Where did the laws of nature come from?

[KCfromNC]

If there are no regularities in nature, then there is no chance of being able to predict anything about what will happen in nature, and science is impossible. Therefore, in order to do science, you must assume that there are such things as physical laws.

Or you could simply look out the window and see that the sun comes up each morning.

 

[KCfromNC]

And so your answer to the rest of that post is? Why do you think the speed of light is the way it is, and Planck's constant, etc.?

I don't know. What method do you propose to answer those questions and what is the track record of that method when applied to answering other similar questions?

 

[lesliedellow]

Or you could simply look out the window and see that the sun comes up each morning.

That won't be much help if you want to know what time it will rise tomorrow? For that you need somebody like Newton, who can do more than simply notice the obvious (Ooh look, apples fall to the ground - how interesting).

He could just have assumed that God intervened to make it happen every time, and not necessarily with the same acceleration each time. Instead, with the two equations:

F=ma and F= GMm / r^2

he changed the world forever.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

I don't know. What method do you propose to answer those questions and what is the track record of that method when applied to answering other similar questions?

Who knows, perhaps there is a unifying equation to bring the constants together into one, like a theory of everything or some such. That would at least reduce the question to one unknown, being the origin of the unifying equation.

The point is in trying, not giving non-answers like "that's just the way it is".

What tends to happen though is that we learn more about the universe and then only open up more questions. What a wondrous creation.

 

[durangodawood]

Are you really content with that answer? You don't wonder why the speed of light is what it is, or Planck's constant is what it is etc.?

I understand the laws of nature are descriptive not prescriptive. That doesn't make them any less mysterious.

What a terribly lazy answer to just say that's the way it is.

There may or may not be a somewhere/someone thats the source of these laws. Nowhere did I say we should stop investigating.

But our desire for a bigger story is not at all evidence that there is one.

 

[Loudmouth]

HGT is only one part of why random mutations and natural selection are responsible for the creation of life and how they change. I have posted the same papers over and over again and you refuse to even acknowledge them.

I DID ADDRESS THEM, STEVEW. You never got back to me on those posts.

This is EXACTLY what I am talking about. You present information, it is thoroughly debunked, you ignore the posts that debunk it, and then repeat the same debunked claims. This is extremely dishonest of you.

Here it is again, in case you missed it.

https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-015-0607-3

If you follow the human lineage back to the common ancestor of primates, there have only been 3 HGT events. Just 3. The predominant force in complex animals is vertical gene transfer. Even Eugene Koonin agrees.

"The comparative infrequency of HGT in the eukaryote part of the biological world means, however, that in this case the conceptual implications for the TOL might not be as drastic: the evolutionary histories of many eukaryotes appear to produce tree-like patterns (e.g., [27])."
https://biologydirect.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1745-6150-6-32

 

[stevevw]

No, it has been my point consistently. You have a weird tendency to quote sources which disagree with your claims about a subject. This is just another example.

So what part of the source disagreed with me when you said I bet you cant find a source that says that many branches of different creatures suddenly appeared at the same time during the Cambrian period. As far as I understand suddenly and burst are pretty much the same and many major groups of animal forms means many branches. Different phylum mean different animals so I cant see how that statemnet disagrees with what I am saying.
Moreover, this burst of animal forms led to most of the major animal groups we know today, that is, every extant Phylum. It is also postulated that many forms that would rightfully deserve the rank of Phylum
http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Paleobiology/CambrianExplosion.htm

All of the novel genes which code for new features that didn't exist "very early". It was explained in one of the sources you posted - if you'd read it you would have an answer.

Then why didn't you post it back to show me rather then make some claim without verification. Why should I take your word for it, Ive posted 30 odd papers or more so far I am not going to go back through them all to look for something you claim is there. That is your job as you are making the claim. How is it you continually demand citations from me but you cant even cite one bit of a paper that I have supplied. You havnt supplied one paper so far in 30 odd pages of debate. Maybe it was this paper you were talking about,

Universal Genome in the Origin of Metazoa: Thoughts About Evolution
Recent advances in paleontology, genome analysis, genetics and embryology raise a number of questions about the origin of Animal Kingdom. These questions include: (1) seemingly simultaneous appearance of diverse Metazoan phyla in Cambrian period, (2) similarities of genomes among Metazoan phyla of diverse complexity, (3) seemingly excessive complexity of genomes of lower taxons, and (4) similar genetic switches of functionally similar but non-homologous developmental programs. Here I propose an experimentally testable hypothesis of Universal Genome that addresses these questions. According to this model, (a) the Universal Genome that encodes all major developmental programs essential for various phyla of Metazoa emerged in a unicellular or a primitive multicellular organism shortly before the Cambrian period; (b) The Metazoan phyla, all having similar genomes, are nonetheless so distinct because they utilize specific combinations of developmental programs. This model has two major predictions, first that a significant fraction of genetic information in lower taxons must be functionally useless but becomes useful in higher taxons, and second that one should be able to turn on in lower taxons some of the complex latent developmental programs, e.g. a program of eye development or antibody synthesis in sea urchin. An example of natural turning on of a complex latent program in a lower taxon is discussed.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.4161/cc.6.15.4557#.VaEEzbUoTfc
So the paper is saying that there was a simultaneous appearance of diverse Metazoan phyla in the Cambrian period and seemly excessive complexity of genomes of lower taxons. Isn't that what I said.
A significant fraction of genetic info in those lower taxons is functionally useless sitting there waiting to be switched on and be used in higher taxons later. So the complex latent development programs or genetic codes for developing new features are sitting there already made and waiting to be switched on. I think thats pretty well what I have been saying.

