Where did the laws of nature come from?

[KCfromNC]

Explain how it doesn't support my stance.

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?

For some reason you seem to keep "forgetting" to reply to this point, so I'll just keep repeating it.

 

[KCfromNC]

For the sake of argument lets say the human cell and DNA looks designed.

Sure, but not by an intelligent designer.

 

[stevevw]

I take that as a no.

Is common descent compatible with your religious belief?

I havnt formed the details of a complete and definite concept of how life came about and I dont think anyone has so it doesn't really matter at this stage. I dont really know the details of how life was created but I do think that based on the evidence though life has design qualities about it. So in saying that, those who believe in theistic evolution can fit common decent into their beliefs but at this stage I am not sure about theistic evolution. Maybe God did install the mechanisms for evolving life but even if He did it is not based on a blind naturalistic process but one that was purposely designed that way to be guided to create life.

This fits the evidence better for the things we see such as the non adaptive process of developmental biases which cause life to follow set paths in development rather than a hit and miss process of evolution through blind natural selection and random mutations that is suppose to produce functional life through sifting through the many non function possibilities as well. That relies on as much faith as some say about God. Common design can also produce similarities that can be aligned with different animals. Maybe its a combination of both common decent and common design.

 

[VirOptimus]

I havnt formed the details of a complete and definite concept of how life came about and I dont think anyone has so it doesn't really matter at this stage. I dont really know the details of how life was created but I do think that based on the evidence though life has design qualities about it. So in saying that, those who believe in theistic evolution can fit common decent into their beliefs but at this stage I am not sure about theistic evolution. Maybe God did install the mechanisms for evolving life but even if He did it is not based on a blind naturalistic process but one that was purposely designed that way to be guided to create life.

This fits the evidence better for the things we see such as the non adaptive process of developmental biases which cause life to follow set paths in development rather than a hit and miss process of evolution through blind natural selection and random mutations that is suppose to produce functional life through sifting through the many non function possibilities as well. That relies on as much faith as some say about God. Common design can also produce similarities that can be aligned with different animals. Maybe its a combination of both common decent and common design.

You could just has answered no.

Metaphysics is not allowed in science.

So, as again, your only problem is a religious one, not a scientific your arguments are void.

 

[Loudmouth]

No I dont. Didn't you read the papers where those words came from.

Yes I did read those papers, and they didn't say what you claimed.

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

Many aspects of genomic, cellular, and developmental evolution is not evolution as a whole. You do understand this, don't you?

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.

It would help if you didn't misrepresent the science.

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

Notice how the part in blue does not say "evolution as a whole"? The origin of genetic modularity is a small part of evolution as a whole.

Could you at least acknowledge that you have read and understood what I have written?

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

Once again, the problem is that you are misrepresenting the science.

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/

If you don't trust science, then please go elsewhere.

 

[stevevw]

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"

So therefore I go back to what I said originally in that we cant just go on looks. Its the same for evolution, you cant just say one creature looks like it evolved from the other you have to test it and assess it against some sort of measurement. Its a basic principle to not judge a book by its cover so why not with deciding what is designed. Anyone who knows anything about design knows that there is more to it than just looks, you have all the other dimensions that need to be considered such as in engineering, information, maths equations ect.

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.

I did earlier with those papers. Heres some more,

Self-organization vs. self-ordering events in life-origin model
Self-ordering phenomena should not be confused with self-organization. Self-ordering events occur spontaneously according to natural “law” propensities and are purely physicodynamic. Crystallization and the spontaneously forming dissipative structures of Prigogine are examples of self-ordering. Self-ordering phenomena involve no decision nodes, no dynamically-inert configurable switches, no logic gates, no steering toward algorithmic success or “computational halting”. Hypercycles, genetic and evolutionary algorithms, neural nets, and cellular automata have not been shown to self-organize spontaneously into nontrivial functions. Laws and fractals are both compression algorithms containing minimal complexity and information. Organization typically contains large quantities of prescriptive information. Prescriptive information either instructs or directly produces nontrivial optimized algorithmic function at its destination. Prescription requires choice contingency rather than chance contingency or necessity. Organization requires prescription, and is abstract, conceptual, formal, and algorithmic. Organization utilizes a sign/symbol/token system to represent many configurable switch settings. Physical switch settings allow instantiation of nonphysical selections for function into physicality. Switch settings represent choices at successive decision nodes that integrate circuits and instantiate cooperative management into conceptual physical systems. Switch positions must be freely selectable to function as logic gates. Switches must be set according to rules, not laws. Inanimacy cannot “organize” itself. Inanimacy can only self-order. “Self-organization” is without empirical and prediction-fulfilling support. No falsifiable theory of self-organization exists. “Self-organization” provides no mechanism and offers no detailed verifiable explanatory power. Care should be taken not to use the term “self-organization” erroneously to refer to low-informational, natural-process, self-ordering events, especially when discussing genetic information
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1571064506000224


DNA codes and information: formal structures and relational causes.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18465197

Evidence Of Design In Bird Feathers And Avian Respiration
http://www.witpress.com/elibrary/dne-volumes/4/2/399

 

[RickG]

So therefore I go back to what I said originally ...

