Where did the laws of nature come from?

[KCfromNC]

Natural selection is important to what succeeds, no one is claiming otherwise.

Speaking of "flat out lies" :

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

 

[KCfromNC]

Your falsehood against steveew was clearly obvious.

Citation needed.

What I saw was a post steveew posted which clearly stated that natural selection was not dominate

You realize that he was quoting someone else, right? And that quote directly contradicted the claim he was trying to support with it? Or do you? But hey, no reason to understand what was actually going on before calling people liars. That's a sure way to look credible.

Does natural selection change anything in the genome?

Who said it did? Stop trying to change the subject. It just makes it look like you either have no idea what the discussion is about or can't honestly address the point. Here's a reminder of the quote that you're jumping in to defend :

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

I an certainly open to correction. Do you have something to show I am incorrect?

Yes, see above.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Correct. ETA - plenty of sources of genetic variation, e.g. mutations, transcription errors, etc.

So what is the problem?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Speaking of "flat out lies" :

Natural selection can do nothing in changing anything. It can only work after some variation happens and then it works.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Citation needed.



You realize that he was quoting someone else, right? And that quote directly contradicted the claim he was trying to support with it? Or do you? But hey, no reason to understand what was actually going on before calling people liars. That's a sure way to look credible.

Who said it did? Stop trying to change the subject. It just makes it look like you either have no idea what the discussion is about or can't honestly address the point. Here's a reminder of the quote that you're jumping in to defend :

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


Yes, see above.

The quote I took from steveew was not someone else's but his and it clearly had in black and white "not dominant" and you claimed he didn't claim that. So whether or not he had a claim earlier or not, the claim "not dominant" was his and he had made it and you said he didn't.

 

[[serious]]

The quote I took from steveew was not someone else's but his and it clearly had in black and white "not dominant" and you claimed he didn't claim that. So whether or not he had a claim earlier or not, the claim "not dominant" was his and he had made it and you said he didn't.

As has been explained to you, he changed his claim.

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

This is what they've been addressing. He later changed his argument to:

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

 

[KCfromNC]

Natural selection can do nothing in changing anything.

Based on the sources you've posted it seems to do a pretty good job changing the genetics of various populations of living organisms.

Keep digging, though, this display is quite entertaining.

 

[KCfromNC]

The quote I took from steveew was not someone else's

His reply to me where he tried to confuse "not quantitatively dominant" with "negligable" sure was.

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

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19213802

No idea what you think you're quoting from, but it wasn't something he wrote in reply to me. If he's since changed his story yet again that's on him.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Natural selection can do nothing in changing anything. It can only work after some variation happens and then it works.

stevew's original invalid statement was Natural selection (adaptive forces) are negligible and/or minimal when it comes to how life can change and develop. and my post #1376 has the history of people pointing out the errors in it.

We can either make the statement even more invalid because as you point out variation is needed first and stevew does not mention this. Or we could use the usual interpretation that "natural selection" or "adaptive forces" is the entire process of variation + natural selection.

 

[stevevw]

As has been explained to you, he changed his claim

His reply to me where he tried to confuse "not quantitatively dominant" with "negligable" sure was.

stevew's original invalid statement was Natural selection (adaptive forces) are negligible and/or minimal when it comes to how life can change and develop. and my post #1376 has the history of people pointing out the errors in it.
We can either make the statement even more invalid because as you point out variation is needed first and stevew does not mention this. Or we could use the usual interpretation that "natural selection" or "adaptive forces" is the entire process of variation + natural selection.

If you are going to quote me please include all I have linked in the time we have been debating. I based what I said on a number of papers. here are the ones I have used and you tell me whether this indicates that natural selection is negligible and/or minimal.

if there is an advantage of organismal complexity, one can only marvel at the inability of natural selection to promote it.
Thus, contrary to popular belief, natural selection may not only be an insufficient mechanism for the origin of genetic modularity, but population-genetic environments that maximize the efficiency of natural selection may actually promote the opposite situation, alleles under unified transcriptional control.
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl_1/8597.full

The evolution of genetic networks by non-adaptive processes
Although numerous investigators assume that the global features of genetic networks are moulded by natural selection, there has been no formal demonstration of the adaptive origin of any genetic network. 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

What is in question is whether natural selection is a necessary or sufficient force to explain the emergence of the genomic and cellular features central to the building of complex organisms.
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl_1/8597.full

To me these papers are not only saying that natural selection may be a minimal and/or negligible force but may do the opposite in certain situations. The words insufficient, has inability, isn't even necessary, has not been demonstrated to be a force that contributes to building complex organism all indicate minimal or negligible ability as far as I understand.

 

[VirOptimus]

-snip-
To me these papers are not only saying that natural selection may be a minimal and/or negligible force but may do the opposite in certain situations. The words insufficient, has inability, isn't even necessary, has not been demonstrated to be a force that contributes to building complex organism all indicate minimal or negligible ability as far as I understand.

Then you need to study more, we arent responsible for your education.

You must learn to understand what you read, and also understant the ToE and science in general better.

