Where did the laws of nature come from?

[VirOptimus]

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.

I'm saying that your argument is already shredded by other posters and the only reason you double down is because of your religious belief.

What is your science credentials? What do you study at the university?

 

[stevevw]

Your biases are showing.

No its not and once again I can support my claims. But what I am noticing is that some who want to make claims themselves dont post one drop of support, no peer reviewed papers, no credible scientific verification. Just the words that they say from their own mouth which cannot be verified which basically has no credibility. As we know in all if a claim or idea is to have any credibility it needs to have some academic support. Words uttered by individual opinion may be great to express an idea but hold no credibility unless supported by academic articles. The difference between you and me is that I always supply academic support with what I say so it can be tested for being biased. You on the other hand have not so we have no way of determining whether you are being biased in your opinion.

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

Yes I do and you seem to have rose colored glasses when it comes to assessing the industry. I am talking about the humans behind the science for which I clearly stated. The fact that you missed that and cant acknowledge it speaks about your own bias.
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false. The probability that a research claim is true may depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the same question, and, importantly, the ratio of true to no relationships among the relationships probed in each scientific field.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/

Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines and countries
Concerns that the growing competition for funding and citations might distort science are frequently discussed, but have not been verified directly. Of the hypothesized problems, perhaps the most worrying is a worsening of positive-outcome bias.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-011-0494-7

Does Science Need Falsifiability?
Now, some physicists and philosophers think it is time to reconsider the notion of falsifiability. Could a theory that provides an elegant and accurate account of the world around us—even if its predictions can’t be tested by today’s experiments, or tomorrow’s—still “count” as science?

But Carroll argues that he is simply calling for greater openness and honesty about the way science really happens. “I think that it’s more important than ever that scientists tell the truth. And the truth is that in practice, falsifiability is not a good criterion for telling science from non-science,” he says.

Perhaps “falsifiability” isn’t up to shouldering the full scientific and philosophical burden that’s been placed on it.

“We need to rethink these issues in a philosophically sophisticated way that also takes the best interpretations of fundamental science, and its limitations, seriously,” says Ellis. “Maybe we have to accept uncertainty as a profound aspect of our understanding of the universe in cosmology as well as particle physics.”
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2015/02/falsifiability/

The above article talks about how science has reached a point that it cannot verify many theories so some scientists want to lower the criteria of verification. The many elaborate and elegant ideas that scientists have come up with to explain what they see cannot be verified because they step outside the parameters of our known testable existence. The point is because are having to appeal to far fetched ideas to explain things they can start to believe some of these elegant ideas as being fact based on very little verification.

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

Such as. Dont just make a claim back it up. Anyone can say things like that. You need to explain yourself otherwise it just seems like your being negative about everything without a valid reason.

[/quote]Tell me, what do you study? What are your science credentials?[/QUOTE] I study social science with a major in psychology. I have already supplied evidence for this on this thread. But why is my credibility being attacked all becuase I am disagreeing with some of the things evolution states. It seems anyone who disagrees is either a religious nutter, mad, dumb or something along those lines. All of which is a false argument of Ad hominem.

 

[stevevw]

I'm saying that your argument is already shredded by other posters and the only reason you double down is because of your religious belief.

LOL, Shredded to pieces is an extreme phrase and already brings a question mark into your argument. Any extreme words used in an argument should be viewed as suspicious in trying to sway things based on emotion. Nothing is that complete and you only have to show one little proof that its not torn to shreds and their whole argument starts to come into question.

And I can do this by stating that the whole basis of their argument are based on two things, one that I have changed my opinion of what natural selection can and cant do which is nothing to do with the the capabilities of natural selection so is a false argument based on trying to discredit the person rather than deal with the content of the argument. The other is that someone has said that the papers are referring to specific cases for natural selection not being the main force for how gene networks can be formed or came about. I showed evidence on many occasions showing that it does apply to all complex life.

But even so KCfromNC said it only applied to complex networks and I even allowed for that compromise for which you said I have never conceded anything. But as I stated this still then questions natural selection role when it comes to evolving complex life and trending towards complex gene networks. So at the very least some are acknowledging this by stating that the papers are only referring to the ability of natural selection and complex life.