Question, explain the distribution of the fossil record throughout geologic time without evolution. How did they get distributed in the geologic column without evolution? Did they just pop into existence at the right time and place as to demonstrate evolution?

 

[KCfromNC]

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.

For some reason this point was again "forgotten" by steve during his latest batch of posts. That's an awfully weird situation. He's more than happy to guess at what he thinks he might have kinda read in what he remembers one of my posts might have looked like. But then won't directly address what I've actually written in actual posts which actually exist.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Self-organization vs. self-ordering events in life-origin model
Self-ordering phenomena should not be confused with self-organization. Self-ordering events occur spontaneously according to natural “law” propensities and are purely physicodynamic. Crystallization and the spontaneously forming dissipative structures of Prigogine are examples of self-ordering. Self-ordering phenomena involve no decision nodes, no dynamically-inert configurable switches, no logic gates, no steering toward algorithmic success or “computational halting”. Hypercycles, genetic and evolutionary algorithms, neural nets, and cellular automata have not been shown to self-organize spontaneously into nontrivial functions. Laws and fractals are both compression algorithms containing minimal complexity and information. Organization typically contains large quantities of prescriptive information. Prescriptive information either instructs or directly produces nontrivial optimized algorithmic function at its destination. Prescription requires choice contingency rather than chance contingency or necessity. Organization requires prescription, and is abstract, conceptual, formal, and algorithmic. Organization utilizes a sign/symbol/token system to represent many configurable switch settings. Physical switch settings allow instantiation of nonphysical selections for function into physicality. Switch settings represent choices at successive decision nodes that integrate circuits and instantiate cooperative management into conceptual physical systems. Switch positions must be freely selectable to function as logic gates. Switches must be set according to rules, not laws. Inanimacy cannot “organize” itself. Inanimacy can only self-order. “Self-organization” is without empirical and prediction-fulfilling support. No falsifiable theory of self-organization exists. “Self-organization” provides no mechanism and offers no detailed verifiable explanatory power. Care should be taken not to use the term “self-organization” erroneously to refer to low-informational, natural-process, self-ordering events, especially when discussing genetic information
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1571064506000224

I was puzzled that the article uses a different definition for 'self-organization' than the mainstream sciences - then I found it was by David Abel, an Intelligent Design creationist who runs the 'Origin of Life Foundation' from - his garage

 

[KCfromNC]

Evidence Of Design In Bird Feathers And Avian Respiration
http://www.witpress.com/elibrary/dne-volumes/4/2/399

Seriously? Come on, if we're all supposed to pretend that this isn't a discussion of your religious faith you're going to have to try a bit harder than a paper written by someone who claims that evolution violates thermodynamics. Do you even read this stuff or just do keyword searches and hope for the best?

ETA - Well, looks like we're two for three on the "creationists pretending to be actual scientists" game this time around. When you can only find creationists to back up your claims, perhaps it is time to admit you're peddling creationism in one form or another.

 

[stevevw]

You could just has answered no.

I like to qualify my answers, nothing worse than someone disagreeing with stating why.

Metaphysics is not allowed in science.

Who said anything about metaphysics. If you look back over my replies I am probably the only one who is supplying scientific support for what I say.

So, as again, your only problem is a religious one, not a scientific your arguments are void.

How is that when I havnt mentioned religion in any of my replies. Your just trying to push the debate into a religion verses science one rather than dealing with the evidence.

 

[stevevw]

Seriously? Come on, if we're all supposed to pretend that this isn't a discussion of your religious faith you're going to have to try a bit harder than a paper written by someone who claims that evolution violates thermodynamics. Do you even read this stuff or just do keyword searches and hope for the best?

ETA - Well, looks like we're two for three on the "creationists pretending to be actual scientists" game this time around. When you can only find creationists to back up your claims, perhaps it is time to admit you're peddling creationism in one form or another.

How is it I may have one paper and its way more than about thermodynamics. These are peer reviewed papers which deserve just as much consideration as any other papers. But I find it strange how people are now attacking the person and the source rather than debate the content. If I were a creationists I would not believe that the earth is old nor consider theistic evolution a possibility.

