Where did the laws of nature come from?

[KCfromNC]

Natural selection (adaptive forces) are negligible and/or minimal when it comes to how life can change and develop.

Citation needed.

 

[stevevw]

The point should be not to write a mostly irrelevant reply to a post, stevevw.
So what we seem to have is an argument from your incredibility that leads to a fantasy about "Unless the required ability and info was there to begin with a random and blind process could find the right paths in billions of years.".

You play a very deceptive game by cutting out large pieces of my replies and then turning everything back to the age old creationists verses evolution argument. By doing this you polarize the debate and use the stigma associated with creationism as a weapon to try and gain points for puffing up your arguments. A person has to keep a tab on what your doing to expose your ploys.

You reply to my comment by only posting the first three words of my reply and then throw in things like its mostly irrelevant and arguments from ignorance. Yet you dont include 90% of my reply to show what you claim is mostly irrelevant. Thats easy to do if you decide to ignore 90% of a persons reply and that will always take the focus off what is actually being said. But this is the rest of what I said which shows that it is not so irrelevant as I have posted the support for it with peer reviewed papers time and time again.

The point is the proteins that build life are very specific and occupy a very narrow place in a very wide space of possible alternative sequences. Evolution has not even begun to show how it could find and build the proteins for life. Evolution is blind so the step by step process to find each needed piece which is exactly right and fits like a multi dimensional jigsaw puzzle would seem impossible to find without stumbling upon the wrong ones time and time again. In doing that it will be forever finding non function and therefore hit dead ends over and over again. To say that time will eventually find all those right pieces is unreal because its not just about time. Tests have shown that it doesn't work and thats all that matters. Saying it works or assuming it works isn't verification. You have to show it works with the science.

Searching sequence space for protein catalysts

Despite recent progress on the de novo design of structurally defined proteins (1–4), creation of stable scaffolds with tailored enzymatic activities remains an unrealized challenge. Not only is our understanding of the relationship between sequence, structure, and function incomplete, but the requirement for catalysis imposes severe constraints on design. Misplacement of catalytic residues by even a few tenths of an angstrom can mean the difference between full activity and none at all.
http://www.pnas.org/content/98/19/10596.full


Adding arguments from ignorance is not good. This is evolution.
12 July 2016 stevevw: Evolution is not abiogenesis.

12 July 2016 stevevw

: Evolution is not a "step by step process" that builds up like a jigsaw puzzle.

So you saying that evolution can mutate a complete structure or system in one go in one generation.

12 July 2016 stevevw

: An imaginary "non adaptive mechanism" cannot explain anything.

how can you say that when I have provided peer reviewed papers for it. here are three paper that clearly point out that non adaptive forces are dominate forces in how life changes. Definitely not imaginary.

Evolutionary-genomic studies show that natural selection is only one of the forces that shape genome evolution and is not quantitatively dominant, whereas non-adaptive processes are much more prominent than previously suspected. 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.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19213802

The remaining three evolutionary forces are nonadaptive in the sense that they are not a function of the fitness properties of individuals: mutation is the ultimate source of variation on which natural selection acts,
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl_1/8597.full

The vast majority of biologists engaged in evolutionary studies interpret virtually every aspect of biodiversity in adaptive terms. This narrow view of evolution has become untenable in light of recent observations from genomic sequencing and population-genetic theory. Numerous aspects of genomic architecture, gene structure, and developmental pathways are difficult to explain without invoking the nonadaptive forces
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl_1/8597.full

12 July 2016 stevevw

: The ENCODE project did not debunk junk DNA.
The ENCODE project showed that 76% of the human genome is transcribed which is not the definition of junk DNA.

Genomes & Junk DNA

lists known junk DNA in 2008.