What is your science credentials? What do you study at the university?

I thought I just explained that. I study to improve my knowledge and get qualifications in the field I work like everyone else.

 

[VirOptimus]

No its not and once again I can support my claims. But what I am noticing is that some who want to make claims themselves dont post one drop of support, no peer reviewed papers, no credible scientific verification. Just the words that they say from their own mouth which cannot be verified which basically has no credibility. As we know in all if a claim or idea is to have any credibility it needs to have some academic support. Words uttered by individual opinion may be great to express an idea but hold no credibility unless supported by academic articles. The difference between you and me is that I always supply academic support with what I say so it can be tested for being biased. You on the other hand have not so we have no way of determining whether you are being biased in your opinion.

Yes I do and you seem to have rose colored glasses when it comes to assessing the industry. I am talking about the humans behind the science for which I clearly stated. The fact that you missed that and cant acknowledge it speaks about your own bias.
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false. The probability that a research claim is true may depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the same question, and, importantly, the ratio of true to no relationships among the relationships probed in each scientific field.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/

Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines and countries
Concerns that the growing competition for funding and citations might distort science are frequently discussed, but have not been verified directly. Of the hypothesized problems, perhaps the most worrying is a worsening of positive-outcome bias.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-011-0494-7

Does Science Need Falsifiability?
Now, some physicists and philosophers think it is time to reconsider the notion of falsifiability. Could a theory that provides an elegant and accurate account of the world around us—even if its predictions can’t be tested by today’s experiments, or tomorrow’s—still “count” as science?

But Carroll argues that he is simply calling for greater openness and honesty about the way science really happens. “I think that it’s more important than ever that scientists tell the truth. And the truth is that in practice, falsifiability is not a good criterion for telling science from non-science,” he says.

Perhaps “falsifiability” isn’t up to shouldering the full scientific and philosophical burden that’s been placed on it.

“We need to rethink these issues in a philosophically sophisticated way that also takes the best interpretations of fundamental science, and its limitations, seriously,” says Ellis. “Maybe we have to accept uncertainty as a profound aspect of our understanding of the universe in cosmology as well as particle physics.”
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2015/02/falsifiability/

The above article talks about how science has reached a point that it cannot verify many theories so some scientists want to lower the criteria of verification. The many elaborate and elegant ideas that scientists have come up with to explain what they see cannot be verified because they step outside the parameters of our known testable existence. The point is because are having to appeal to far fetched ideas to explain things they can start to believe some of these elegant ideas as being fact based on very little verification.
Such as. Dont just make a claim back it up. Anyone can say things like that. You need to explain yourself otherwise it just seems like your being negative about everything without a valid reason.

[]Tell me, what do you study? What are your science credentials?I study social science with a major in psychology. I have already supplied evidence for this on this thread. But why is my credibility being attacked all becuase I am disagreeing with some of the things evolution states. It seems anyone who disagrees is either a religious nutter, mad, dumb or something along those lines. All of which is a false argument of Ad hominem.

Dude, the articles does not support your stance.

And I dont need to support anything, other posters have already shredded your whole try at arguing science.

Look, science is hard. If you dont have academic background in science the odds of being correct when challanging well supported scientific theories are close to nil. You have been shown to be in error time and time again, accept it.

 

[VirOptimus]

LOL, Shredded is an extreme word and already brings a question mark into your argument. Any extreme word used in an argument should be viewed as suspicious to begin with because you only have to show one little falsehood and the whole argument starts to come into question.

And I can do this by stating that the whole basis of their argument are based on two things, one that I have changed my opinion of what natural selection can and cant do which is nothing to do with the the capabilities of natural selection so is a false argument. The other is that someone has said that the papers are referring to specific cases for natural selection not being the main force for how gene networks can be formed or came about. I showed evidence on many occasions showing that it does apply to all complex life.

But even so KCfromNC said it only applied to complex networks and I even allowed for that compromise for which you said I have never conceded anything. But as I stated this still then questions natural selection role when it comes to evolving complex life and trending towards complex gene networks. So at the very least your side is acknowledging this by stating that the papers are only referring to the ability of natural selection and complex life.

