Where did the laws of nature come from?

[stevevw]

They do. For example, I remember one poster repeatedly posting info that HGT was responsible for, what, like a grand total of 3 of the base pair differences between humans and chimps. People who understand the science aren't ignoring it, they're just being realistic about the relatively minimal impact it has outside of single-celled organisms. You, on the other hand, read an abstract of a paper and are now convinced you've disproved modern biology.



Careful - your creationism is showing.

Who said anything about creationism. You are assuming things. I am merely questioning things and looking at what the evidence is saying. It doesn't say that HGT is minimal at all. Evidence states that is is a big influence and as I posted two different papers which stated that one up to 50% of human genes may be the results of HGT. I have posted other papers stating that scientsist are discovering more and more cases of HGT all the time and it may well end up that it is a major influence in how complex creatures gained genetic info. I will go back to the original point that if 95% of all life is subject to major HGT events then doesn't that tell you that complex life plays a minor role in the overall scheme of evolution. If HGT events are happening then how do we know what is the result of evolution theory. Plus you are ignoring the other factors which add to evolution being a minor player that I keep repeatedly posting and still dont get any response for IE

In our view, this ‘gene-centric’ focus fails to capture the full gamut of processes that direct evolution. Missing pieces include how physical development influences the generation of variation (developmental bias); how the environment directly shapes organisms’ traits (plasticity); how organisms modify environments (niche construction); and how organisms transmit more than genes across generations (extra-genetic inheritance). For SET, these phenomena are just outcomes of evolution. For the EES (extended evolutionary synthesis), they are also causes.
http://www.nature.com/news/does-evolutionary-theory-need-a-rethink-1.16080
So they are major players and not minor outcomes as evolution claims in how life changes rather then evolution through random mutations and natural selection.

All these factors replace the need and role darwins evolution theory of random mutations and natural selection play. Evolution cannot explain many of the changes we see in life and things are more complex. It leaves way to many unanswered questions to be a viable explanation and more and more scientists are saying this. Yes evolution plays a role but in a smaller way and not like some want to make out and give it far more creative power than it actually has. Its almost like your faith in evolution is a great as the belief you accuse religious people of having in God.

 

[KCfromNC]

Who said anything about creationism.

ID is creationism, even if ID proponents don't want to talk about that fact.

It doesn't say that HGT is minimal at all.

See post 932. Ignoring the data doesn't make it go away.

it may well end up that it is a major influence in how complex creatures gained genetic info.

Or maybe it won't. Speculation doesn't trump the evidence we do have for it being minimal.

I will go back to the original point that if 95% of all life is subject to major HGT events

And if frogs had wings...

In our view, this ‘gene-centric’ focus fails to capture the full gamut of processes that direct evolution. Missing pieces include how physical development influences the generation of variation (developmental bias); how the environment directly shapes organisms’ traits (plasticity); how organisms modify environments (niche construction); and how organisms transmit more than genes across generations (extra-genetic inheritance). For SET, these phenomena are just outcomes of evolution. For the EES (extended evolutionary synthesis), they are also causes.
http://www.nature.com/news/does-evolutionary-theory-need-a-rethink-1.16080

Again, your author seems to have forgotten to list a supernatural designer as one of the missing processes of evolution. Why is that?

All these factors replace the need and role darwins evolution theory of random mutations and natural selection play.

Your source doesn't claim this.

 

[stevevw]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

I will have a good look at this but I have already spotted a problem. When I asked for evidence I didn't ask for an interpretation of species. I was asking for lab tests that prove macro evolution as Hoghead1 had implied. As speciation is one of the tenets of evolution theory which is used as proof it is flawed. This is a good example of how observational evidence and disagreement on what is observed to prove something. Its weak evidence at best and unreliable. What one thinks is species another thinks is just variation with species. This is seen by the fact that even taxonomists use ideas like splitters and lumpers. Some lump variation together as part of a species. Others use that same variation to show transitions for new species. There are around 200 species of bats, but they are all still bats in they shape. They just happen to have a vast amount of variation. But that variation isn't going to make them a cat.