• Transposable Elements: (44% junk)
• Viruses (9% junk)
• Pseudogenes (1.2% junk)

I dont understand what you are asserting here. You are more or less agreeing with what I said about the DNA not being junk and having some function. The sandwalk blog is hardly a scientific support and Larry Moran is a well known evolution supporter who is anti ID and creation blogger. The article is a bit old now for 2008 and more discoveries have come to light. So I guess if you can use a blog site I can use one as well. But your denial only proves my point. Despite new discoveries showing that there may be more function in our DNA than what was made out in the past by evolutionists there are still many supporters of evolution who are quick to continue to say that our DNA is still mainly junk. We have only just begun to understand our DNA and will still be working it out for some time but there is definitely more function than what evolutionists have said in the past.

The point is supporters of evolution were stating that our DNA was mostly junk and this wasn't based on any evidence because we just didn't have any evidence because we hadn't sequenced DNA then. So any claims were based on very limited knowledge. Supporters of evolution are more likely to claim that our DNA is mostly junk as it fits in with evolution. If our DNA is too complex then there would have to be a lot more detailed explanation and creative ability to account for. It would point to design rather than a self creating natural process.

Researchers report on a new revelation about the human genome: it’s full of active, functioning DNA, and it's a lot more complex than we ever thought. ENCODE has revealed that some 80% of the human genome is biochemically active. “What is remarkable is how much of [the genome] is doing at least something.
http://healthland.time.com/2012/09/06/junk-dna-not-so-useless-after-all/

Here is a paper from the ENCODE project itself.
These data enabled us to assign biochemical functions for 80% of the genome, in particular outside of the well-studied protein-coding regions. Many discovered candidate regulatory elements are physically associated with one another and with expressed genes, providing new insights into the mechanisms of gene regulation.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v489/n7414/pdf/nature11247.pdf

"Evolutionists" did not say that most of our DNA was junk. Biologists noted the scientific evidence that most of all DNA is junk.
Five Things You Should Know if You Want to Participate in the Junk DNA Debate

Another blog page. You ignore all the peer reviewed papers and dismiss them as creationists ignorance, yet the only support you are posting are from pro evolutionists blogs. Thats a bit hypocritical isn't it. You have just contradicted yourself. How can evolutionist not claim our DNA was junk and then say in the same sentence say Biologists which support evolution note that most of the DNA is junk. Heres what scientists who supported evolution stated about junk DNA before the ENCODE project. Even Francis Crick who won a Nobel Peace prize for work in genetics stated that our DNA was mostly junk.

DNA sequences which appear to have little or no function, such as much of the DNA in the introns of genes and parts of the DNA sequences between genes...The conviction has been growing that much of this extra DNA is 'junk', in other words, that it has little specificity and conveys little or no selective advantage to the organism..
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...nel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

 

[Oncedeceived]

Citation needed.

http://discovermagazine.com/2014/march/12-mutation-not-natural-selection-drives-evolution
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1334920

 

[stevevw]

Citation needed.

Evolutionary-genomic studies show that natural selection is only one of the forces that shape genome evolution and is not quantitatively dominant, whereas non-adaptive processes are much more prominent than previously suspected. 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.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19213802

This Analysis shows that many of the qualitative features of known transcriptional networks can arise readily through the non-adaptive processes of genetic drift, mutation and recombination, raising questions about whether natural selection is necessary or even sufficient for the origin of many aspects of gene-network topologies.
http://www.nature.com/nrg/journal/v8/n10/abs/nrg2192.html

The vast majority of biologists engaged in evolutionary studies interpret virtually every aspect of biodiversity in adaptive terms. This narrow view of evolution has become untenable in light of recent observations from genomic sequencing and population-genetic theory. Numerous aspects of genomic architecture, gene structure, and developmental pathways are difficult to explain without invoking the nonadaptive forces
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl_1/8597.full

 

[Loudmouth]

Natural selection (adaptive forces) are negligible and/or minimal when it comes to how life can change and develop.

Evidence?

If there is a benefit from mutations which is questionable then they are very small and unless the benefit is great which is not the case most of the time they wont be selected and will be overcome and lost.

