Where did the laws of nature come from?

[Oncedeceived]

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

I doubt because he comes through as woefully uneducated.

Ok, so you don't think it is incompatible, that is good. Now why do you think he is uneducated? What is he providing that is incorrect?

 

[VirOptimus]

Ok, so you don't think it is incompatible, that is good. Now why do you think he is uneducated? What is he providing that is incorrect?

I can only say; read the thread.

 

[KCfromNC]

You are saying I have changed my opinion on what natural selection is.

Yep, and the quotes back that up. Your point?

I think if you read the papers it is referring to natural selection in general.

Why would you think that?

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.

Does it actually claim that, or is this more of what you think it should say?

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.

Considering you posted articles saying that there were various types of mechanisms at work to generate the diversity of life we observe, I don't know what would make you claim this. Just another example of the problem people who deny science face. Sure it is easy to pull up a random isolated example to support your point of view. But putting together a consistent story is a much harder problem - especially when that story contradicts reality.

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.

Even if that were true, it says nothing about natural selection having a negligible effect like you claimed.

isn't all life complex.

No.

Are you saying natural selection works only if its simple life.

And no.

When you display basic reading comprehension issues like this it makes it hard to believe you're doing any better with

When did life get more complex.[/QOITE]

How is that relevant to you demonstrating that natural selection has a negligible effect? Gish gallop much?

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

http://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl_1/8597.full

That's nice. Does this paper say that natural selection has a negligible effect on the evolution of living things?

The parts posted recently are a a good representation of what the papers talk about.

If you say so. Too bad they don't say that natural selection has a negligible effect on the evolution of living things as you claim it does.

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

When you won't address the actual content of people's responses and just repost the same flawed articles there's not much else to talk about. I guess we could just repost post numbers that you ignore and hope that this time will be different.

 

[Loudmouth]

if there is an advantage of organismal complexity, one can only marvel at the inability of natural selection to promote it.

None of your references state that natural selection is incapable of promoting beneficial mutations.

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

Nowhere does this say that natural selection is not able to promote beneficial mutations. You seem to have a serious problem with conflating terms. Genetic modularity is not the same as beneficial mutation. Those are two entirely different things.

Do you understand the mistake you are making?

 

[RealityCheck01]

here are the ones I have used and you tell me whether this indicates that natural selection is negligible and/or minimal.

19 July 2016 stevevw: I pointed out his original error in posts about each paper: #1362 #1363 #1365.
This is the fantasy that "not dominant" in some cherry picked papers is evidence for "negligible and/or minimal".

I wonder how many papers I could find with the phrase "natural selection is dominant" in them ?

 

[RealityCheck01]

What exactly does he not understand?

It seems to be English that is not understood, e.g. "not dominant" does not mean "negligible and/or minimal".
Like "not a giant" does not mean "is a dwarf".

 

[stevevw]

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

Once again you neglect to be more specific which makes me wonder what evidence you really have. Using emotive and extreme languages like my argument has been torn to pieces is a fallacious argument. I can disprove your argument simply by showing that my argument hasn't been torn to thread s which would mean I had nothing and everything I said was completely wrong. Then you are also saying that all the articles and papers I have posted are totally wrong. But mostly even the people you say have torn my argument to shreds are supporting it to some extent. Originally when I first proposed that non adaptive forces were more responsible for how life changes and that natural selection played a minor role everyone said I was wrong even though I supplied peer reviewed papers to support this. But after many pages of debate some are now acknowledging that non adaptive forces may be more influential in how organism can gain complexity as stated by KCfromNC ie,

KCfromNC said "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".

He was referring to this article,
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

KCfromNC was acknowledging that the paper stated that non adaptive forces were more responsible for how complexity came about in organisms rather than evolution through random mutations and natural selection. Does that sound like being torn to shreds. If someone who is opposing my argument is agreeing with a paper I posted I would say that is far from being torn to shreds.

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.

No you are doing my thinking and assuming that I have let any preconceived views affect my view of the evidence. I am capable of critical thinking and determining any biases and then looking at the evidence to determine what is supported or not. By the fact that you are assuming this and pushing it onto me says more about where you are coming from more than anything else. You are placing every person who states anything different about what evolution is capable of as having some ulterior motive. If this is the case then you are also saying that all the scientists have some religious connection have ulterior motives any time they speak against any scientific view including evolution. I have not mentioned God or creation or any things religious and am using scientific peer reviewed support for what I say. The scientists who write those papers are not religious and they also question some of the tenets of evolution.

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

you are entitled to your opinion. Here is a screen shot of the email address of the Uni by all means contact and ask them.

 

[KCfromNC]

KCfromNC said "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".

KCfromNC was acknowledging that the paper stated that non adaptive forces were more responsible for how complexity came about in organisms

No I wasn't. I was saying what I actually wrote - that the paper you found had nothing to do with your claim that "natural selection is negligible and/or minimal" in a general sense. Anything else you're reading into my quote is something you're making up.

No you are doing my thinking and assuming that I have let any preconceived views affect my view of the evidence.