That's what I've been wondering. Even if we accept that you've found a major hole in evolutionary theory (using sources which see no such problem), so what? You've got nothing better to explain the stuff that evolutionary theory does explain and certainly don't have a better idea about the unexplained stuff. So what's your point?

This doesn't make any sense.What has me not being able to supply verification of God or any other designer got to do with invalidation evidence for design in nature. The above paper doesn't insight any gods it is a scientific hypothesis based on the science. You keep saying the sources see no such problem and I keep showing you the that they do. All you keep doing is claim they are having some problem without any support. Anyone can do that. Look heres one, scientists have found evidence for God on Mars. Its easy to make claims without support.

If you didn't believe your own source why did you post it? Maybe I'm crazy, but when someone posts a scientific reference to support one of their posts, I kinda thought that meant you felt it was an accurate claim. Guess I'll have to keep in mind in the future that you don't actually believe any of the science you're quoting.

What do you mean believe my own source. I posted the source because it was support for what I was saying.

I appreciate the attempt to jump from "maybe" to "is" but your wild speculation is simply that and nothing more.

How is it wild speculation to say that HGT is a major part of life. It is and has been verified. The only maybe are talking about things like the 50% in humans. But there is HGT in humans they just cant completely verify how much so therefore its a maybe. But how many times has evolution said maybe or perhaps. Have you ever heard them say that something ever definitely happened in the past with specific cases. When they talk about how this animals may have evolved into that animals like with dinos to birds or mammals to whales they dont say there is a definite case of a specific animal evolving. They are always speculating and then changing the story when something comes along that proves what they speculated was wrong. Yet you will believe anything they say based on maybes and perhaps.

You do realize what "consistent tendency" means, right? Hint - it doesn't mean that evolution can't produce increased complexity. It just means the path to that increased complexity isn't a straight line.

No you are reading it out of context. the whole section there was talking about natural selection not being a dominate force and that non adaptive forces were the major players for how animals changed. That sentence you quoted went on to say that any complexity that did occur wasn't the result of darwinian evolution but from non adaptive forces under weak purifying selection. Evolution cant produce anything under weak selection because it wont be selected by adaptive evolution in the first place because its too weak. In other words that weak selection that produced that complexity was the result of some other non evolutionary process.
There is no consistent tendency of evolution towards increased genomic complexity, and when complexity increases, this appears to be a non-adaptive consequence of evolution under weak purifying selection rather than an adaptation.
Have to leave it there for the moment as its getting late.
Good night or I should say morning here. Steve

 

[Loudmouth]

So what part of the source disagreed with me when you said I bet you cant find a source that says that many branches of different creatures suddenly appeared at the same time during the Cambrian period.

That is true of EVERY period in the fossil record.

Moreover, this burst of animal forms led to most of the major animal groups we know today, that is, every extant Phylum. It is also postulated that many forms that would rightfully deserve the rank of Phylum
http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Paleobiology/CambrianExplosion.htm

That's exactly what we should see if evolution is true. Where else are we going to see the earliest ancestors of modern life except in the earliest sediments?

How is it wild speculation to say that HGT is a major part of life.

"The comparative infrequency of HGT in the eukaryote part of the biological world means, however, that in this case the conceptual implications for the TOL might not be as drastic: the evolutionary histories of many eukaryotes appear to produce tree-like patterns (e.g., [27])."
https://biologydirect.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1745-6150-6-32

 

[KCfromNC]

That won't be much help if you want to know what time it will rise tomorrow? For that you need somebody like Newton, who can do more than simply notice the obvious (Ooh look, apples fall to the ground - how interesting).

He could just have assumed that God intervened to make it happen every time, and not necessarily with the same acceleration each time. Instead, with the two equations:

F=ma and F= GMm / r^2

he changed the world forever.

And? What does this have to do with the claim it is necessary to assume there are physical laws? How do you know he didn't conclude that rather than assume them?

 

[VirOptimus]

So the reason the speed of light is the way it is... is because... it just is?

Yes?

Thats pretty much how things work.

 

[KCfromNC]

So what part of the source disagreed with me

I've posted multiple examples and as far as I can tell, you've ignored them all. I'm not going to waste my time with more.

Then why didn't you post it back to show me rather then make some claim without verification.

