Where did the laws of nature come from?

[Waterwerx]

Where did the laws of nature come from? They certainly didn't come into being from any kind of democracy. Some fool politician may well have vetoed gravity and sent us all flying into oblivion long ago; or have a filibuster and creation is naught.

 

[stevevw]

Speaking of assumptions, do you have anything to back these claims up or are they just gut feelings?

First I would have thought all the papers I have supplied stating that natural selection cannot produce gene networks and that other non adaptive forces were more responsible was enough evidence. That evidence shows that the mechanisms for building the gene structures for life are not from a blind process of natural selection but from processes that use developmental pathways that are designed to produce certain specific results that organisms need to function and survive. But there is also evidence for which I have supplied in the recent past showing that complex Protein sequences need many positive mutations sometimes multiple mutations all working together to build them.

A blind process of natural selection and random mutations has been shown that it is unlikely to be able to do this because it has to sift through a vast amount of possibilities which include many negative dysfunctional possibilities and that any small benefit gets side tracked and lost and never becomes enough of a distinct benefit to build those complex structures. This also relates to the evidence of non adaptive forces being more responsible because they dont rely on this blind process and work on developmental pathways that are determined by mechanisms that point to preset structures and info.

The other evidence comes from research that shows that proteins for life show more qualities of being preset forms and structures rather than the results of a hit and miss process of evolution. The structures are very precise and complex and evolution has no evidence or can even attempt to explain how these would be produced from a blind and random process. It would either be impossible or even if evolution could produce some small functional structures it would take more time that what is available to do.


However, in the case of one class of very important organic forms-the basic protein folds-advances in protein chemistry since the early 1970s have revealed that they represent a finite set of natural forms, determined by a number of generative constructional rules, like those which govern the formation of atoms or crystals, in which functional adaptations are clearly secondary modifications of primary "givens of physics." The folds are evidently determined by natural law, not natural selection, and are "lawful forms" in the Platonic and pre-Darwinian sense of the word, which are bound to occur everywhere in the universe where the same 20 amino acids are used for their construction. We argue that this is a major discovery which has many important implications regarding the origin of proteins, the origin of life and the fundamental nature of organic form. We speculate that it is unlikely that the folds will prove to be the only case in nature where a set of complex organic forms is determined by natural law, and suggest that natural law may have played a far greater role in the origin and evolution of life than is currently assumed.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12419661

According to this model, (a) the Universal Genome that encodes all major developmental programs essential for various phyla of Metazoa emerged in a unicellular or a primitive multicellular organism shortly before the Cambrian period; (b) The Metazoan phyla, all having similar genomes, are nonetheless so distinct because they utilize specific combinations of developmental programs. This model has two major predictions, first that a significant fraction of genetic information in lower taxons must be functionally useless but becomes useful in higher taxons, and second that one should be able to turn on in lower taxons some of the complex latent developmental programs, e.g., a program of eye development or antibody synthesis in sea urchin. An example of natural turning on of a complex latent program in a lower taxon is discussed.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17660714

Our purpose here is to introduce a new route to functional complexity, a route in which complexity starts high, rising perhaps on account of the spontaneous tendency for parts to differentiate. Then, driven by selection for effective and efficient function, complexity decreases over time. Eventually, the result is a system that is highly functional and retains considerable residual complexity, enough to impress us.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11692-013-9227-6

People are good at finding patterns even when they aren't tehre. Care to list all of the examples of organisms which don't have spiral patterns in them, or are we just supposed to think the fact that you found 3 out of how man millions of species is significant in any way?

Why would listing other organisms disprove that these examples can be designed. Design doesn't state that there wont be non similar patterns. We could probably find another bunch of different patterns in nature that have similarities with non related organisms or physical structures. I am just saying that these particular patterns look designed in the way humans determine design and are found in things that dont stem from each other according to self creating naturalistic processes as though that particular pattern is a pre set pattern.

 

[VirOptimus]

First I would have thought all the papers I have supplied stating that natural selection cannot produce gene networks and that other non adaptive forces were more responsible was enough evidence. That evidence shows that the mechanisms for building the gene structures for life are not from a blind process of natural selection but from processes that use developmental pathways that are designed to produce certain specific results that organisms need to function and survive. But there is also evidence for which I have supplied in the recent past showing that complex Protein sequences need many positive mutations sometimes multiple mutations all working together to build them.

