Where did the laws of nature come from?

[RealityCheck01]

But it's still bacteria.

You are joking, AV1611VET, aren't you ?

Otherwise I have to point out this is what ignorant people think about biology or evolution, i.e. that "bacteria" are a species or that a population bacteria that do something no other bacteria do are not a different species of bacteria.
The E. coli Long-term Experimental Evolution Project where bacteria gain new information - a wide array of genetic changes. It is the evolution of the ability to grow aerobically on citrate in one population that signifies a new species of bacteria since the inability is a characteristic of E. coli.

In case you do not know what bacteria are:

Bacteria ( i/bækˈtɪəriə/; singular: bacterium) constitute a large domain of prokaryotic microorganisms. Typically a few micrometres in length, bacteria have a number of shapes, ranging from spheres to rods and spirals. Bacteria were among the first life forms to appear on Earth, and are present in most of its habitats. Bacteria inhabit soil, water, acidic hot springs, radioactive waste,[4] and the deep portions of Earth's crust. Bacteria also live in symbiotic and parasitic relationships with plants and animals.

 

[AV1611VET]

Otherwise I have to point out this is what ignorant people think about biology or evolution, i.e. that "bacteria" are a species or that a population bacteria that do something no other bacteria do are not a different species of bacteria.

Then call bacteria a "kind," as per Genesis 1.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Then call bacteria a "kind," as per Genesis 1.

So it is not a joke, AV1611VET - maybe ignorance then.
The rather arbitrary separation of animals by a relatively ignorant people (where are the pandas and kangaroo in any Hebrew text ?) is not science. More specifically it is not the definition of species.

 

[VirOptimus]

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

No, none of what you post supports you term "natural state". If you are going to use terms, define them, explain them scientifically.

All you have posted are blustering rubbish. Learn science.http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022283604007624

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.

No, simply no. You do not understand logic or science (or metaphysics for that matter).

Your post have faulty premises, faulty logic and no science. Its just empty assertions.

 

[AV1611VET]

(where are the pandas and kangaroo in any Hebrew text ?)

פנדה ו קנגורו

 

[stevevw]

No, none of what you post supports you term "natural state". If you are going to use terms, define them, explain them scientifically.

All you have posted are blustering rubbish. Learn science.



No, simply no. You do not understand logic or science (or metaphysics for that matter).

Your post have faulty premises, faulty logic and no science.Its just empty assertions.

Such as, wheres the support from yourself. Otherwise you are just making empty assertions and doing exactly what you accuse me of. Anyone can make statements without proof. This could just be you biased opinion for all we know.

I have supported what I have said with scientists links. I do so all the time. I make the claim and then supply the the scientific support so its not just my own words on the page. All I see from you is your words which are continually making claims without one bit of academic support. So it seems you are making personal statements without referencing academic sources. In fact your arguments are the ones full of holes with ad hominems. Attacking the person and sources and calling them rubbisg without support is a weak basis for making an argument.

 

[VirOptimus]

Such as, wheres the support from yourself. Otherwise you are just making empty assertions and doing exactly what you accuse me of. Anyone can make statements without proof. This could just be you biased opinion for all we know.

I have supported what I have said with scientists links. I do so all the time. I make the claim and then supply the the scientific support so its not just my own words on the page. All I see from you is your words which are continually making claims without one bit of academic support. So it seems you are making personal statements without referencing academic sources. In fact your arguments are the ones full of holes with ad hominems. Attacking the person and sources and calling them rubbisg without support is a weak basis for making an argument.

You made the claim "natural state", you support it. Show me a scientific definition.

 

[Loudmouth]

The fossil record is not a good basis for proving evolution.

It absolutely is a great resource for proving evolution beyond any reasonable doubt. Every single fossil we have found has supported the theory.

But even so if you want to use that isn't the fossil record showing that life gradually evolved ie they claim first single celled life was around about 3.5 billion years ago and the Cambrian period was around 500 million years ago.

We wouldn't expect to see a complete record of gradual change over this time period if evolution is true, so I don't see how this is a problem. What we would expect to see is a nested hierarchy, and that is exactly what we see. ID/Creationism still can not explain this pattern. That is what proves evolution beyond any reasonable doubt.

Thats true and therefore evolution is something that needs a lot more support and research to verify it happening in detail.

Research that you would never accept, and close your eyes to, just as you do now.

We already have evidence beyond any reasonable doubt, yet you refuse to accept it.

 

[RealityCheck01]

I have supported what I have said with scientists links.

Your claim was "The more their genetic makeup is moved away from this the more they become unfit" where this is a "natural state". You give the examples of the breeding of dogs and GM food. This claim is irrelevant to evolution which is not humans breeding species like whales over millions of years or genetic engineering!
Your "scientists links" are to "an evolving bacterial population", "Reductive Evolution" and protein folds.
No "natural state" or breeding there and so no support !

Also there is the rather ignorant citation of the ID proponent Douglas Axe. That "paper" was published in the defunct BIO-Complexity published by the Biologic Institute which is staffed and funded by the Discovery Institute. This is not really a "scientists link" which should be to peer reviewed credible journals.

 

[Ophiolite]

Then call bacteria a "kind," as per Genesis 1.

You are still missing the point in its entirety. Bacteria are composed of many "kinds". There are more "kinds" of bacteria than there are "kinds" of animals. Either you refuse to understand this, or are incapable of understanding this. Which is it?

 

[[serious]]

Then call bacteria a "kind," as per Genesis 1.

If we wanted to call each domain of life a created kind, ID be fine with that. And then we call differentiation in each domain microevolution?

 

[AV1611VET]

If we wanted to call each domain of life a created kind, ID be fine with that. And then we call differentiation in each domain microevolution?

Whatever you call it ... it's still bacteria, isn't it?

 

[[serious]]

Whatever you call it ... it's still bacteria, isn't it?

yup, and eukaryotes are still eukaryotes, even if some turned inot lizards and some turned into cats.

 

[AV1611VET]

yup, and eukaryotes are still eukaryotes, even if some turned inot lizards and some turned into cats.

So if we have lizards and cats, why do we still have bacteria?

 

[[serious]]

So if we have lizards and cats, why do we still have bacteria?

You said bacteria and eukaryotes are different kinds. Let's run with that.

 

[AV1611VET]

You said bacteria and eukaryotes are different kinds. Let's run with that.

Better yet, let's drop it.

I don't have a clue as to how those dots are connected, or even how many tries it took to connect them to current satisfaction.

I just know they are, and that they required deep time ... so they can take a hike.

 

[[serious]]

Better yet, let's drop it.

I don't have a clue as to how those dots are connected, or even how many tries it took to connect them to current satisfaction.

I just know they are, and that they required deep time ... so they can take a hike.

maybe it's just their created biological history!

 

[[serious]]

So if we have lizards and cats, why do we still have bacteria?

If I have a brother, why do I have a cousin?

 

[Ophiolite]

Better yet, let's drop it.

Since facing reality makes you uncomfortable, that is probably the best plan. I'll let your studied ignorance take a hike.

 

[[serious]]

Since facing reality makes you uncomfortable, that is probably the best plan. I'll let your studied ignorance take a hike.

Yup, I think he realized he painted himself into a corner trying to be cute.