 

[stevevw]

Then you need to study more, we arent responsible for your education.

and I am not responsible for you beliefs based on assumptions. Its funny how people start to question someones credentials when they disagree. Its automatically assumed that there must be something wrong with the person. When you say we cant be responsible are you assuming that I havnt studied this topic as much if not more than some on here. Or are you assuming that everyone I have disagreed with has more knowledge and has studied this topic more with knowing that. Thats what you seem to be saying and thats a big assumption and is based on a false premise even if it was true that no matter what I say and who I say it too regardless of studying the topic I am wrong anyway.

You must learn to understand what you read, and also understand the ToE and science in general better.

Maybe its the other way around. Its funny how when anyone disagrees with the story of Darwin's theory that they interpret it as not understanding rather than there actually being something wrong with the actual theory.

So how do papers that state that non adaptive forces are more responsible for change in organisms than what Darwin's theory of random mutations and natural selection through adaptation are. Its there in black and white. there's no sense in claiming that something has been misunderstood if you dont explain how and why. Anyone can say that without qualification. I understand the theory well and have studied it and that is exactly why I am questioning it.

 

[KCfromNC]

If you are going to quote me please include all I have linked in the time we have been debating.

Why? Do you feel these quotes inaccurately describe anything you've said? If so, please be specific.

if there is an advantage of organismal complexity, one can only marvel at the inability of natural selection to promote it.
Thus, contrary to popular belief, natural selection may not only be an insufficient mechanism for the origin of genetic modularity, but population-genetic environments that maximize the efficiency of natural selection may actually promote the opposite situation, alleles under unified transcriptional control.
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl_1/8597.full

As you've been told many times before, this quote is specifically talking about the origins of complexity. It has nothing to do with the more general claim that "natural selection is negligible and/or minimal".

The evolution of genetic networks by non-adaptive processes

Although numerous investigators assume that the global features of genetic networks are moulded by natural selection, there has been no formal demonstration of the adaptive origin of any genetic network. 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

What does "formal demonstration" mean in this context? n any case, this is another paper talking about the origins of a specific feature. It also has nothing to do with the more general claim that "natural selection is negligible and/or minimal".

What is in question is whether natural selection is a necessary or sufficient force

to explain the emergence of the genomic and cellular features central to the building of complex organisms.
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl_1/8597.full

Same problem with the first quote-mine from this paper. This quote is specifically talking about the origins of complexity. It has nothing to do with the more general claim that "natural selection is negligible and/or minimal".

To me these papers are not only saying that natural selection may be a minimal and/or negligible force but may do the opposite in certain situations.

That may be so, but it says very different things to people who actually want to understand them rather than quote-mine them.

 

[VirOptimus]

and I am not responsible for you beliefs based on assumptions. Its funny how people start to question someones credentials when they disagree. Its automatically assumed that there must be something wrong with the person. When you say we cant be responsible are you assuming that I havnt studied this topic as much if not more than some on here. Or are you assuming that everyone I have disagreed with has more knowledge and has studied this topic more with knowing that. Thats what you seem to be saying and thats a big assumption and is based on a false premise even if it was true that no matter what I say and who I say it too regardless of studying the topic I am wrong anyway.


Maybe its the other way around. Its funny how when anyone disagrees with the story of Darwin's theory that they interpret it as not understanding rather than there actually being something wrong with the actual theory.

So how do papers that state that non adaptive forces are more responsible for change in organisms than what Darwin's theory of random mutations and natural selection through adaptation are. Its there in black and white. there's no sense in claiming that something has been misunderstood if you dont explain how and why. Anyone can say that without qualification. I understand the theory well and have studied it and that is exactly why I am questioning it.

Its quite simple. You are wrong. Nothing complicated about it.

Educate yourself, loose the agenda and maybe you can understand. An education is in no way an guarantee that one will be able to understand science but its more or less a requirement.

Look, science is hard, it requires dedication and an open mind.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Its quite simple. You are wrong. Nothing complicated about it.

Educate yourself, loose the agenda and maybe you can understand. An education is in no way an guarantee that one will be able to understand science but its more or less a requirement.

Look, science is hard, it requires dedication and an open mind.

What exactly does he not understand? I am somewhat confused as to what he is saying that is incorrect?

 

[stevevw]

Why? Do you feel these quotes inaccurately describe anything you've said? If so, please be specific.

You are saying I have changed my opinion on what natural selection is. I think someone has used these two quotes
Natural selection (adaptive forces) are negligible and/or minimal when it comes to how life can change and develop and then natural selection occurs but isn't as dominate as made out by some. First off how does the first quote discount natural selection all together. As far as I can see its saying its minimal and negligible which is not much at all when it comes to evolving more complex organisms. How is that different to what I have said by saying natural selection occurs but its not as dominate as some think. Its two different ways of saying the say thing. I have always stated that natural selection occurs and you can go back a month, or 6 months or a year and you will see this. I am talking about not whether it happens but the power and creative ability that has been given to it. I cant see that I have changed anything in that regard.

As you've been told many times before, this quote is specifically talking about the origins of complexity. It has nothing to do with the more general claim that "natural selection is negligible and/or minimal".