I thought I just explained that. I study to improve my knowledge and get qualifications in the field I work like everyone else.

Do you accept common descent?

 

[KCfromNC]

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

Let's just cut to the chase. This is a paper which plainly states "Natural selection is just one of four primary evolutionary forces." You're arguing that instead of it being one of the primary evolutionary forces the paper has some hidden subtext that natural selection is instead negligible. That's at best a complete misunderstanding of what the paper is talking about - but considering you keep repeating this error after being corrected many times by a number of people it seems to be more than that.

Is this really the hill you want [your reputation] to die on?

 

[KCfromNC]

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.

Yes, for example they say things like "Natural selection is just one of four primary evolutionary forces." And yet somehow you think that means it is saying that natural selection is negligible. That would be like reading a physics paper saying "gravity is just one of four fundamental forces" and concluding that the paper had disproved gravity. That's not exactly the most reasonable reading of the paper, no matter how much you can pull stuff out of context to try and make it look otherwise.

I mentioned this before in several posts and you declined to comment. You can claim you read the responses and disagree, but until you actually address the content of them it just reads like evasion.

 

[KCfromNC]

But even so KCfromNC said it only applied to complex networks

I did? I remember this was one of those cases where you were trying somehow to convince yourself that you were able to see some hidden message in my posts despite me telling you otherwise. Seems to be a pattern here.

 

[The Cadet]

It's been a few pages and I still haven't seen an answer, so I'll ask again. You claim to be able to identify design. What does a non-designed object look like? If you cannot answer that question, you fundamentally cannot identify design.

 

[stevevw]

Dude, the articles does not support your stance.

Explain how it doesn't support my stance.

And I dont need to support anything, other posters have already shredded your whole try at arguing science.

Yes you do as it shows an independent thought and that you understand the issues involved. I have just posted the reasons why my argument has not been shredded and proved your argument invalid. The fact that the scientists and even some on this very forum who have been trying to discredit me accept that the papers I posted are saying that natural selection at the very least has a problem with evolving complexity is enough to prove your torn to shreds exaggeration is false. Like I said anyone who even uses words like torn to shreds is appealing to emotive words to try and empower their argument because they have little else to rely on. If you think you have a case then spell it out or maybe your are not because you dont actually have anything and are just bluffing.

Look, science is hard. If you dont have academic background in science the odds of being correct when challenging well supported scientific theories are close to nil. You have been shown to be in error time and time again, accept it.

Science is hard but that doesn't excuse the human weakness to be biased and see things through you own perspective. We are all influenced by our personal experiences and religion is just one of the influences that can have an effect on how you see the world. But just because you put the word science into the equation doesn't automatically mean that there's no skewing of things. In fact anti religious dogma can be just as powerful in influencing a persons interpretations.

 

[stevevw]

It's been a few pages and I still haven't seen an answer, so I'll ask again. You claim to be able to identify design. What does a non-designed object look like? If you cannot answer that question, you fundamentally cannot identify design.

Sorry I have been having to reply to many posts and forgot or didn't see it. Ah I think its a bit more involved than what something looks like. Something may look pretty ordinary on the outside like a computer box but be full of design. I think there are a few levels of measurement including information, function, order, probability ect that need to be assessed. thats why I posted those papers on engineering. An example would be if someone got the correct numbers in a lottery that needed a large sequence of numbers to be correct and they got those numbers correct many times in a row. We would normally think that someone was tampering with the results when that happens. In fact people normally think that when the odds are much less. If that happens then it is defying the odds and then you begin to wonder if something is causing that to happen that way. So if many aspects of that event all fall into place which need to be just right then you can say that someone or something is behind that to happen as normally the probability of that happening are impossible.

 

[stevevw]

I did? I remember this was one of those cases where you were trying somehow to convince yourself that you were able to see some hidden message in my posts despite me telling you otherwise. Seems to be a pattern here.

Didn't you say that the paper didn't apply to a general meaning for natural selection but a specific one of complexity.

