination of Hox genes in every group, like a bar code (a “genomic Hox-bar code”). Accordingly, it would be possible to determine to which group a genome of unknown source would belong, just by observing the Hox gene/cluster content."
http://bmcdevbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-213X-13-26

Genetic complexity has increased over time. Genes duplicate and then diverge, resulting in an increase in diversity. Those differentiated genes were not present in ancestors.

 

[lesliedellow]

Not really. The laws so to speak are just properties of physical reality. Just as three dimensions is a property of observable space.

That is sleight of hand. "Reality" is an abstract noun; not a physical thing which can have properties.

 

[VirOptimus]

That is sleight of hand. "Reality" is an abstract noun; not a physical thing which can have properties.

No? Physical reality is what we can quantify.

 

[lesliedellow]

No? Physical reality is what we can quantify.

It isn't a physical thing. You can measure the charge on an electron, but you can't measure anything on the non existent thing you call "physical reality".

If you say that the observable regularities in nature are a property of the universe, well, yes, we already know that, because you have just annunciated a tautology. But that doesn't answer the question of how those regularities come to be there, or of what guarantees their continued operation.

Why don't we wake up in the morning to discover that the value of G has changed overnight?

 

[VirOptimus]

It isn't a physical thing. You can measure the charge on an electron, but you can't measure anything on the non existent thing you call "physical reality".

If you say that the observable regularities in nature are a property of the universe, well, yes, we already know that, because you have just annunciated a tautology. But that doesn't answer the question of how those regularities come to be there, or of what guarantees their continued operation.

Why don't we wake up in the morning to discover that the value of G has changed overnight?

I think we may be talking past each other. Physical reality is what we observe. The way things interact in physical reality is the so called physical laws. I say theese laws are a property of physical reality and for me there is no question of where they come from, they are just part of reality, just like three dimensions are a part of observable space.

If you postulate that the physical laws have a why then you presuppose a metaphysical entity, something I dont do and that I cannot see any reason to do either.

 

[lesliedellow]

If you postulate that the physical laws have a why then you presuppose a metaphysical entity, something I dont do and that I cannot see any reason to do either.

The why of some physical laws may be that they are epiphenomenon of more fundamental laws? That alone should prompt you to ask the why question. The only reason for not continuing to ask the why question once those most fundamental laws have been reached is that you are nervous about where it might lead to.

 

[Derek Meyer]

The why of some physical laws may be that they are epiphenomenon of more fundamental laws? That alone should prompt you to ask the why question. The only reason for not continuing to ask the why question once those most fundamental laws have been reached is that you are nervous about where it might lead to.

I'm not. Let's cut to the chase. Why does God exist?

 

[lesliedellow]

I'm not. Let's cut to the chase. Why does God exist?

I only said where it might lead to. You don't have to be a theist to be intrigued by that sort of question. I would guess that Paul Davies would class himself as an agnostic, but he asks the why question of physical laws, without coming up with a definitive answer. Christians should be careful of the God of the gaps. It may be that only answer to some question or other is the miraculous, but that can't be assumed up front.

 

[Gracchus]

The why of some physical laws may be that they are epiphenomenon (sic: should be plural, "epiphenomena") of more fundamental laws?

I had to look it up, myself: "An epiphenomenon (plural: epiphenomena) is a secondary phenomenon that occurs alongside or in parallel to a primary phenomenon. The word has two senses, one that connotes known causation and one that connotes absence of causation or reservation of judgment about it." -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epiphenomenon

In which sense did you use it?

That alone should prompt you to ask the why question.

The question is, in fact, being asked. Indeed, it would seem that general relativity and quantum mechanics are more fundamental than classical (Newtonian) physics. And scientists are engaged in trying to unify those disciplines. Some of the hypothesized models are mathematically consistent, but no one can discern a way to determine if they are correct.

The only reason for not continuing to ask the why question once those most fundamental laws have been reached is that you are nervous about where it might lead to.

I don't think anyone is nervous about where the search will lead, as long as it leads to useful, verifiable theory.
The problem many "philosophers" struggle with is a matter of bad definitions and the reification of unreal ideas.
For the peanut gallery: "
Reification (also known as concretism, hypostatization, or the fallacy of misplaced concreteness) is a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete, real event, or physical entity. In other words, it is the error of treating something which is not concrete, such as an idea, as a concrete thing. A common case of reification is the confusion of a model with reality: "the map is not the territory".
Reification is part of normal usage of natural language (just like metonymy for instance), as well as of literature, where a reified abstraction is intended as a figure of speech, and actually understood as such. But the use of reification in logical reasoning or rhetoric is misleading and usually regarded as a fallacy." --- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy)

 

[Derek Meyer]

I only said where it might lead to.

Yes, but why does God exist? Why?

 

[Gracchus]

That is sleight of hand. "Reality" is an abstract noun; not a physical thing which can have properties.

"Reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined. In a wider definition, reality includes everything that is and has been, whether or not it is observable or comprehensible. A still broader definition includes everything that has existed, exists, or will exist."
--- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality

It would seem that the term "reality" refers not to an abstraction, but rather to that which is in no sense abstract. It is dangerous to sanity to wander into philosophy without a good grounding in mathematics and logic. One might even wander into the la-la land of theology and come out stinking of woo. (In case you didn't notice "la-la land" and "woo" are reified abstractions.

 

[Heissonear]

We do not "derive" the laws of nature, any more than we "derive" atoms, we discover them. That leaves unanswered the question as to their origin.

Silly forum talk.

 

[Heissonear]

Yes, but why does God exist? Why?

One with an unbelieving heart has rejected what leads to Him.

The mind follows the heart.

With the heart man needs to repent to change his course. Until then it is only forum talk of opposition to your simple question. Opposition talk, rooted not in knowledge supremacy but unbelief.

 

[Heissonear]

"Reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined. In a wider definition, reality includes everything that is and has been, whether or not it is observable or comprehensible. A still broader definition includes everything that has existed, exists, or will exist."
--- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality

It would seem that the term "reality" refers not to an abstraction, but rather to that which is in no sense abstract. It is dangerous to sanity to wander into philosophy without a good grounding in mathematics and logic. One might even wander into the la-la land of theology and come out stinking of woo. (In case you didn't notice "la-la land" and "woo" are reified abstractions.

Void of the Holy Spirit. Knowledge puffs up.

 

[Derek Meyer]

One with an unbelieving heart has rejected what leads to Him.

The mind follows the heart.

With the heart man needs to repent to change his course. Until then it is only forum talk of opposition to your simple question. Opposition talk, rooted not in knowledge supremacy but unbelief.

So from all of this I gather that you can't provide any reason for why?