Where did the laws of nature come from?

[VirOptimus]

-snip-
Yes and I have acknowledged this many times. We see this in the different features of species such as size and color ect. But its limited and the evidence seems to support this. What some do is take this limited ability for creatures to change is some features and expand that to well beyond what has been scientifically verified. Tests done have shown there are barriers to limit the ability of creatures to move to far from their natural state and there is a fitness cost to this. Life has other processes that allow creatures to share the genetic material available and this is more responsible for how creatures can gain extra genetic info and change.

No, there are no such limits. And "natural state"? What on earth is that?

-snip- Whichever way you look at it nothing produces nothing so at some point there has to be a supernatural intervention that defies the scientific view. -snip-

Support this with science. Otherwise its just an empty assertion.

 

[quatona]

True, the world of science is neutral on the question of God. It is not there to prove or disprove God. However, evolution has impact beyond the world of science and that's where philosophy and theology come into the picture.

Agreed - although, for some, it´s the other way round: their long held metaphysical/religious beliefs have an impact on their acceptance/non-acceptance when new scientific findings come into the picture.
That´s why I´d take issue with my view being labeled "atheistic evolution" (it makes it sound like I were one of them), and that´s why I am wondering why you label your view "theistic evolution" (since, for all I can tell, you aren´t one of those, either).
It´s not that different from the reason why you don´t call yourself "creationist" - even though you believe there´s a creator.

 

[stevevw]

No, there are no such limits. And "natural state"? What on earth is that?

The natural state is the natural wild state that animals have. The more their genetic makeup is moved away from this the more they become unfit. Even small changes will affect the fitness of an animal. If we look at dogs the making of different breeds has caused many to inherit diseases and sickness along with those changes. Even Darwin acknowledged this. Even in GM food even though they can manipulate crops and add a new genetic ability it has an affect on the surrounding environment. We still dont know what the long term affects are.
Negative epistasis between beneficial mutations in an evolving bacterial population.
Epistasis depended on the effects of the combined mutations—the larger the expected benefit, the more negative the epistatic effect. Epistasis thus tended to produce diminishing returns with genotype fitness, although interactions involving one particular mutation had the opposite effect. These data support models in which negative epistasis contributes to declining rates of adaptation over time.
https://www.researchgate.net/public...Mutations_in_an_Evolving_Bacterial_Population
Reductive Evolution Can Prevent Populations from Taking Simple Adaptive Paths to High Fitness
Our results show that competition between reductive and constructive paths may significantly decrease
the likelihood that a particular constructive path will be taken. This finding has particular significance for models of
gene recruitment, since weak new functions are likely to require costly over-expression in order to improve fitness.
https://www.researchgate.net/public..._Taking_Simple_Adaptive_Paths_to_High_Fitness

The Case Against a Darwinian Origin of Protein Folds
https://www.researchgate.net/public...e_Against_a_Darwinian_Origin_of_Protein_Folds

Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022283604007624

Support this with science. Otherwise its just an empty assertion.

Are you saying that nothing can produce something. I would have thought that is common sense and logical. If you have a box with nothing in it then how can something be produced. Or are you following Lawrence Krauss's view that nothing isn't really nothing and there is actually something in the nothing which still makes it nothing. If we take nothing as actually being nothing then how can it produce something. That is supports itself if you use logic.

So what about the empty assertions from a world view that nothing can produce something and non life can somehow make life. It seems that those supporting this view accept its based on faith so what the difference. Why is it OK for one and not the other. In fact there are many unsubstantiated claims by evolution that have no scientific verification. IE single celled life can evolve into multi celled life. Have you any support for this.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, true. Bacteria have been induced to undergo "macro-evolution" in the lab.

But it's still bacteria.

Bacteria, as I understand it, creates a new generation every nine hours.

Or is it a new species every nine hours?

I can't remember which.

But it's still bacteria.

 

[Derek Meyer]

But it's still bacteria

Actually, no. Some forms of populations of very simple forms of prokaryotes have evolved into some forms of very simple populations of primitive eukaryotes in labs.
So, no.

 

[AV1611VET]

Actually, no. Some forms of populations of very simple forms of prokaryotes have evolved into some forms of very simple populations of primitive eukaryotes in labs.
So, no.