Yes, why would anyone possibly think this? Oh, because you're doing it in the same post you're complaining that people are catching on to the practice.

 

[stevevw]

There is scientific evidence about known "non adaptive influences" in evolution, i.e. the factors of mutations, recombination and genetic drift.
Can you give the scientific evidence "showing that most of the ability for life to change is coming from non adaptive influences such as HGT or in development"?
Horizontal gene transfer is an important factor in evolution of many (not all) organisms, e.g. bacteria.

I thought I already has supplied the evidence. But at least your now acknowledging that these influences play a part. It is a matter of debate as to what extent these influences play in how life changes. I have been supporting that these influences are the main influences and non adaptive mechanism of random mutations and natural selection are incapable to producing the type of complex life we see. In fact evolution through natural selection is more likely to be a limiter to allowing pathways to complexity of life.

There are other non adaptive influences besides HGT including the ones already mentioned such as (developmental bias) where development is guided along specific paths that are set rather than traits coming from adaptations which require blind natural selection and random mutations to search across vast possibilities of physical traits. This explains the evidence better where we see many creatures that are distantly related having similar traits. Evolution will put this down to convergent evolution whereas a better explanation is that all life has determined paths that lead to similar traits. Then there are other forces such as plasticity, niche construction, extra-genetic inheritance, epigenetics, symbiosis all of which play their part in different ways to how life can change besides random mutations and natural selection.

 

[stevevw]

No I wasn't. I was saying what I actually wrote - that the paper you found had nothing to do with your claim that "natural selection is negligible and/or minimal" in a general sense. Anything else you're reading into my quote is something you're making up.

You also stated that the paper was referring to the capabilities of natural selection evolving complex organisms and clarified this by saying it is only referring to natural selections ability for complex life as apposed to that general meaning. To me you are acknowledging that the paper is at least saying something about natural selections inability to evolve complexity. Considering that no one has even acknowledged that the paper was even questioning any capability of naturals election it is some compromise and acknowledgement. If natural selection and random mutations are incapable of evolving complex life then thats a big part of life and theres not much left.

Yes, why would anyone possibly think this? Oh, because you're doing it in the same post you're complaining that people are catching on to the practice.

No I was responding to another poster who was making unsubstantiated accusations that the only reason I am even bringing up any of this is purely because of a religious motivation.

 

[KCfromNC]

To me you are acknowledging that the paper is at least saying something about natural selections inability to evolve complexity.

Does the fact that I'm telling you that you are wrong about your interpretation of my writing mean nothing to you?

And you wonder why people accuse you of quote-mining to try and twist words to fit what you wish your sources were saying...

Anyway, none of this changes the fact that the papers you've posted don't support your claims. When the best you can do is quibble about some imagined hidden subtext in one of my posts it is time to realize you're in a hole and to stop digging.

 

[stevevw]

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

there you are again doing my thinking. I said that based on your views anyone who has any religious connections such as belief cannot be qualified as having any scientific credibility to question evolution because you are saying that their religious beliefs are motivating them to do so. I said that would count out many good scientists who have religious belief. That is completely different to religion and science being compatible.

 

[stevevw]

Does the fact that I'm telling you that you are wrong about your interpretation of my writing mean nothing to you?

So when you said
" this quote is specifically talking about the origins of complexity"
you were not referring to natural selections ability to evolve complexity considering the quote you are referring to states that natural selections ability to evolve complexity is questionable.

So to clarify things does the paper refer to natural selections ability to evolve complex organisms.

And you wonder why people accuse you of quote-mining to try and twist words to fit what you wish your sources were saying...

How is it quote mining when I have just about posted large sections of the paper and have had explanation with that every time.

 

[stevevw]

It seems to be English that is not understood, e.g. "not dominant" does not mean "negligible and/or minimal".
Like "not a giant" does not mean "is a dwarf".

Yes but as I stated earlier which you seem to have conveniently ignored with the rest of what I said inability of natural selection, insufficient mechanism, natural selection may actually promote the opposite situation are good examples of negligible and/or minimal. So when you take all that the papers I have quoted about natural selection into consideration they do support what I said and my English understanding of them is fine.

But the ironic thing is not dominate is still a discredit against natural selection and is certainly not saying it is a dominate force in how complex life formed considering many supporters of darwins theory make natural selection all powerful and capable of evolving every complex form we see. To do that it would need to be dominate, very dominate in fact.

 

[Loudmouth]

He was referring to this article,
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

KCfromNC was acknowledging that the paper stated that non adaptive forces were more responsible for how complexity came about in organisms rather than evolution through random mutations and natural selection.

Not being the dominant mechanism for genetic modularity is not the same as natural selection being negligible or completely absent from evolution as a whole.

Not that hard to figure out.

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes but as I stated earlier which you seem to have conviently ignored with the rest of what I said inability of natural selection, insufficient mechanism, natural selection may actually promote the opposite situation are good examples of negligible and/or minimal. So when you take all that the papers I have quoted about natural selection into consideration they do support what I said and my English understanding of them is fine.