Then how do you explain the physical differences between humans and chimps? What is responsible for those differences if it isn't a difference in DNA?

Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

We believe that the EES (extended evolutionary synthesis) will shed new light on how evolution works. We hold that organisms are constructed in development, not simply ‘programmed’ to develop by genes. Living things do not evolve to fit into pre-existing environments, but co-construct and coevolve with their environments, in the process changing the structure of ecosystems.

The story that SET (standard evolutionary theory) tells is simple: new variation arises through random genetic mutation; inheritance occurs through DNA; and natural selection is the sole cause of adaptation, the process by which organisms become well-suited to their environments. In this view, the complexity of biological development — the changes that occur as an organism grows and ages — are of secondary, even minor, importance.

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, they are also causes.
http://www.nature.com/news/does-evolutionary-theory-need-a-rethink-1.16080

Then what guides the changes in organisms as they grow older or interact with their environment if it isn't DNA? From everything I have read, it is genes that that cause change in response to external stimulus. The reason you tan from exposure to sunlight is due to your DNA, as an example.

Darwinian evolution in the light of genomics

Evolutionary-genomic studies show that natural selection is only one of the forces that shape genome evolution and is not quantitatively dominant, whereas non-adaptive processes are much more prominent than previously suspected. Major contributions of horizontal gene transfer and diverse selfish genetic elements to genome evolution undermine the Tree of Life concept. An adequate depiction of evolution requires the more complex concept of a network or ‘forest’ of life. 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.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2651812/

So it seems that other non adaptive forces that dont rely on a blind process of natural selection acting on random chance mutations which supporters of evolution make out are just consequences of evolution are more responsible for how life changes. Supporters of Darwin's theory (Modern Synthesis) make out these other non adaptive forces are minor players but it seems its the other way around. Darwin's theory is the minor player and other non adaptive forces are the major reason for what we see in how life changes.

You apparently don't understand that "not dominant" is not the same as "completely absent". You are trying to claim that natural selection doesn't occur, but your references clearly state that it does.

 

[Loudmouth]

At last you are acknowledging what I have been saying for some time now that adaptive changes through natural selection is not the only force that can influence change. That in fact adaptive evolution through natural selection is a minor player for life changing and finding complexity and other non adaptive forces in which one is genetic drift can influence and effect life more.

That doesn't change the fact that natural selection does occur.

 

[Loudmouth]

Thats great but it tells us little about how the bacteria gained that ability to resist natural antibiotics.

Clin Microbiol Infect. 2007 Jan;13(1):5-18.

The emergence of antibiotic resistance by mutation.

Woodford N(1), Ellington MJ.

The emergence of mutations in nucleic acids is one of the major factors
underlying evolution, providing the working material for natural selection. Most
bacteria are haploid for the vast majority of their genes and, coupled with
typically short generation times, this allows mutations to emerge and accumulate
rapidly, and to effect significant phenotypic changes in what is perceived to be
real-time. Not least among these phenotypic changes are those associated with
antibiotic resistance. Mechanisms of horizontal gene spread among bacterial
strains or species are often considered to be the main mediators of antibiotic
resistance. However, mutational resistance has been invaluable in studies of
bacterial genetics, and also has primary clinical importance in certain bacterial
species, such as Mycobacterium tuberculosis and Helicobacter pylori, or when
considering resistance to particular antibiotics, especially to synthetic agents
such as fluoroquinolones and oxazolidinones. In addition, mutation is essential
for the continued evolution of acquired resistance genes and has, e.g., given
rise to over 100 variants of the TEM family of beta-lactamases. Hypermutator
strains of bacteria, which have mutations in genes affecting DNA repair and
replication fidelity, have elevated mutation rates. Mutational resistance emerges
de novo more readily in these hypermutable strains, and they also provide a
suitable host background for the evolution of acquired resistance genes in vitro.
In the clinical setting, hypermutator strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa have been
isolated from the lungs of cystic fibrosis patients, but a more general role for
hypermutators in the emergence of clinically relevant antibiotic resistance in a
wider variety of bacterial pathogens has not yet been proven.
​

It is well known that random mutations produce antibiotic resistance, and that natural selection is vital for increasing the number of bacteria carrying those mutations. We even know which mutations in which genes result in antibiotic resistance.