The article itself states that there is vast debate over what a species is so there is even disagreement with evolution. In fact I think Darwin himself first though that the differences which were labelled species in animals were just variations of the same animals. Scientist have made the mistake many times of labeling different shaped fossils of similar animal as new species because they are to eager to fill the transitional gaps when they were actually variations of the same creatures. The Georgian skulls are a good example. So how do we know what is just variation within the same animal and what is a different and new species of another animal.


A discussion of speciation requires a definition of what constitutes a species. This is a topic of considerable debate within the biological community. Three recent reviews in the Journal of Phycology give some idea of the scope of the debate (Castenholz 1992, Manhart and McCourt 1992, Wood and Leatham 1992). There are a variety of different species concept currently in use by biologists.

Dmanisi Human: Skull from Georgia Implies All Early Homo Species were One
http://www.sci-news.com/othersciences/anthropology/science-dmanisi-human-skull-georgia-01474.html

Sometimes, especially in the past when communication was more difficult, taxonomists working in isolation have given two distinct names to individual organisms later identified as the same species. When two named species are agreed to be of the same species, the older species name is almost always retained dropping the newer species name honoring a convention known as "priority of nomenclature". This form of lumping is technically called synonymization. Dividing a taxon into multiple, often new, taxa is called splitting. Taxonomists are often referred to as "lumpers" or "splitters" by their colleagues, depending on their personal approach to recognizing differences or commonalities between organisms.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumpers_and_splitters

 

[Loudmouth]

Heck, I'm even curious why a creationist would. I've asked multiple times to connect the dots between "HGT is an important factor in mammalian evolution" and " therefore an intelligent creator god did it", but I've been consistently ignored.

I have a feeling that their wires got crossed at some point.

The main piece of evidence for mammalian evolution is the oft cited phylogenies. These are created by VGT. What little HGT that does occur in mammals will produce violations or exceptions to that predicted tree. However, normal mechanisms of VGT, such as incomplete lineage sorting, will produce many more violations of that tree than HGT will, due to the rarity of HGT in mammals and most eukaryotes.

I think somewhere along the line, creationists got the idea that HGT could be used to counter the phylogeny argument, and this somehow morphed into HGT falsifying all of evolution. Since it falsified evolution, in the eyes of creationists, then it must somehow evidence a creator . . . for no apparent reason.

 

[Loudmouth]

I will have a good look at this but I have already spotted a problem. When I asked for evidence I didn't ask for an interpretation of species. I was asking for lab tests that prove macro evolution as Hoghead1 had implied.

Speciation is macroevolution. We have observed instances of speciation, so we have observed macroevolution in action.

What one thinks is species another thinks is just variation with species.

Such is the gray area that we would expect from evolution. Yet more evidence for evolution.

Dmanisi Human: Skull from Georgia Implies All Early Homo Species were One
http://www.sci-news.com/othersciences/anthropology/science-dmanisi-human-skull-georgia-01474.html

Lumping 3 skulls into the transitional species H. erectus is a problem for evolution how?

 

[stevevw]

ID is creationism, even if ID proponents don't want to talk about that fact.

There is a distinct difference. Creationists support only a supernatural cause for creation of life and therefore base things on faith only and dont use science. ID supporters use scientific verification for what they say irregardless of their individual beliefs. Their whole concept is based on verifying design through science and not faith. So that is a major difference. Plus ones again you are assuming.

See post 932. Ignoring the data doesn't make it go away.

I havnt ignored this so I guess you must have either ignored my rely or missed it. But this isn't the evidence you think it is and try to repeat and hold onto as the only evidence you have. It is merely an interpretation of the evidence and is not verified.

Or maybe it won't. Speculation doesn't trump the evidence we do have for it being minimal.

