Where did the laws of nature come from?

[Loudmouth]

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

If Europeans became Americans, why are there still Europeans?

 

[AV1611VET]

If Europeans became Americans, why are there still Europeans?

So a cat is to bacteria what an American is to an European?

 

[Loudmouth]

So a cat is to bacteria what an American is to an European?

Yes, only more distantly related. All modern species are cousins.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, only more distantly related. All modern species are cousins.

Isn't connect-the-dots fun?

Some lines are longer than others, aren't they?

 

[Loudmouth]

Isn't connect-the-dots fun?

Some lines are longer than others, aren't they?

Is ridicule all you have?

 

[AV1611VET]

Is ridicule all you have?

What more do you want?

 

[Loudmouth]

What more do you want?

Reasoned thinking. Evidence. An adult conversation.

 

[AV1611VET]

Reasoned thinking. Evidence. An adult conversation.

... From me!?

You don't know me very well, do you?

 

[TLK Valentine]

... From me!?

You don't know me very well, do you?

In all fairness, he said "want," not "expect."

 

[AV1611VET]

In all fairness, he said "want," not "expect."

No ... I said "want."

 

[HitchSlap]

... From me!?

You don't know me very well, do you?

Are you admitting that you're just an elaborate Poe, trolling us all along?*

*(The Alfred E. Neuman avatar gives it away.)

 

[AV1611VET]

Are you admitting that you're just an elaborate Poe, trolling us all along?*

*(The Alfred E. Neuman avatar gives it away.)

I've done about three poe threads in ten years here.

As far as the rest, if I suspect anyone is playing games with me, I'll be more than happy to match wits with them for awhile.

(And Alfred E. Neuman isn't a poe. He's into parodies.)

 

[stevevw]

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

If you would have been following the conversation I was having rather than coming in half way you would have seen that I already explained what I meant by natural state. It was the natural wild state of a living thing, the state it is in that best allows it to function without being tampered with. The example I was using was dog breeding and how breeders artificially select traits to make new breeds by breeding certain dogs together. They are changing what was their natural state for which they were made to function that was able to give them the best fitness and health. The more dog breeds are moved away from that natural state by manipulation of their genetic makeups the more they are moved away from that natural state. The more they moved away from that natural state or the (pure bred) the greater the chance of the new breeds getting sick or diseases.

I also used GM crops even though they can produce certain insect resistance crops they are changing the natural state of their makeup in the wild. This then increases the chances of causing problems with the crops themselves or with anything that is connected to it such a changing the natural systems of insect or other plants by also affecting their natural state. My point was that life has a mechanism for dealing with errors in the DNA in the copying process that move the genetic information away from what is meant to be ie mutations changing what is already working. Any mutation is altering the natural state that was meant to be and normally at a cost to fitness. If those living things are left back in the wild without any tampering they will eventually fall back into their natural state which is the best optimum for them to function with.

I dont know why you are so preoccupied with a couple of small word in among a lot of other ones and claim it is not science. I posted several papers for what I was saying. As far as I can see you are not posting anything but just attacking the person. It seems you are looking for things that are wrong to try and undermine me. The point is a explained what I meant and you obviously either didn't see that or didn't understand what I meant.

Here is the scientific use of the term I was using. You say use it in a scientific way and yet it is used quite often in science. Maybe you dont realize this. Even evolution uses the term.