I did. You ignored it.

Universal Genome in the Origin of Metazoa: Thoughts About Evolution

Recent advances in paleontology, genome analysis, genetics and embryology raise a number of questions about the origin of Animal Kingdom. These questions include: (1) seemingly simultaneous appearance of diverse Metazoan phyla in Cambrian period,

Why did you forget to highlight "seemingly" here?

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.4161/cc.6.15.4557#.VaEEzbUoTfc

So the paper is saying that there was a simultaneous appearance of diverse Metazoan phyla in the Cambrian period and seemly excessive complexity of genomes of lower taxons.

Oh, so you can ignore it in your paraphrase of what the paper said. At least you're consistent.

A significant fraction of genetic info in those lower taxons is functionally useless sitting there waiting to be switched on and be used in higher taxons later.

So the complex latent development programs or genetic codes for developing new features are sitting there already made and waiting to be switched on.

At least according to the model presented in this paper. If I actually bother to read the paper, am I going to find experimental results showing that the paper is correct or will I be wasting more of my time?

What has me not being able to supply verification of God or any other designer got to do with invalidation evidence for design in nature.

Because without knowing what designer you're talking about or what process that designer uses, there's no way to know if a particular thing is designed or not. That's why you've been unable to answer my simple questions about quantifying design in a few simple examples - without knowing how the designer is supposed to work there's no way to do so.

How is it wild speculation to say that HGT is a major part of life. It is and has been verified.

Not in humans. See the post above for an example.

The only maybe are talking about things like the 50% in humans. But there is HGT in humans they just cant completely verify how much so therefore its a maybe.

And theres the speculation I was talking about.

But how many times has evolution said maybe or perhaps. Have you ever heard them say that something ever definitely happened in the past with specific cases. When they talk about how this animals may have evolved into that animals like with dinos to birds or mammals to whales they dont say there is a definite case of a specific animal evolving. They are always speculating

At least they are honest about it.

No you are reading it out of context. the whole section there was talking about natural selection not being a dominate force and that non adaptive forces were the major players for how animals changed.

Yeah, drift happens. Without reading the paper, I'm going to guess that it has nothing to do with your guesses about HGT in mammals.

 

[lesliedellow]

And? What does this have to do with the claim it is necessary to assume there are physical laws? How do you know he didn't conclude that rather than assume them?

Because you have to presuppose they are there before you go looking for them.

That is how modern science got started. People began to ask what the laws were by which God governed the universe. Unless they had some inkling that there were laws there to be found, it would have made no sense to go looking for them.

 

[essentialsaltes]

So the reason the speed of light is the way it is... is because... it just is?

The speed of light (in vacuum) is constant because it depends on the permittivity of free space and the permeability of free space. They are both constants.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

Thats pretty much how things work.

Why? How did you come to the conclusion to stop there, and just say "Thats pretty much how things work". You don't question it?

 

[VirOptimus]

Why? How did you come to the conclusion to stop there, and just say "Thats pretty much how things work". You don't question it?

That depends on what you´mean with "why". Of course I seek more scientific knowledge and welcome scientific research. So those kinds of "why" is good questions.

What I dont dwell on is metaphysical questions as they are meaningless in my opinion.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

The speed of light (in vacuum) is constant because it depends on the permittivity of free space and the permeability of free space. They are both constants.

Seriously? The constants defining the permittivity of free space and permeability of free space are useless for this purpose, for they are dependent on the speed of light and aren't physical constants, they are decided, not measured. They aren't real quantities, but were defined in order to fit properly with Maxwell's equations and international standards of units and measurements.

The permittivity of free space is defined by:

where epsilon0 is the permittivity of free space, c is the speed of light and mu0 is the permeability of free space.

If the permittivity of free space is dependent on the speed of light, it can't be used to reverse-prove the speed of light...

Its value is simply derived from the speed of light and the permeability of free space.

The permeability of free space, is a constant that was also defined. It is 4pi x 10^-7, it is not some measured physical constant.

The permeability of free space is not a physical constant that can be measured, it is a measurement-system constant. It was decided upon in order to fit into the preferred equation system. In turn, the permittivity of free space is then dependent on this figure that was already-decided and the already-known speed of light.

Thus you cannot use either to justify the speed of light. Both of these constants are simply used so that descriptions of electromagnetic phenomena would be in accordance with the International System of Units. They are not real quantities.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

That depends on what you´mean with "why". Of course I seek more scientific knowledge and welcome scientific research. So those kinds of "why" is good questions.

What I dont dwell on is metaphysical questions as they are meaningless in my opinion.

I shed manly tears for your lack of inquisitiveness.

 

[lesliedellow]

The speed of light (in vacuum) is constant because it depends on the permittivity of free space and the permeability of free space. They are both constants.

That just shifts the problem fron one constant to two, doesn't it?

 

[VirOptimus]

I shed manly tears for your lack of inquisitiveness.

Why?

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

Why?

Because it's sad?