Thats funny coming from a theory thats full of speculation and lacking in evidence. If its good for one its good for all except when evolution uses speculation its classed as evidence. When anyone else uses it ist not.

And if frogs had wings...

Isn't that suppose to be pigs.

Again, your author seems to have forgotten to list a supernatural designer as one of the missing processes of evolution. Why is that?

Whats that got to do with it.

Your source doesn't claim this.

Author you mean authors if you've been following. Join the dots its easy.

 

[Loudmouth]

There is a distinct difference. Creationists support only a supernatural cause for creation of life and therefore base things on faith only and dont use science. ID supporters use scientific verification for what they say irregardless of their individual beliefs.

No, they don't. They don't use any verification.

Their whole concept is based on verifying design through science and not faith.

They haven't produced any such verification, yet they still claim that life is designed. That is because of faith.

Thats funny coming from a theory thats full of speculation and lacking in evidence.

29 evidences of macroevolution:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

 

[stevevw]

Speciation is macroevolution. We have observed instances of speciation, so we have observed macroevolution in action.

How can speciation be observed when the scientists cant even agree on what is a species. Besides how is a different bat species macro evolution. Its still a bat in every way shape and form. The variation is no greater and even less that a dog breed yet all these are still a dog or bat. This is the blurred line that evolution uses for species as they do for evolution itself with micro and macro evolution.

Such is the gray area that we would expect from evolution. Yet more evidence for evolution.

Humm or such is the evidence to show that what evolution thinks is a transition to another species is in fact just normal and natural variation within a species that will never become anything else but what it is. Like I said there are proven limits to how far a creature can vary from its natural state before it becomes sick and unfit. Tests have proven this, But what you are talking about is visual/observational evidence which is based on personal interpretation. This doesn't trump the actual scientific tests which show there are limits to protein evolution and how far the natural state can be changed.

Lumping 3 skulls into the transitional species H. erectus is a problem for evolution how?

There were 5 actually. The problem is that its 1) not the first time that evolution has mistaken variation within a species to be different transitional species that were once used as the transitional steps that showed how one creature morphed into another. 2) that means that there are probably many other mistaken transitions as well with equate to just normal variation with the one species. How do we know that there are not just one human species and one ape species that both have great variations just like dogs. Each and every type of animal is singular and separate and has great variation.

3)If we lose all these other species which were links in the chain to show how a creature gradually morphed from one type of shape to another then doesn't that leave a big gap or more gaps. The visitations that humans have within their species of say a longer chin or bigger nose or is taller or shorter or black or has slanted eyes are not transitional steps to morphing into some other shaped creature. They are just the natural variation they have from mixing and blending their shapes through normal reproduction. The small variations they do have come from existing genetic material thats been there all the time. The genetic info for changing size or color is already there. But to be able to grow wings or to add internal systems that were not there to begin with cant happen.

 

[KCfromNC]

I will have a good look at this but I have already spotted a problem. When I asked for evidence I didn't ask for an interpretation of species. I was asking for lab tests that prove macro evolution as Hoghead1 had implied.

Yes, that's why I posed a page with a list of observed cases of new species developing. Do you have any specific issues with any of the examples presented, or are you just looking to use a lot of words to change the subject?

 

[Loudmouth]

How can speciation be observed when the scientists cant even agree on what is a species.

They do agree on the definition based on genetics. When you have divergence of genomes due to a lack of interbreeding, that is speciation, and we have watched it happen.

Besides how is a different bat species macro evolution. Its still a bat in every way shape and form.

Just as we are still primates, still mammals, still vertebrates, and still eukaryotes. Are you saying that humans and amoeba evolving from a common eukaryotic common ancestor is microevolution because we are still eukaryotes?

The variation is no greater and even less that a dog breed yet all these are still a dog or bat. This is the blurred line that evolution uses for species as they do for evolution itself with micro and macro evolution.