 

[VirOptimus]

Didn't you say that the paper didn't apply to a general meaning for natural selection but a specific one of complexity.

I'll ask again, do you accept common descent?

 

[The Cadet]

Sorry I have been having to reply to many posts and forgot or didn't see it. Ah I think its a bit more involved than what something looks like. Something may look pretty ordinary on the outside like a computer box but be full of design. I think there are a few levels of measurement including information, function, order, probability ect that need to be assessed. thats why I posted those papers on engineering. An example would be if someone got the correct numbers in a lottery that needed a large sequence of numbers to be correct and they got those numbers correct many times in a row. We would normally think that someone was tampering with the results when that happens. In fact people normally think that when the odds are much less. If that happens then it is defying the odds and then you begin to wonder if something is causing that to happen that way. So if many aspects of that event all fall into place which need to be just right then you can say that someone or something is behind that to happen as normally the probability of that happening are impossible.

Let me try again, because you're still answering the wrong question.

What does an object that was not designed look like? How do you distinguish a designed object from a non-designed object?

It is trivial to point to things that may indicate design. But if you can't point to something that isn't designed, it's all entirely moot, because there's no clear difference between design and non-design.

 

[stevevw]

I'll ask again, do you accept common descent?

I have already mentioned what I think about common decent. Its funny how a concept based on an observational evidence can be relied on to prove a theory despite the genetic evidence stating the opposite. Common decent can happen to a point but I dont believe that all life can be traced back to a universal common ancestor. The Cambrian explosion shows a lot of lines of complex variety where some are distantly related yet there is not much trace for their branching back to a common ancestor. Its like many different complex body forms happened at the same time in a relatively short evolution time.

The tree of life that Darwin made based on common decent has been contradicted through genomics showing distantly related creatures linked and closely related creatures not showing similar genetic makeups which would point to different genetic histories according to evolution. Cases can be made for creating different lines of decent according to the genetic evidence for large areas of the tree of life. If we incorporate single celled life which is 95% of the tree this makes a forest of life where there are many trunks rather than a single trunk which points to multi beginnings. To think that there were multi beginnings in a process thats hard to believe there was even one beginning according to a naturalistic seems unrealistic.
Darwin's Tree of Life May Be More Like a Thicket
http://phys.org/news/2009-01-darwin-tree-life-thicket.html#jCp
Amending the Tree of Life: Article advocates for shift in evolutionary and genomic research
http://phys.org/news/2013-08-amending-tree-life-article-advocates.html
Phylogeny: Rewriting evolution
http://www.nature.com/news/phylogeny-rewriting-evolution-1.10885

There are many transitions missing and once again the transitions cited are based on observational evidence which can be personally interpreted according to an individuals preconceived ideas. The field of Taxonomy puts life into two categories called lumpers and splitters based on the different views of features for whether they are a transitional between species or a variation within the same species and there are many disputes about what is and what isn't a transitional. We have seen many times how a feature was allocated to a transitional only to be later found to be a variation of the same type of creature.
Classification: Lumping & Splitting
http://pages.ucsd.edu/~dkjordan/resources/clarifications/Th-Lumpers.html
A haul of fossils found in Georgia suggests that half a dozen species of early human ancestor were actually all Homo erectus
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/oct/17/skull-homo-erectus-human-evolution

Even if a person believes in theistic evolution where God created life with all the codes to evolve other life rather than trying to create those codes from a blind and random process that would make more sense as this fits the evidence better that shows mechanisms that are based on preset and biased development paths. That would point to common design and not common decent. So there are more than one way to look at things and common decent isn't a proven fact.

 

[stevevw]

Let me try again, because you're still answering the wrong question.

What does an object that was not designed look like? How do you distinguish a designed object from a non-designed object?

It is trivial to point to things that may indicate design. But if you can't point to something that isn't designed, it's all entirely moot, because there's no clear difference between design and non-design.