But they're still prokaryotes.

 

[Derek Meyer]

The natural state is the natural wild state that animals have.

The natural state is the state all natural occurring forms of life have. Humans are natural. Humans are not Spooks, after all.

 

[Derek Meyer]

But they're still prokaryotes.

Nope.

 

[AV1611VET]

Nope.

Oops ... sorry.

I misread your post.

 

[Derek Meyer]

Are you saying that nothing can produce something.

Only religious people tend to say that.

 

[AV1611VET]

Only religious people tend to say that.

But you're an exception, right?

 

[Derek Meyer]

But you're an exception, right?

It's not an exception that the Theewaterskoof Formation doesn't and can't contain coal. It's not an exception; it's a fact.

 

[Ophiolite]

But it's still bacteria.

Bacteria, as I understand it, creates a new generation every nine hours.

Or is it a new species every nine hours?

I can't remember which.

But it's still bacteria.

Yes, and since before the Cambrian explosion and the emergence of the first multi-cellular organism all the evolution that has gone on has left us with just something that is still only a multi-cellular organism. Bacteria went through a massive range of evolutionary changes, developing many new types of bacteria, but they are still only bacteria. Multi-cellular organisms went through a massive range of evolutionary changes, developing many new types of multi-cellular organisms, but they are still just multi-cellular organisms.

(If you think that bacteria are all pretty much the same, that's just your multi-cellular centrism showing. )

 

[[serious]]

But it's still bacteria.

Bacteria, as I understand it, creates a new generation every nine hours.

Or is it a new species every nine hours?

I can't remember which.

But it's still bacteria.

Right, that's why evolution produces nested hierarchies.

I normally post a whole thing how we are still vertebrates, tetrapods, mammals, etc, but I think you already know that.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you think that bacteria are all pretty much the same, that's just your multi-cellular centrism showing.

Wouldn't that be like thinking all domestic dogs are the same? as opposed to all dogs in general?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't wolves and Spaniels both considered "dogs"?

 

[Ophiolite]

Wouldn't that be like thinking all domestic dogs are the same? as opposed to all dogs in general?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't wolves and Spaniels both considered "dogs"?

No, that would be nothing like it. The differences between bacteria are at least as great and arguably greater than the differences between oysters and elephants. You seem to think bacteria differ, one from the other, just about as much as a wolf and spaniel. That is a seriously misguided idea.

 

[AV1611VET]

You seem to think bacteria differ, one from the other, just about as much as a wolf and spaniel. That is a seriously misguided idea.

Sorry.

I find that a little difficult to swallow.

 

[stevevw]

The natural state is the state all natural occurring forms of life have. Humans are natural. Humans are not Spooks, after all.

I agree, its just an expression some use as opposed on artificial or chemically grown foods or animals. They will call them organic or naturally grown. We have a mechanism that rectifies mistakes in the copying of our DNA and will return things back to the natural state that they were meant to be. If it wasn't for that we would have many errors in our DNA resulting from mutations which will cause dysfunction and disease such as cancer. So its important for our DNA to be as close to its original state and the more it is change away from that the more unfit we become.

 

[Ophiolite]

Sorry.

I find that a little difficult to swallow.

That is because you choose not to be educated in the subject. Since you firmly believe that science can take a hike it is to be expected that you will have silly and ignorant ideas about subjects that have been elucidated by science. As I have pointed out multiple times before, you can remove this ignorance very easily. You resolutely refuse to do so. Until you do, any ill-informed declaration of your disbelief is as valuable as a stuffed aardvark in a shoe shop.

 

[stevevw]

Only religious people tend to say that.

Not really, the whole idea was made famous by a atheists scientists in Lawrence Krauss.
A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing is a book by physicist Lawrence M. Krauss, initially published on January 10, 2012 by Free Press. It discusses modern cosmogony and its implications for the debate about the existence of God.
But many have said that the nothing Krauss is talking about is really something and not nothing in the true sense.
In fact the saying has become quite famous around the world. It would be a natural question for anyone regardless of being religious to ask where did we come from and can something really come from nothing. Its a fundamental question that needs to be asked.