A blind process of natural selection and random mutations has been shown that it is unlikely to be able to do this because it has to sift through a vast amount of possibilities which include many negative dysfunctional possibilities and that any small benefit gets side tracked and lost and never becomes enough of a distinct benefit to build those complex structures. This also relates to the evidence of non adaptive forces being more responsible because they dont rely on this blind process and work on developmental pathways that are determined by mechanisms that point to preset structures and info.

The other evidence comes from research that shows that proteins for life show more qualities of being preset forms and structures rather than the results of a hit and miss process of evolution. The structures are very precise and complex and evolution has no evidence or can even attempt to explain how these would be produced from a blind and random process. It would either be impossible or even if evolution could produce some small functional structures it would take more time that what is available to do.


However, in the case of one class of very important organic forms-the basic protein folds-advances in protein chemistry since the early 1970s have revealed that they represent a finite set of natural forms, determined by a number of generative constructional rules, like those which govern the formation of atoms or crystals, in which functional adaptations are clearly secondary modifications of primary "givens of physics." The folds are evidently determined by natural law, not natural selection, and are "lawful forms" in the Platonic and pre-Darwinian sense of the word, which are bound to occur everywhere in the universe where the same 20 amino acids are used for their construction. We argue that this is a major discovery which has many important implications regarding the origin of proteins, the origin of life and the fundamental nature of organic form. We speculate that it is unlikely that the folds will prove to be the only case in nature where a set of complex organic forms is determined by natural law, and suggest that natural law may have played a far greater role in the origin and evolution of life than is currently assumed.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12419661

According to this model, (a) the Universal Genome that encodes all major developmental programs essential for various phyla of Metazoa emerged in a unicellular or a primitive multicellular organism shortly before the Cambrian period; (b) The Metazoan phyla, all having similar genomes, are nonetheless so distinct because they utilize specific combinations of developmental programs. This model has two major predictions, first that a significant fraction of genetic information in lower taxons must be functionally useless but becomes useful in higher taxons, and second that one should be able to turn on in lower taxons some of the complex latent developmental programs, e.g., a program of eye development or antibody synthesis in sea urchin. An example of natural turning on of a complex latent program in a lower taxon is discussed.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17660714

Our purpose here is to introduce a new route to functional complexity, a route in which complexity starts high, rising perhaps on account of the spontaneous tendency for parts to differentiate. Then, driven by selection for effective and efficient function, complexity decreases over time. Eventually, the result is a system that is highly functional and retains considerable residual complexity, enough to impress us.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11692-013-9227-6

Why would listing other organisms disprove that these examples can be designed. Design doesn't state that there wont be non similar patterns. We could probably find another bunch of different patterns in nature that have similarities with non related organisms or physical structures. I am just saying that these particular patterns look designed in the way humans determine design and are found in things that dont stem from each other according to self creating naturalistic processes as though that particular pattern is a pre set pattern.

I have already shown in post 1429 that the only reason you doubt the science is your religious belief.

 

[W2L]

I have already shown in post 1429 that the only reason you doubt the science is your religious belief.

Are you sure that's the only reason? I would assert that the only reason people believe some of this science is because they are taught to believe it in school. That however doesn't mean its pure science. Maybe a religious person has at least one advantage in that they can have a more open mind in some things. They might be more inclined to see that science is polluted with political and idealistic notion instead of solid observation. I'm not saying you must agree with their religious views but you could agree that they might not be as ignorant as you think. Perhaps its you who are believing in something that is untrue, and only because you were taught to believe it. Look at politics, both sides cant be right yet they have followers who will follow them to the ends of the earth. Its the same with religion, but its also the same with science, whether you want to believe it or not.

 

[VirOptimus]

Are you sure that's the only reason? I would assert that the only reason people believe some of this science is because they are taught to believe it in school. That however doesn't mean its pure science. Maybe a religious person has at least one advantage in that they can have a more open mind in some things. They might be more inclined to see that science is polluted with political and idealistic notion instead of solid observation. I'm not saying you must agree with their religious views but you could agree that they might not be as ignorant as you think. Perhaps its you who are believing in something that is untrue, and only because you were taught to believe it. Look at politics, both sides cant be right yet they have followers who will follow them to the ends of the earth. Its the same with religion, but its also the same with science, whether you want to believe it or not.

No, its not equivalent. You dont "belive" in science. You study it, understand it. Its a description of physical reality.

And my post, with a quote from Stewe shows what I posit.

Also, if you follow the debate you will see that all of his positions has been shredded by other posters who do understand science (which he clearly doesnt).