The other point that has been mentioned many times is that the so called benefit is often the result of a loss of biological info and function which has come at a cost in others ways that cause a fitness loss in the long run.

If a species from a forest adapted to a desert environment, you would call that a loss in biological info because it is no longer adapted to the forest. Sorry, but your claims about biological info are meaningless.

As shown before in the list of many different bacteria that can resist antibiotics we find that they have also had losses in other functions. Supporters of evolution get fixated on the small so called benefits and doesn't look at the bigger picture as to what those so called benefits cost to fitness.

You would claim that a polar bear is less fit because it has lost adaptations that would allow it to live in the Sahara desert.

If the ability to resist antibiotics was already an ability that could be tapped into and switched on then how or why would bacteria need to be in a position to select or not select that ability.

That's not how it works.

Antibiotic ability isn't something that happens in one go. So the many stages to build an ability or new function through protein sequence changes would need to be a step by step process where each and every step is aligned with the previous steps as well as in the direction of future steps.

That isn't how it works.

Random mutations and blind natural selection have to find the specific and rare correct sequences in a massive amount of non functional sequences.

Or they can find mutations in functional sequence that changes the function of that gene, which is exactly how it occurs in nature.

 

[stevevw]

That doesn't change the fact that natural selection does occur.

No one said it doesn't occur. Its a matter of how much it occurs and what it is acting on. Where as Darwin's theory has random mutations and blind natural selection being capable of creating everything we see thus giving all power to these two forces many new discoveries are showing that this is not the case. Natural selection may play a smaller role in sorting what has been predetermined through non adaptive forces that are the results of preexisting mechanisms. The evidence is showing that most of the ability for life to change is coming from non adaptive influences such as HGT or in development. Animals have more ability to work with their environments and change them rather than be subject to being change because of their environments. There are also other factors which can cause natural selection to be diminished that may happen in the course of life where the most beneficial trait for survival doesn't become selected. So natural selection occurs but isnt as dominate as made out by some.

 

[RealityCheck01]

You reply to my comment by only posting the first three words of my reply...

Your reply is available to anyone who wants to look at it, stevevw. I do not show 90% of your reply in order to not to flood this post with invalid Physical Science and your irrelevant papers with wildly colored text.
12 July 2016 stevevw: Evolution is not abiogenesis.
12 July 2016 stevevw: Evolution is not a "step by step process" that builds up like a jigsaw puzzle.
12 July 2016 stevevw: An imaginary "non adaptive mechanism" cannot explain anything.
12 July 2016 stevevw: The ENCODE project did not debunk junk DNA - a list of actual junk DNA.
Using your emphasis: Genomes & Junk DNA lists known junk DNA in 2008.

18 July 2016 stevevw: Genes just not having biochemical function is not what junk DNA is.
This is the same error that the ENCODE authors made. Junk DNA is DNA that does not have biological function. Just being transcribed as found in the ENCODE project does not mean that there is biological function.

18 July 2016 stevevw: Larry Moran does write about the errors and ignorance of creationist and IDiot blogs. That does not change the science that he lists such as a list of existing junk DNA and evidence for junk DNA

There are non-adaptive processes that exist within evolution alongside the adaptive processes that biologists know about and write papers about, e.g. generic drift. They do not think that they are anything but another mechanism for evolution. There is debate about the relative importance about the mechanisms but no scientific debate about whether evolution itself happens.

These are not imaginary non-adaptive processes that you seem to want to invalidate evolution - maybe by supporting a fantasy that microevolution does not lead to macroevolution?