No your simplifying things to much and assuming that design can be determined by looks alone. Yet we know that there is design in things that dont look designed because the design was based on other things besides looks. I know what your trying to imply and the logic of your argument. people use snow flakes as an example of something that looks designed but say its not designed. But the reality is it is designed because it conforms to set physical laws that make the shapes and not something naturalistic and random. For the sake of argument lets say the human cell and DNA looks designed.

 

[VirOptimus]

I have already mentioned what I think about common decent. Its funny how a concept based on an observational evidence can be relied on to prove a theory despite the genetic evidence stating the opposite. Common decent can happen to a point but I dont believe that all life can be traced back to a universal common ancestor. The Cambrian explosion shows a lot of lines of complex variety where some are distantly related yet there is not much trace for their branching back to a common ancestor. Its like many different complex body forms happened at the same time in a relatively short evolution time.

The tree of life that Darwin made based on common decent has been contradicted through genomics showing distantly related creatures linked and closely related creatures not showing similar genetic makeups which would point to different genetic histories according to evolution. Cases can be made for creating different lines of decent according to the genetic evidence for large areas of the tree of life. If we incorporate single celled life which is 95% of the tree this makes a forest of life where there are many trunks rather than a single trunk which points to multi beginnings. To think that there were multi beginnings in a process thats hard to believe there was even one beginning according to a naturalistic seems unrealistic.
Darwin's Tree of Life May Be More Like a Thicket
http://phys.org/news/2009-01-darwin-tree-life-thicket.html#jCp
Amending the Tree of Life: Article advocates for shift in evolutionary and genomic research
http://phys.org/news/2013-08-amending-tree-life-article-advocates.html
Phylogeny: Rewriting evolution
http://www.nature.com/news/phylogeny-rewriting-evolution-1.10885

There are many transitions missing and once again the transitions cited are based on observational evidence which can be personally interpreted according to an individuals preconceived ideas. The field of Taxonomy puts life into two categories called lumpers and splitters based on the different views of features for whether they are a transitional between species or a variation within the same species and there are many disputes about what is and what isn't a transitional. We have seen many times how a feature was allocated to a transitional only to be later found to be a variation of the same type of creature.
Classification: Lumping & Splitting
http://pages.ucsd.edu/~dkjordan/resources/clarifications/Th-Lumpers.html
A haul of fossils found in Georgia suggests that half a dozen species of early human ancestor were actually all Homo erectus
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/oct/17/skull-homo-erectus-human-evolution

Even if a person believes in theistic evolution where God created life with all the codes to evolve other life rather than trying to create those codes from a blind and random process that would make more sense as this fits the evidence better that shows mechanisms that are based on preset and biased development paths. That would point to common design and not common decent. So there are more than one way to look at things and common decent isn't a proven fact.

I take that as a no.

Is common descent compatible with your religious belief?

 

[VirOptimus]

No your simplifying things to much and assuming that design can be determined by looks alone. Yet we know that there is design in things that dont look designed because the design was based on other things besides looks. I know what your trying to imply and the logic of your argument. people use snow flakes as an example of something that looks designed but say its not designed. But the reality is it is designed because it conforms to set physical laws that make the shapes and not something naturalistic and random. For the sake of argument lets say the human cell and DNA looks designed.

They really dont.

 

[The Cadet]

No your simplifying things to much and assuming that design can be determined by looks alone. Yet we know that there is design in things that dont look designed because the design was based on other things besides looks. I know what your trying to imply and the logic of your argument. people use snow flakes as an example of something that looks designed but say its not designed. But the reality is it is designed because it conforms to set physical laws that make the shapes and not something naturalistic and random. For the sake of argument lets say the human cell and DNA looks designed.

You're still answering the wrong question, though.

My assertion is that "it looks designed" is an unfalsifiable claim. That there is no possible configuration you could point to and say, "This is not designed".

You still have yet to provide anything that qualifies as a criteria for falsification. And without that, you can list reasons why something looks designed until the cows come home, it doesn't get you one step closer to demonstrating the design of anything.

 

[KCfromNC]

Didn't you say that the paper didn't apply to a general meaning for natural selection but a specific one of complexity.

If you have to ask me to remind you what I actually wrote maybe it'd be best if you didn't also try and tell others what I was or wasn't talking about.