 

[W2L]

No, its not equivalent. You dont "belive" in science. You study it, understand it. Its a description of physical reality.

And my post, with a quote from Stewe shows what I posit.

Also, if you follow the debate you will see that all of his positions has been shredded by other posters who do understand science (which he clearly doesnt).

Ive heard it before, no need to go back and look. I'm sorry you cant see that science is polluted with idealism. That's all I'm saying. I'm not saying all science is wrong or bad, I'm just saying that all science isn't right or good either.

 

[VirOptimus]

Ive heard it before, no need to go back and look. I'm sorry you cant see that science is polluted with idealism. That's all I'm saying. I'm not saying all science is wrong or bad, I'm just saying that all science isn't right or good either.

Science is either correct or faulty. Good doesnt enter the picture as thats an value judgement.

 

[W2L]

Science is either correct or faulty. Good doesnt enter the picture as thats an value judgement.

With respect, you are in denial.

 

[VirOptimus]

With respect, you are in denial.

No, I'm not.

Every time religion has been used to oppose science religion has lost.

 

[The Cadet]

I would assert that the only reason people believe some of this science is because they are taught to believe it in school

If I don't believe the science taught to me in school, you know what I can do? I can go out into the world and repeat the experiments as needed. Science builds trust in two ways. Repeatability, that anyone can run the same test and get the same results, is a big one. The other one? It works. Science works. It's built the world around us and improved virtually every aspect of our lives. Yes, even evolution. Evolutionary models have helped us discover better cures for deadly diseases.

Maybe a religious person has at least one advantage in that they can have a more open mind in some things. They might be more inclined to see that science is polluted with political and idealistic notion instead of solid observation.

Why should an open mind lead to that conclusion? Wouldn't evidence need to lead to that conclusion? Science is all about open-mindedness.

 

[KCfromNC]

First I would have thought all the papers I have supplied stating that natural selection cannot produce gene networks and that other non adaptive forces were more responsible was enough evidence.

If you'd have read all of the responses correcting your misunderstandings of these papers, you'd think otherwise.

And given you've failed to address my specific examples showing you quote-mining from your previous references I'm not particularly excited to have to do it with yet another set of papers.

 

[Loudmouth]

Luckily the authors elaborated on exactly how they were describing the effects of natural selection with words like insufficient, inability and unnecessary which give us a clearer picture.

Insufficient, unable, and unnecessary FOR WHAT?

That is the part you keep leaving off.

The development of a mature field of evolutionary biology requires the participation of not just population geneticists, but molecular, cell, and developmental biologists. However, the integration of these fields needs to be a two-way street. Because the forces of mutation, recombination, and genetic drift are now readily quantifiable in multiple species, there is no longer any justification for blindly launching suppositions about adaptive scenarios without an evaluation of the likelihood of nonadaptive alternatives. Moreover, if the conclusion that nonadaptive processes have played a central role in driving evolutionary patterns is correct, the origins of biological complexity should no longer be viewed as extraordinarily low-probability outcomes of unobservable adaptive challenges, but expected derivatives of the special population-genetic features of DNA-based genomes.

Nowhere does it say that natural selection is minimal.

 

[stevevw]

I have already shown in post 1429 that the only reason you doubt the science is your religious belief.

That doesn't mean anything. With that sort of logic then every scientists who speaks the same way about their personal experiences is also only believing because of their belief. That includes some of the greatest scientists who have discovered some of the best theories in science, ie Issac Newton, Albert Einstein, Erwin Schrödinger, Max Planck and Gregor Mendel who was prominent in the field of evolution with genetics. The rest of the scientists mainly worked in the field of physics which is probably the best field to dispute religious faith as it deals with the material world. But all the scientists will base they work on falsification yet they still believed in a supernatural creator God. So your argument is based on a false conclusion and an illogical fallacy.

The very essence of faith is believing in things unseen, as the bible says, Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. But having faith doesn't exclude a person like the scientists above having the ability to use logic and falsification in tests understanding our world to a certain point. A belief in God and the workings of His creation is never going to be proven by science. But If God is true then we should be able to make some predictions or see some indirect evidence such as design in nature. Science will always look for the logical answer and that is good up to a limit.

But its when things begin to step beyond that that we have to ask ourselves does science have the answer or is there some other force at work. IE the beginning of the universe and some of the things we observe in the universe like the faster expanding universe, dark matter and energy, the fine tuned universe, the contradictions of quantum and classic physics, how life has designed qualities about it and cannot be explained by a material and naturalistic process.