We have had many irrelevant papers from you

1. 23 June 2016 stevevw: Papers that do not state there is a limit to evolution are not evidence of limits to evolution.
2. 23 June 2016 stevevw: None of the papers you cited state that most mutations are harmful.
3. 8 July 2016 stevevw: Morphology showing that bacteria looked similar to their ancient ancestors does not mean that they were genetically identical.
4. 11 July 2016 stevevw: D’Costa et.al. is a 2002 paper that showed that a bacteria already had resistance to natural antibiotics - standard biology as in the Wikipedia article on antibiotic resistance.
5. 11 July 2016 stevevw: A paper on that the same bacteria that cause dental plaque today did so 1000 years ago.
6. 11 July 2016 stevevw: A paper confirming the well known biology that antibiotic resistance exists to natural antibiotics.

And:

1. 21 June 2016 stevevw: The fantasy that we must be able to create new mammal species, e.g. dogs into cats, is not a limit to evolution!
2. 21 June 2016 stevevw: Now you do not need to ignorantly repeat the "most mutations are harmful" creationist claim myth.
3. 23 June 2016 stevevw: Please read and acknowledge the scientific evidence that makes the idea that microevolution does not lead to macroevolution very ignorant.
4. 23 June 2016 stevevw: The different definitions of species are not evidence of limits to evolution.
5. 23 June 2016 stevevw: Ignorance about Darwin's original work and evolution should be remedied by learning about evolution. I suggest you start with Wikipedia.
6. 4 July 2016 stevevw: The phrase "inhibit the rate of evolution" means that evolution goes slower (the rate of) - not that evolution stops.
7. 4 July 2016 stevevw: A fantasy about the Talk Origins site stating that the evidence for macroevolution cannot be verified.
8. 4 July 2016 stevevw: The ignorant assertion that the evidence for macroevolution is circular- read what you are cited.
9. 4 July 2016 stevevw: Parroting the "gaps in the fossil record", "transitional fossil", "Cambrian explosion" creationist claims?
10. 4 July 2016 stevevw: A fantasy about any (so far imaginary) limits to evolution being evidence against macroevolution - as far as you know the limits may be above the species level !
11. 4 July 2016 stevevw: An ignorant assertion that humans and apes do not have a common ancestor when the scientific evidence is that they do.

11 July 2016 stevevw: Blog articles not mentioning DNA are not evidence of modern bacteria DNA not changing since "day 1".
11 July 2016 stevevw: Please present the evidence that modern bacteria have not changed in the last 4 billion years.

 

[RealityCheck01]

More about the ENCODE project junk DNA publicity from Larry Moran: The truth about ENCODE
He starts with a bit of a rant about the "publicity machine" that ENCODE ran. If the ENCODE authors had not publicized essentially one paragraph in one of their many papers then it may have been ignored. Many authors blogged about the error in thinking that transcribing DNA made it functional and then papers appeared.

Soon articles began to appear in the scientific literature challenging the ENCODE Consortium's interpretation of function and explaining the difference between an effect—such as the binding of a transcription factor to a random piece of DNA—and a true biological function.

Eddy, S.R. (2012) The C-value paradox, junk DNA and ENCODE. Current Biology, 22:R898. [doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2012.10.002]

Niu, D. K., and Jiang, L. (2012) Can ENCODE tell us how much junk DNA we carry in our genome?. Biochemical and biophysical research communications 430:1340-1343. [doi: 10.1016/j.bbrc.2012.12.074]

Doolittle, W.F. (2013) Is junk DNA bunk? A critique of ENCODE. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. (USA) published online March 11, 2013. [PubMed] [doi: 10.1073/pnas.1221376110]

Graur, D., Zheng, Y., Price, N., Azevedo, R. B., Zufall, R. A., and Elhaik, E. (2013) On the immortality of television sets: "function" in the human genome according to the evolution-free gospel of ENCODE. Genome Biology and Evolution published online: February 20, 2013 [doi: 10.1093/gbe/evt028