Finding specific instances where natural selection is minimal does not mean that natural selection is minimal on the whole.

 

[VirOptimus]

there you are again doing my thinking. I said that based on your views anyone who has any religious connections such as belief cannot be qualified as having any scientific credibility to question evolution because you are saying that their religious beliefs are motivating them to do so. I said that would count out many good scientists who have religious belief. That is completely different to religion and science being compatible.

Then tell me, what are your belief regarding the age of the earth, creation and common descent?

 

[Archie the Preacher]

Would it be possible to have a mutually respectful discussion about the following:

Oh, I hope so!

How did the laws of nature, which are metaphysical, come into being from un-directed, random materialistic processes?

I do not concur with use of the term 'metaphysical'. However from a subsequent statement by the poster, I will agree the 'laws of nature' are NON-physical, so I'll put up with it.

My first response is the laws of nature do not come from "... un-directed, random materialistic processes ..." The laws of nature were created (perhaps manifested?) concurrently with the physical phenomenon of the Universe. I do not believe the Universe was created by 'that sort' of process. And yes, the 'laws of nature' are essentially the discovered (so far) description of 'how things work'.

The 'laws of nature' are the underlying limitations on the actions and interactions of physical items and processes in the Universe. They include sub-divisions such as gravity, chemistry, fluid mechanics, the reason toast always lands butter side down, the four basic micro-scale forces and other stuff. They also include things 'we' (humanity, scientists, theologians, mystics, and whoever else might find out such things) have not found yet. Frankly, with all the things 'we' have found out since 'we' thought 'we' had the answers, I cannot presume in good conscience there aren't more answers - at least small details if not (and I personally expect) grand precepts.

Please do not mistake any of what I write as an endorsement of the Ussherite hypothesis of Young Earth Creationism. It is not. I have no doubt as to the history of the Universe and Earth as outlined by the basic discoveries of 'science' so far. I neither have doubt regarding the underlying purpose, will and power of Almighty God in accomplishing 'all this'.

However, God does not appear in a test tube, telescope or mathmatical equation. Consequently, it is hard to discuss God from an observational and investigative (scientific) standpoint. It is similarly hard to discover or observe physical laws when ONLY reading the Bible.

For the record, I study scientific (secular) cosmology. I don't agree with all the conclusions of everyone I read; just as I don't agree with all the doctrine of all 'religious' speakers. (Neither does anyone else, if one considers the matter.) As of July 2016, I have read no secular work which claims to explain the exact function of from where the laws of nature derive. About as close as it gets is the rather vague concept they 'came about' as the physical portion of the Universe 'congealed' (not a scientific term, but a metaphoric term). One aspect of this idea is called the "Anthropic Principle" which boils down to the rather obvious idea that conditions are now due to conditions earlier. I find it no less meaningless than "God did it!". Both are true, but neither really explains anything.

 

[stevevw]

Finding specific instances where natural selection is minimal does not mean that natural selection is minimal on the whole.

These papers are talking about the entire process itself and not specific examples. The complexity they are talking about is the emergence and evolvability of all multi celled life as compared to simpler single celled life.

 

[stevevw]

Then tell me, what are your belief regarding the age of the earth, creation and common descent?

No I am not a YEC or a creationists, ID proponent or belong to any other particular religious group. I do agree with some of the ideas of ID that scientifically show the difficulties that mutations can create fitter and more complex life and that the evidence shows that there is a lot more to life that seems more designed that anything else. The scientific evidence they show is also supported by mainstream scientists. The earth is very old and as far as the creation story is concerned I dont believe that is a literal explanation based on any science.

I do believe that existences shows that there is design in it through what we see and the origins of something from nothing is just one major problem for science to explain. Any attempt to explain these things is hard to make any verifiable claims but I think the God h idea is just as good as any that have been put forward by some world views such as multiverses and hologram worlds. They all appeal to dimensions beyond out worlds which shows that any possible explanation has to step out side the ways we have measured cause and effect. I like the post that Archie the preacher has just made above and this would be my position as well.

I think the basic code of life was created but I dont know the details of how. The evidence points to complex life being around early and appearing suddenly without much trace of where it came from. Certainly there are no gradual transitions that Darwin talks about. Nor is there for much of life and what some use as examples is very subjective and open to personal interpretation. If there is any bias going on then it happens on all sides because much of the debate is based on observation and personal interpretations. Evolution is based on a lot of these assumptions ans speculations. Thats why its important to look at the evidence such as genomics as well because this can verify or cast doubt on what has been said.

AS far as common decent is concerned once again this is mostly based on observations and is a similar assumption that is used to link certain anatomical similarities for transitional evolution. We have seen this type of evidence being contradicted time and time again and the genomic evidence seems to contradict this through the many incongruence in the tree of life Darwin made. There may be some common decent in life going back to common types of creatures that were the head of other types of creatures and a lot of variation has stemmed from this through a combination of mostly non adaptive forces. But I dont believe there is a universal common ancestor and this is based on assumption of what we see which are the results of other forces as mentioned above.