 

[stevevw]

I was puzzled that the article uses a different definition for 'self-organization' than the mainstream sciences - then I found it was by David Abel, an Intelligent Design creationist who runs the 'Origin of Life Foundation' from - his garage

Of course as soon as you find that out you discard the paper which has been peer reviewed. Luckily the people who decide what is allowed are not like you.

 

[stevevw]

For some reason this point was again "forgotten" by steve during his latest batch of posts. That's an awfully weird situation. He's more than happy to guess at what he thinks he might have kinda read in what he remembers one of my posts might have looked like. But then won't directly address what I've actually written in actual posts which actually exist.

Like I say I am replying to several people at the same time and it seems as time goes on more people are jumping in. Plus as I stated before I have to dedicate time to studying so I am going to miss some posts. Its not that I am avoiding replying as you assumed but that I didn't see it in the first place or seen it but either forgot to get back to it because of time and dealing with other posts that are just as relevant to the poster.

So in replying to this post
KCfromNC said
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.

I have never said that natural selection does not occur so if you can find a post that state I said it doesn't occur then you might have a point. I have even said that it is one of several forces. I think it is you who is misreading what I said.

 

[stevevw]

Question, explain the distribution of the fossil record throughout geologic time without evolution. How did they get distributed in the geologic column without evolution? Did they just pop into existence at the right time and place as to demonstrate evolution?

I havnt stated anything about a process of how life was distributed or came about. As I said earlier I dont know how exactly life came about. I have merely stated that it didn't come from a process that is blind and naturalistic that claims that it can create itself through producing complex genetic networks from no predetermined or set processes. The evidence I supplied supports this which shows non adaptive process such as developmental bias show preset and pre determined pathways and is not based on a blind process. The fossil record could also be the result of this where life is tapping into preexisting genetic info to evolve into the various forms.

But its more complicated than that. Interpretations of things like transitions and what species are and the assumptions of certain creatures came first or in particular order ect are all based on observations and personal interpretations. Evidence from other sources such as genomics are showing contradictory evidence against some of these assumptions.

What I find ironic is that some will discard all the scientific evidence of genomics and other verifiable tests that show that evolution through blind natural selection and random mutations cannot be capable of creating such complex functional life and that there are other reasons and instead base their support for evolution on an observation that is more subject to personal interpretation and thus can be more unreliable.

 

[VirOptimus]

I like to qualify my answers, nothing worse than someone disagreeing with stating why.
Who said anything about metaphysics. If you look back over my replies I am probably the only one who is supplying scientific support for what I say.
How is that when I havnt mentioned religion in any of my replies. Your just trying to push the debate into a religion verses science one rather than dealing with the evidence.

You mention design and that evolution isnt "blind".

Thats a way for you to sneak in your god.

You are not fooling anyone.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Of course as soon as you find that out you discard the paper which has been peer reviewed. Luckily the people who decide what is allowed are not like you.

I read the paper, and it's an attempt to redefine self-organization using a bunch of straw man arguments constructed from the obvious and obscured by verbiage.

The source of the paper illuminates its vacuity.

 

[RickG]

I havnt stated anything about a process of how life was distributed or came about. As I said earlier I dont know how exactly life came about. I have merely stated that it didn't come from a process that is blind and naturalistic that claims that it can create itself through producing complex genetic networks from no predetermined or set processes. The evidence I supplied supports this which shows non adaptive process such as developmental bias show preset and pre determined pathways and is not based on a blind process. The fossil record could also be the result of this where life is tapping into preexisting genetic info to evolve into the various forms.

But its more complicated than that. Interpretations of things like transitions and what species are and the assumptions of certain creatures came first or in particular order ect are all based on observations and personal interpretations. Evidence from other sources such as genomics are showing contradictory evidence against some of these assumptions.

What I find ironic is that some will discard all the scientific evidence of genomics and other verifiable tests that show that evolution through blind natural selection and random mutations cannot be capable of creating such complex functional life and that there are other reasons and instead base their support for evolution on an observation that is more subject to personal interpretation and thus can be more unreliable.

I didn't ask how life started, nor do I care anything about genetics or transition fossils. I asked you explain the distribution of the fossil record throughout geologic time without evolution. How did they get distributed in the geologic column without evolution? Did they just pop into existence at the right time and place as to demonstrate evolution?

 

[KCfromNC]

How is it I may have one paper and its way more than about thermodynamics. These are peer reviewed papers which deserve just as much consideration as any other papers.

How many of the authors and editors from this journal are part of creationist propaganda groups? Are those really the sort of people you want to rely on to demonstrate that you're not arguing for creationism here?