Please show how the difference between bat genomes is the same as between dogs.

Humm or such is the evidence to show that what evolution thinks is a transition to another species is in fact just normal and natural variation within a species that will never become anything else but what it is.

If it was normal variation, then you would find the same distribution of mutations in each population and not see population specific mutations. Guess what we see? We see population specific mutations, mutations that are found in one population but not the other one.

Like I said there are proven limits to how far a creature can vary from its natural state before it becomes sick and unfit. Tests have proven this, But what you are talking about is visual/observational evidence which is based on personal interpretation.

You have never produced any such tests. That is just a faith based claim.

This doesn't trump the actual scientific tests which show there are limits to protein evolution and how far the natural state can be changed.

Already thoroughly refuted this argument as well. You seem to be jumping between two falsified arguments.

There were 5 actually. The problem is that its 1) not the first time that evolution has mistaken variation within a species to be different transitional species that were once used as the transitional steps that showed how one creature morphed into another.

How do 5 tranitional H. erectus specimens falsify evolution?

3)If we lose all these other species which were links in the chain to show how a creature gradually morphed from one type of shape to another then doesn't that leave a big gap or more gaps. The visitations that humans have within their species of say a longer chin or bigger nose or is taller or shorter or black or has slanted eyes are not transitional steps to morphing into some other shaped creature. They are just the natural variation they have from mixing and blending their shapes through normal reproduction. The small variations they do have come from existing genetic material thats been there all the time. The genetic info for changing size or color is already there. But to be able to grow wings or to add internal systems that were not there to begin with cant happen.

All 5 skulls are still links in the chain. Nothing has changed. H. erectus is still a transitional species.

 

[stevevw]

No, they don't. They don't use any verification.

What makes you think that. How else are they going to conduct their research if not through scientific methods. Are you saying that they are not scientists. I thought scientists like Meyer and Behe were qualified. We are not talking about whether someone thinks they are correct or not in their views about ID. We are talking about whether they use science methods in their approach. As far as I understand it from the many papers they have produced that they use scientific methods.

What is intelligent design?
Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system's components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence.

Is intelligent design the same as creationism?
No. The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how the findings of science can be reconciled to it. Intelligent design starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what inferences can be drawn from that evidence. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural.
http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php

They haven't produced any such verification, yet they still claim that life is designed. That is because of faith.
I will have to look at the macro evolution site later as its late. But I am interested in checking it.

 

[KCfromNC]

There is a distinct difference. Creationists support only a supernatural cause for creation of life and therefore base things on faith only and dont use science. ID supporters use scientific verification for what they say irregardless of their individual beliefs.

Considering you seem to run away from scientific ways to describe your designer and test it, I guess I see which category best fits.

I havnt ignored this so I guess you must have either ignored my rely or missed it. But this isn't the evidence you think it is and try to repeat and hold onto as the only evidence you have. It is merely an interpretation of the evidence and is not verified.

What is your alternative interpretation, and how does it better fit the observed evidence?

Thats funny coming from a theory thats full of speculation and lacking in evidence. If its good for one its good for all except when evolution uses speculation its classed as evidence. When anyone else uses it ist not.

I have a hard time taking this sort of thing seriously. Does this rhetoric pass muster in creationist circles?

Whats that got to do with it.

I just find it interesting that none of the sources you think are an authority on what should be replacing evolution actually agree with your idea for a replacement.

Author you mean authors if you've been following. Join the dots its easy.

So you say, but none of the people you're quoting as experts seem to do so.

 

[Loudmouth]

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

That is a faith based belief, and not backed by any science.

Is intelligent design the same as creationism?

No. The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how the findings of science can be reconciled to it. Intelligent design starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what inferences can be drawn from that evidence. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural.
http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php

ID starts with the religious beliefs of those who push it. It is entirely based on faith, and an attempt to arrive at their already held religious beliefs.