Eddy, S.R. (2013) The ENCODE project: missteps overshadowing a success. Current Biology, 23:R259-R261. [10.1016/j.cub.2013.03.023]

Hurst, L.D. (2013) Open questions: A logic (or lack thereof) of genome organization. BMC biology, 11:58. [doi:10.1186/1741-7007-11-58]

Morange, M. (2014) Genome as a Multipurpose Structure Built by Evolution. Perspectives in biology and medicine, 57:162-171. [doi: 10.1353/pbm.2014.000]

Palazzo, A.F., and Gregory, T.R. (2014) The Case for Junk DNA. PLoS Genetics, 10:e1004351. [doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1004351]

 

[RealityCheck01]

More about adaptive processes in biology - biologists have been aware that they are not the only processes since before 1979 as emphasized in an important paper by Gould and Lewontin: Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the Adaptationist Programme (cited by over 6400 papers since)

...
We fault the adaptationist programme for its failure to distinguish current utility from reasons for origin (male tyrannosaurs may have used their diminutive front legs to titillate female partners, but this will not explain why they got so small); for its unwillingness to consider alternatives to adaptive stories; for its reliance upon plausibility alone as a criterion for accepting speculative tales; and for its failure to consider adequately such competing themes as random fixation of alleles, production of non-adaptive structures by developmental correlation with selected features (allometry, pleiotropy, material compensation, mechanically forced correlation), the separability of adaptation and selection, multiple adaptive peaks, and current utility as an epiphenomenon of non-adaptive structures. We support Darwin's own pluralistic approach to identifying the agents of evolutionary change.

If you like YouTube videos then PZ Myers has an amusing talk on the "unthinking" side of adaptionist thinking: Bad Biology: How Adaptationist Thinking Corrupts Science

ETA: Myers mentions the work of Tomoko Ohta who established that selection works best in large populations with a low mutation rate. Conversely the traits of small populations with a high mutation rate are established mostly by chance. By large populations she is talking about bacteria and fruit flies. We are a small population in which traits establish themselves by chance.

 

[KCfromNC]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1334920

Did you actually read this paper? Just want to make sure this isn't another example of you knowing what must be in your source without looking at them.

 

[KCfromNC]

Evolutionary-genomic studies show that natural selection is only one of the forces that shape genome evolution and is not quantitatively dominant,

"Not dominant" is very different from your claim. Try again.

This Analysis shows that many of the qualitative features of known transcriptional networks can arise readily through the non-adaptive processes of genetic drift, mutation and recombination, raising questions about whether natural selection is necessary or even sufficient for the origin of many aspects of gene-network topologies.

Same problem as above. Try again.

Numerous aspects of genomic architecture, gene structure, and developmental pathways are difficult to explain without invoking the nonadaptive forces

Three for three. Keep looking.

 

[[serious]]

It is more to do with man made antibiotics and how bacteria has adapted to resist that. But I think because bacteria was already able to resist natural antibiotics that the ability to resist artificial ones would be based on some similar genetic ability. I dont think antibiotic resistance to man made antibiotic was entirely a new function for bacteria that was created in the 19th century.

Classes of antibiotic based on a natural antibiotic would obviously be potentially resisted with classes of resistance like those to the natural antibiotic.

But again, why not look specifically at the evolution of resistance in laboratory cultures with no initial resistance?

 

[Oncedeceived]

"Not dominant" is very different from your claim. Try again.



Same problem as above. Try again.



Three for three. Keep looking.

He said:
No one said it doesn't occur. Its a matter of how much it occurs and what it is acting on. Where as Darwin's theory has random mutations and blind natural selection being capable of creating everything we see thus giving all power to these two forces many new discoveries are showing that this is not the case. Natural selection may play a smaller role in sorting what has been predetermined through non adaptive forces that are the results of preexisting mechanisms. The evidence is showing that most of the ability for life to change is coming from non adaptive influences such as HGT or in development. Animals have more ability to work with their environments and change them rather than be subject to being change because of their environments. There are also other factors which can cause natural selection to be diminished that may happen in the course of life where the most beneficial trait for survival doesn't become selected. So natural selection occurs but isnt as dominate as made out by some.