I think if you read the papers it is referring to natural selection in general. All life is complex and any feature has many complex stages and components to it that make up the whole.

What does "formal demonstration" mean in this context?

It means exactly what it says. that there is no formal Verifiable tested evidence for adaptive evolution producing the type of functional changes that are needed to evolve life.

in any case, this is another paper talking about the origins of a specific feature. It also has nothing to do with the more general claim that "natural selection is negligible and/or minimal".

What do you mean by specific feature. All features and any feature is what evolution is about. If it applies to a specific feature it applies to all features. Its the same mechanism across the board. Theres no different level of evolution. It either can evolve a feature or it can't.

These papers are saying that it is non adaptive forces that are more responsible for evolution full stop and that evolution by random mutations and natural selection are not dominate in any changes we see in life. The paper from Nature which I have used many times probably best sums up all the papers which are basically saying the same thing. It is comparing the basic mechanisms of adaptive evolution with non adaptive influences and stating that evolution does not and can not account for what the evidence is showing for how life changes and if anything its playing a minor role. Its not talking about a particular feature or restricting things to a particular situation. It is talking about the theory as a whole. It cant be more clearer.

Charles Darwin conceived of evolution by natural selection without knowing that genes exist. Now mainstream evolutionary theory has come to focus almost exclusively on genetic inheritance and processes that change gene frequencies.Yet new data pouring out of adjacent fields are starting to undermine this narrow stance. An alternative vision of evolution is beginning to crystallize, in which the processes by which organisms grow and develop are recognized as causes of evolution.

The story that SET (standard evolution 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, (extended evolutionary theory) they are also causes.
http://www.nature.com/news/does-evolutionary-theory-need-a-rethink-1.16080

Same problem with the first quote-mine from this paper. This quote is specifically talking about the origins of complexity. It has nothing to do with the more general claim that "natural selection is negligible and/or minimal".

isn't all life complex. Are you saying natural selection works only if its simple life. When did life get more complex. As far as most people say even the Cambrian period was complex life. Most if not all of life is complex. So if natural selection cant evolve complex organisms then it is incapable of evolving a big part of life. Besides many say it can evolve anything and everything so at least your acknowledging that it has some limits. I guess thats a compromise. But here is the introduction to that paper and it seems that it is not just talking about complexity but evolutionary pathways and every aspect of biodiversity. I thought random mutations and natural selection were the source of all biodiversity or variety. I dont think you can separate the development of life like that.

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 of genetic drift and mutation. In addition, emergent biological features such as complexity, modularity, and evolvability, all of which are current targets of considerable speculation, may be nothing more than indirect by-products of processes operating at lower levels of organization.
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl_1/8597.full

That may be so, but it says very different things to people who actually want to understand them rather than quote-mine them.

I am not quote mining anything. I have read those papers several times and have used different parts if you look back at my posts. The parts posted recently are a a good representation of what the papers talk about. But I do notice is the more I persist with pointing out what these papers say the more the debate begins to move from the content to personal jibes like quote mining or I am not educated enough or its all creationists rubbish.

 

[stevevw]

Its quite simple. You are wrong. Nothing complicated about it.

Educate yourself, loose the agenda and maybe you can understand. An education is in no way an guarantee that one will be able to understand science but its more or less a requirement.

Look, science is hard, it requires dedication and an open mind.

I already studied the topic and I still am at present at Uni. I have no agenda and all I am doing is posting the evidence. If you dont like it you need to show why rather than make claims without qualification anyone can do that. Plus attacking the individual and trying to discredit them is no basis for a positive argument and is just an Ad hominem. So far I have made a claim and posted evidence, all you have done is attack the person and havnt posted one ounce of evidence for what you say.

 

[VirOptimus]

I already studied the topic and I still am at present at Uni. I have no agenda and all I am doing is posting the evidence. If you dont like it you need to show why rather than make claims without qualification anyone can do that. Plus attacking the individual and trying to discredit them is no basis for a positive argument and is just an Ad hominem. So far I have made a claim and posted evidence, all you have done is attack the person and havnt posted one ounce of evidence for what you say.

I dont have to. Your argument has already been shredded to pieces.

You do have an agenda, your interpration of your religion is incompatible with the science. That is the only reason you argue here. To say otherwise is a lie, and you know it.

You may be at university, although I really doubt even that to be honest, but you surely dont study science.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I dont have to. Your argument has already been shredded to pieces.

You do have an agenda, your interpration of your religion is incompatible with the science. That is the only reason you argue here. To say otherwise is a lie, and you know it.

You may be at university, although I really doubt even that to be honest, but you surely dont study science.

Again, what has he said that you find incorrect?
Why do you feel religion is incompatible with science?
Why would you doubt that he is at a university without any knowledge otherwise?

 

[VirOptimus]

Again, what has he said that you find incorrect?
Why do you feel religion is incompatible with science?
Why would you doubt that he is at a university without any knowledge otherwise?

I dont feel religion is incompatible with science, he does!

I doubt because he comes through as woefully uneducated.