 

[stevevw]

Insufficient, unable, and unnecessary FOR WHAT?
That is the part you keep leaving off.

No I dont. Didn't you read the papers where those words came from. I have posted them several times as well as posting the sections they came from. Surely you have seen what those words are applying to. Heres are some of the previous posts
Jul 17, 2016 #1342
Jul 21, 2016 #1390
Jul 22, 2016 #1396
Tuesday at 3:10 AM #1431
Thursday at 3:13 AM #1452
I think this post is where KCfromNC asked me for the citations for supporting my claims about natural selection being negligible and minimal for which I said that the other words in the papers of insufficient, not necessary, inability, covered for meanings of minimal and negligible. In fact one of the papers actually states its negligible.
Jul 17, 2016 #1344

It is impossible to understand evolution purely in terms of natural selection, and many aspects of genomic, cellular, and developmental evolution can only be understood by invoking a negligible level of adaptive involvement (natural selection) my emphasis added.
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl_1/8597.full

Nowhere does it say that natural selection is minimal.

Gee how is it that everyone is making me prove things right down to dotting the i,s and crossing the T,s. If it was anyone form your side you would accept just about any quote even if it didn't have any supporting paper with it or from a evolutionists blog which has been happening all the way through. It seems if anyone disagrees with what evolution says they are made to jump through hoops and given the third degree to prove their case.

Surely I have proven the case with the amount of support I have made over the last many pages. I have covered every word meaning and shown the support over and over again. Minimal according to the dictionary means of a minimum amount, quantity, or degree; negligible. So the above past of negligible and other quotes from papers which are above that state, inability, insufficient, not necessary should cover that word. First you questioned the words negligible and I supported that now you want to prove the meaning of minor. Cant you use common sense to work out that there are other synonyms that can apply to minor which are mentioned in the paper. Why does it have to be the exact word. Not necessary or even better still the quote that was mentioned in one paper was that natural selection even caused the opposite of evolving functional gene networks by encouraging negative mutations.

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

 

[stevevw]

No, its not equivalent. You dont "belive" in science. You study it, understand it. Its a description of physical reality.

And my post, with a quote from Stewe shows what I posit.

Also, if you follow the debate you will see that all of his positions has been shredded by other posters who do understand science (which he clearly doesnt).

The thing your missing is that the science itself is the science and its a method that can by used to verify things. But it also uses hypothesis and theories in leading up to that verification. The problem is there are human beings behind that science who can be biased and base things on personal interpretations to begin with. Sometimes or should I say quite often people can manipulate things or base things on non verifiable evidence and still believe that it is fact. As we have seen with theories they can be supported and believed but then can be shown to be wrong later. So they are not the total truth. But scientists can also falsify tests and make claims about things based on various motives from trying to get more funding to trying to promote a world view that is opposed to their personal belief against God. Humans are just as capable of belief in science as they are in religion.

 

[stevevw]

No, I'm not.

Every time religion has been used to oppose science religion has lost.

Of course the two shouldn't mix, one is about the physical world and the other is about faith which is not testable. But both are just as valid for the roles they play.

 

[stevevw]

If you'd have read all of the responses correcting your misunderstandings of these papers, you'd think otherwise.

I have read those responses and I disagree. The papers are referring to naturals selection ability and the role it plays in being able to evolve gene networks. To me that is about the ability to evolve the genetic info for building life. Life is complex and one of the papers specifies that by stating that the type of complexity they are talking about is all multicellular eukaryotes. So I have shown that the papers are referring to a general application of natural selection.

But where is the direct supportive evidence for the assumption that complexity is rooted in adaptive processes? No existing observations support such a claim, and given the massive global dominance of unicellular species over multicellular eukaryotes, both in terms of species richness and numbers of individuals, if there is an advantage of organismal complexity, one can only marvel at the inability of natural selection to promote it. Multicellular species experience reduced population sizes, reduced recombination rates, and increased deleterious mutation rates, all of which diminish the efficiency of selection (13). It may be no coincidence that such species also have substantially higher extinction rates than do unicellular taxa
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl_1/8597.full

So the above is talking about all eukaryotes. It is saying what I have stated that natural selection has an inability, insufficient, negligible ability to evolve gene networks for all multi cellular life and in fact is a setback to evolving that life.