As can be clearly seen is that his claim was EXACTLY "not DOMINATE"! How can something be so completely spelled out and you still make nonsense arguments claiming someone is claiming something completely different than they are claiming? Amazing.

 

[KCfromNC]

He said:
No one said it doesn't occur. Its a matter of how much it occurs and what it is acting on.

Yes. The problem here is that he's unable to find references which back up his idea of how much it occurs.

As can be clearly seen is that his claim was EXACTLY "not DOMINATE"!

That's one of the many claims he's made. Here's another :

Natural selection (adaptive forces) are negligible and/or minimal when it comes to how life can change and develop.

How can something be so completely spelled out and you still make nonsense arguments claiming someone is claiming something completely different than they are claiming? Amazing.

Yeah, how could I possibly believe he was claiming that natural selection is a negligible part of evolution? What ever could it be that is wrong with me?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yes. The problem here is that he's unable to find references which back up his idea of how much it occurs.

I will have to go and look, I haven't went through the whole thread.

That's one of the many claims he's made. Here's another :

You said his claim wasn't that it was "not dominant" and it clearly was there in black and white. Natural selection can change nothing.

Yeah, how could I possibly believe he was claiming that natural selection is a negligible part of evolution? What ever could it be that is wrong with me?

It changes nothing it works on what has been changed.

 

[Loudmouth]

No one said it doesn't occur.

If natural selection does occur, then there is a mechanism for selecting for positive mutations and against negative mutations. Problem solved.

Its a matter of how much it occurs and what it is acting on.

The evidence shows that it is acting on about 10% of the human genome which is considered the functional part of the human genome.

Where as Darwin's theory has random mutations and blind natural selection being capable of creating everything we see thus giving all power to these two forces many new discoveries are showing that this is not the case.

Where does it say that in Darwin's Theory? Reference?

Natural selection may play a smaller role in sorting what has been predetermined through non adaptive forces that are the results of preexisting mechanisms.

I think we all agree that natural selection plays almost no role in the 90% of the human genome that is changing through genetic drift. How is this a problem for the theory of evolution?

The evidence is showing that most of the ability for life to change is coming from non adaptive influences such as HGT or in development.

Not so for eukaryotes.

"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

Animals have more ability to work with their environments and change them rather than be subject to being change because of their environments.

What allows them to change their environment other than the traits given to them by their DNA?

There are also other factors which can cause natural selection to be diminished that may happen in the course of life where the most beneficial trait for survival doesn't become selected.

Such as?

So natural selection occurs but isnt as dominate as made out by some.

Nor does it need to be the dominate mechanism for evolution to occur.

 

[RealityCheck01]

So natural selection occurs but isnt as dominate as made out by some.

This is the post which is being addressed Oncedeceived:

Natural selection (adaptive forces) are negligible and/or minimal when it comes to how life can change and develop. Therefore Darwin's theory of evolution has little influence on how life changes and has been over estimated. Random changes to genes just can’t explain remarkable innovations of structures we see in life.

As you can read, this is doubly wrong.
Adaption is not "Random changes to genes" - there is also natural selection.
The citations that follow so not support "negligible and/or minimal" - they are cherry picked papers about the relative importance of the known processes.

People who know about biology know that there is no clear evidence about the dominance of the variation and natural selection (adaption) + genetic drift + mutation + recombination processes in evolution. They know that this dominance will vary between populations. It is known from population genetics that large populations (e.g. bacteria) will evolve traits primarily through adaption while small populations (e.g. us) will evolve traits primarily through random chance, i.e. the non-adaptive processes.

 

[RealityCheck01]

http://discovermagazine.com/2014/march/12-mutation-not-natural-selection-drives-evolution

Oncedeceived, the opinion of one scientist described in a magazine article is not the scientific literature.