 

[KCfromNC]

Besides how is a different bat species macro evolution. Its still a bat in every way shape and form.

Remember, everyone, ID has absolutely nothing in common at all with creationism *wink*.

Come on, even your ID heroes admit that macro evolution is a thing. Or at least they do when they're under oath.

 

[Loudmouth]

Remember, everyone, ID has absolutely nothing in common at all with creationism *wink*.

Come on, even your ID heroes admit that macro evolution is a thing. Or at least they do when they're under oath.

It's been a non-secret for quite some time now, ever since an internal Discovery Institute memo was leaked.

" Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."
http://ncse.com/creationism/general/wedge-document

 

[KCfromNC]

What makes you think that. How else are they going to conduct their research if not through scientific methods. Are you saying that they are not scientists. I thought scientists like Meyer and Behe were qualified. We are not talking about whether someone thinks they are correct or not in their views about ID. We are talking about whether they use science methods in their approach. As far as I understand it from the many papers they have produced that they use scientific methods.

What is intelligent design?
Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature.

Someone's fibbing :

"There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred."
Micheal Behe

Funny how the story changes when there are actual penalties for not telling the truth.

 

[Hoghead1]

How can speciation be observed when the scientists cant even agree on what is a species. Besides how is a different bat species macro evolution. Its still a bat in every way shape and form. The variation is no greater and even less that a dog breed yet all these are still a dog or bat. This is the blurred line that evolution uses for species as they do for evolution itself with micro and macro evolution.

Humm or such is the evidence to show that what evolution thinks is a transition to another species is in fact just normal and natural variation within a species that will never become anything else but what it is. Like I said there are proven limits to how far a creature can vary from its natural state before it becomes sick and unfit. Tests have proven this, But what you are talking about is visual/observational evidence which is based on personal interpretation. This doesn't trump the actual scientific tests which show there are limits to protein evolution and how far the natural state can be changed.

There were 5 actually. The problem is that its 1) not the first time that evolution has mistaken variation within a species to be different transitional species that were once used as the transitional steps that showed how one creature morphed into another. 2) that means that there are probably many other mistaken transitions as well with equate to just normal variation with the one species. How do we know that there are not just one human species and one ape species that both have great variations just like dogs. Each and every type of animal is singular and separate and has great variation.

3)If we lose all these other species which were links in the chain to show how a creature gradually morphed from one type of shape to another then doesn't that leave a big gap or more gaps. The visitations that humans have within their species of say a longer chin or bigger nose or is taller or shorter or black or has slanted eyes are not transitional steps to morphing into some other shaped creature. They are just the natural variation they have from mixing and blending their shapes through normal reproduction. The small variations they do have come from existing genetic material thats been there all the time. The genetic info for changing size or color is already there. But to be able to grow wings or to add internal systems that were not there to begin with cant happen.

Your argument appears weak. Birds, for example, can and have evolved into different species of birds. The fact they are all birds does not deny the reality of "macro-evolution." Yes, there has been disagreement over what constitutes a species. That also means the definition you are using could be called into question and it can also mean that there are more species than we thought. Are they really but different breeds of dogs or are they really different species? A very large dog cannot mate with a very small pone. Now, being unable to mate is taken as one sign of being a separate species.

 

[joshua 1 9]

ID is creationism, even if ID proponents don't want to talk about that fact.

Any theory where God is the Divine Cause is Creationism. Even Theistic Evolution is Creationism.

 

[Loudmouth]

Any theory where God is the Divine Cause is Creationism. Even Theistic Evolution is Creationism.

cre·a·tion·ism
krēˈāSHəˌnizəm/creation science.
the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution.
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=creationism+definition

Theistic evolution is not creationism.

 

[Hoghead1]

Any theory where God is the Divine Cause is Creationism. Even Theistic Evolution is Creationism.

That is true about the term 'creationism." However, many of us would prefer not to be called "creationists," as this term is so closely identified with creation-science people.