But even if we compromise and go with what you want to say that the papers are only talking about specific examples. What are you saying are the specific examples. If we say its only about complex genetic networks then what parts of the genomes are not complex. Even features like limbs, eyes, brains, wings ect all require complex gene networks. What is simple if anything about genetic networks. But even so if the papers are only talking about complex gene networks then natural selection cannot evolve complex gene networks which are a big part of evolution. So natural selection doesn't apply to a big part of evolution of life being complex gene networks. This paper states that natural selection doesn't even seem to show a trend towards complexity anyway. So what they are saying is that even from a simple point towards a more complex point natural selection doesn't show any tendency to move towards complexity.
If you disagree then dont just say you do, explain why you do.

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 there is no tendency of natural selection towards evolving more complex life and when complex life is produced is is more to do with non adaptive forces. So it is saying that once some level of complexity has been established natural selection will come into play and refine things then. But the establishment of the complexity of life has already been made through other forces besides natural selection and random mutations. So thats a big part of what evolution has claimed it can create that is being taken out of the equation and disputed.

And given you've failed to address my specific examples showing you quote-mining from your previous references I'm not particularly excited to have to do it with yet another set of papers.

I dont think I have quote mined and have clearly explained the papers and what they say. I have posted many sections of those papers and not just one or two with comprehensive explanations. I have posted different papers that support each other. If you put my posts together they could fill a book so there certainly isn't anything like quote mining going on which is about posting a short quote on its own without other support or personal explanations. I think that you are now resorting to trying to undermine my credibility by making personal attacks on me and my debate style.

 

[VirOptimus]

That doesn't mean anything. With that sort of logic then every scientists who speaks the same way about their personal experiences is also only believing because of their belief. That includes some of the greatest scientists who have discovered some of the best theories in science, ie Issac Newton, Albert Einstein, Erwin Schrödinger, Max Planck and Gregor Mendel who was prominent in the field of evolution with genetics. The rest of the scientists mainly worked in the field of physics which is probably the best field to dispute religious faith as it deals with the material world. But all the scientists will base they work on falsification yet they still believed in a supernatural creator God. So your argument is based on a false conclusion and an illogical fallacy.

The very essence of faith is believing in things unseen, as the bible says, Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. But having faith doesn't exclude a person like the scientists above having the ability to use logic and falsification in tests understanding our world to a certain point. A belief in God and the workings of His creation is never going to be proven by science. But If God is true then we should be able to make some predictions or see some indirect evidence such as design in nature. Science will always look for the logical answer and that is good up to a limit.

But its when things begin to step beyond that that we have to ask ourselves does science have the answer or is there some other force at work. IE the beginning of the universe and some of the things we observe in the universe like the faster expanding universe, dark matter and energy, the fine tuned universe, the contradictions of quantum and classic physics, how life has designed qualities about it and cannot be explained by a material and naturalistic process.

Sorry no.

You yourself say in that quote that the only reason you doubt the science is because of your belief. That makes you a dishonest debater as you have a nonscientific agenda.

We also se the results in your assertions, how you quotemine. The refusal to acknowledge that you are (or even may) be wrong. Your use of the designer argument, which is just religion in disguise.

You have again and again been proven wrong, here in this thread, and no reaction except doubling up on your error. That is not a scientific debate, its a religious one.

 

[VirOptimus]

The thing your missing is that the science itself is the science and its a method that can by used to verify things. But it also uses hypothesis and theories in leading up to that verification. The problem is there are human beings behind that science who can be biased and base things on personal interpretations to begin with. Sometimes or should I say quite often people can manipulate things or base things on non verifiable evidence and still believe that it is fact. As we have seen with theories they can be supported and believed but then can be shown to be wrong later. So they are not the total truth. But scientists can also falsify tests and make claims about things based on various motives from trying to get more funding to trying to promote a world view that is opposed to their personal belief against God. Humans are just as capable of belief in science as they are in religion.

Your biases are showing.

You clearly dont understand how a scientific theory works or how the process of formulating it works.

Your whole post is an empty assertion with no evidence and plenty of misrepresentation and lies.

Tell me, what do you study? What are your science credentials?

 

[stevevw]

Your biases are showing.

You clearly dont understand how a scientific theory works or how the process of formulating it works.

Your whole post is an empty assertion with no evidence and plenty of misrepresentation and lies.

Tell me, what do you study? What are your science credentials?

This is a fallacious argument. So you are saying all the evidence is false because of my belief and nothing in that evidence states that non adaptive forces are more dominate in influencing how life changes.