The subject matter of gene patents
3.8 Natural genetic materials are forms of genetic material in their natural state, including DNA, RNA, genes and chromosomes. Patent law in Australia and most other jurisdictions distinguishes between a gene or gene fragment in situ (that is, in the human body or another organism) and one that has been extracted from the body by a process of isolation and purification. Although isolated genetic materials may be patentable, genetic materials in their natural state usually are not. For example, patent claims that encompass DNA must be formulated so as to distinguish clearly what is claimed from the naturally occurring molecule.[6] However, some natural genetic materials may include genetic material in living cells, such as stem cells, which may be patentable when isolated and propagated to produce a cell line.[7]
https://www.genome.gov/19016590/intellectual-property/

The decisions that have addressed this issue in Australia and overseas have drawn a distinction between genetic materials in their natural state and those that have been isolated and purified.
http://www.alrc.gov.au/publications...ls-and-technologies/patentable-subject-matter

If the population survives, captivity has selected for a genetic state that differs considerablly from the ancesteral, natural state.
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=YzOYG0ZP9nMC&pg=PA189&lpg=PA189&dq=natural+state+in+genetics&source=bl&ots=ydJW4Wy14G&sig=broqVmjdAf_LComQLuncaHtRHZA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjHvIXQ2YnNAhXGLqYKHavqA_4Q6AEIUTAJ#v=onepage&q=natural state in genetics&f=false

 

[Loudmouth]

If you would have been following the conversation I was having rather than coming in half way you would have seen that I already explained what I meant by natural state. It was the natural wild state of a living thing, the state it is in that best allows it to function without being tampered with. The example I was using was dog breeding and how breeders artificially select traits to make new breeds by breeding certain dogs together. They are changing what was their natural state for which they were made to function that was able to give them the best fitness and health.

Wolves make really bad hunting dogs and livestock herding dogs. Wolves make really, really bad lap dogs. Modern dog breeds are 10x's more functional in the roles they were bred to fill.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I've done about three poe threads in ten years here.

Three that you'd admit to.

 

[[serious]]

So a cat is to bacteria what an American is to an European?

Isn't connect-the-dots fun?

Some lines are longer than others, aren't they?

"Sure, walking down the street is possible, but ultramarathoners would have to take giant steps to run that distance!"

Not longer lines, just more lines.

Some early cells might have acquired membrane bound organelles (eukaryotes), but they are still cells.
Some of them might have started clumping together to form multicellular colonies, but they are still just eukaryotes
Some of them might have adopted a bilateral body plan, but are still just multicellular eukaryotes
Some of them might have a defined spinal cord, but they are still just bilateria
Some of them might have a calcified skeleton
Some of them might have a 4 limb body plan
Some of them might have mammary glands
Some of them might have claws.

But those cats are still all the above groups, thus still the same "kind" as an Amoeba since both are still eukaryotes.

 

[KCfromNC]

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.

Every single time?

 

[stevevw]

Wolves make really bad hunting dogs and livestock herding dogs. Wolves make really, really bad lap dogs. Modern dog breeds are 10x's more functional in the roles they were bred to fill.

Wolves are the ultimate hunting dog so hunting dogs are just displaying what is already there with a mix of something else and some domestication. All selective breeding is doing is selecting out what is already there. Wild dogs have been domesticated for a long time and that can be a learnt behavior as well. Most of what else you mention can be more to do with an epigenetic influence. The way a creature lived and was treated in their life can affect the way the future generations turn out. But overall nothing you mention is beyond what already exists and there is nothing new added to the dog breed that would be a step towards changing/morphing them into another different type of creature. There are limits to mutations changing the original genetic makeup which has mechanisms to ensure it remains that way. When those limits are breach it leads to a fitness cost because basically mutations are errors in the copying process of what was already good and working.

 

[stevevw]

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 !

They show that there are limits to evolving organisms away from their original genetic makeup. That mutations are mostly negative and even positive ones when working with other mutations can lead to fitness costs. In other words what was already produced ( the natural state) works fine and changing it just makes things worse.

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.

Umm thats why Douglas Axe is published in other journals including the Researchgate and science direct, the two I cited which you neglected to mention. There are many other papers that speak about the same thing from various journals as well from other scientists which support what he says. Attacking the source or person (ad hominem) doesn't disprove what has been said.

 

[KCfromNC]

They show that there are limits to evolving organisms away from their original genetic makeup.

What "original genetic makeup"?