Where did the laws of nature come from?

[KCfromNC]

I have never said that natural selection does not occur

You said it was negligible. And then proceeded to post a paper which says it is one of the four fundamental forces driving evolution as "proof" of that claim - all the while doing your best to find quotes which made it look like the paper was saying the opposite.

If you need to prop up your religion that way no one can stop you. But at least understand why I've been saying you're quote-mining rather than actually understanding the context of what you're posting.

 

[RickG]

Are they peer reviewed?

They're from a medical journal which isn't really applicable to the argument and nothing more than a Gish Gallop.

 

[Astrophile]

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 etc. 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.

Let me try another tack. Let's start from the observation that all life comes from life of the same kind. To put it another way, every living thing has parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, great-great-grandparents, and so on, indefinitely far into the past.

You agree that the Earth is very old, so I take it that you accept that the sedimentary rocks, with the fossils they contain, were deposited over billions of years, that is, they weren't deposited in a single cataclysmic event, like Noah's flood. Equally important, such animals as Jurassic ammonites, Silurian planktonic graptolites and Cambrian trilobites lived tens or hundreds of millions of years apart; they were not contemporary. Do you agree with me so far?

Ever since the time of William Smith, scientists have observed that each geological system, series and stage has its characteristic fossils. One doesn't find fossil humans in Miocene or earlier rocks, or birds, dinosaurs or ichthyosaurs in Permian or Carboniferous rocks. However, since every living thing has an unbroken chain of ancestors extending indefinitely far into the past, humans must have had Miocene and earlier ancestors, and birds, dinosaurs, ichthyosaurs, etc., must have had Permian and Carboniferous ancestors. It follows, then, that humans must be descended from Miocene and earlier ancestors that were not human, and that birds, for example, must be descended from Permian and Carboniferous ancestors that were not birds.

To clarify this point, you and I may not be descended from Aristotle, but we are certainly descended from people who lived at the same time as him. We may not be descended from Australopithecus afarensis, but we must be descended from some species of non-human primates that lived at the same time.

Please think carefully about what I have written. If you disagree with me, please explain where you think that I have gone wrong, and try to offer a better explanation of the observed facts. If you do not understand my reasoning, let me know, and I will try to explain it more clearly.

 

[KCfromNC]

Based on previous posts, you're probably going to get some vague hand-waving about genetic information for basic structures being there from the beginning. The definition of genetic information, what a basic structure is and so on will change as necessary to keep the rationalization going. Don't bother to ask how this information got there in the first place - god did it but we're supposed to pretend we don't know that's what is driving this. And ignore the fact that reactivation of idle DNA is mutation and would be selected on - scientists are wrong if they think that selection drives evolution or mutation can change the information content of DNA.

Oh, and there were mammalian body plans already designed in the Cambrian but their DNA was just dormant or some such.

Anyone want to jump in with anything important I've missed?

Oh yeah, the handful of known examples of horizontal gene transfer in primates was the main thing which differentiates humans from chimps or some such. Never could figure out how the math on that one worked - but then again the whole thing got dropped so maybe I wasn't the only one.

 

[Astrophile]

Based on previous posts, you're probably going to get some vague hand-waving about genetic information for basic structures being there from the beginning. The definition of genetic information, what a basic structure is and so on will change as necessary to keep the rationalization going. Don't bother to ask how this information got there in the first place - god did it but we're supposed to pretend we don't know that's what is driving this. And ignore the fact that reactivation of idle DNA is mutation and would be selected on - scientists are wrong if they think that selection drives evolution or mutation can change the information content of DNA.

Oh, and there were mammalian body plans already designed in the Cambrian but their DNA was just dormant or some such.

Anyone want to jump in with anything important I've missed?

Oh yeah, the handful of known examples of horizontal gene transfer in primates was the main thing which differentiates humans from chimps or some such. Never could figure out how the math on that one worked - but then again the whole thing got dropped so maybe I wasn't the only one.

Thank-you for your reply. However, my post was not so much about genetics as about what our Miocene ancestors, or the Permian and Carboniferous ancestors of birds, dinosaurs, ichthyosaurs, etc., actually looked like and how a biologist would classify them.

 

[KCfromNC]

Thank-you for your reply. However, my post was not so much about genetics as about what our Miocene ancestors, or the Permian and Carboniferous ancestors of birds, dinosaurs, ichthyosaurs, etc., actually looked like and how a biologist would classify them.

However they would be classified, be assured that their basic body plans were already put in place by an intelligent designer at the beginning. And if you find features that weren't around in earlier species, those features aren't part of a basic body plan by definition, since basic body plans were all put in place by god, uh, an intelligent designer at the beginning.

 

[Michael]

“DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.”

 

[RealityCheck01]

So what about a month or two months ago or 12 months ago or two years ago when I said things like natural selection plays a minor role or not much role at all

The same points would apply. The papers you cited do not say natural selection has a "minor role or not much role at all" or "negligible and/or minimal". We could also have
5 August 2016 stevevw: A Lynch citation to a quote starting "all four major forces play a substantial role in genomic evolution" explicitly debunks a "minor role or not much role at all" claim.
But you already know that Lynch debunks your claim no matter how you rephrase it.

19 July 2016 stevevw: Three citations that do not state "Natural selection (adaptive forces) are negligible and/or minimal..." !
19 July 2016 stevevw: 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"?
21 July 2016 stevevw: The hint of cherry picking sources to suit your case even when they do not support you.
21 July 2016 stevevw: Like "not a giant" does not mean "is a dwarf".

28 July 2016 stevevw: The record of the "negligible and/or minimal" assertion.

29 July 2016 stevevw: "many aspects of genomic, cellular, and developmental evolution" is not all or even most of evolution !

29 July 2016 stevevw: Quote mining to hide the context of a quote is bad scholarship. Lynch states that "all four major forces play a substantial role in genomic evolution".

29 July 2016 stevevw: Cutting references from a quote is not good scholarship.

 

[stevevw]

You mention design and that evolution isnt "blind".

Thats a way for you to sneak in your god.

You are not fooling anyone.

Your argument is built on a false premise. Your trying to make out that if someone is associated with God or religion, that they havnt got a brain, are automatically wrong and dont have the capacity to hold both positions while being aware of that and not allowing it to taint the evidence. My argument isn't based on the words blind and design and there's a whole lot more evidence that you are dismissing. But because you choose to only focus on those two words shows that you are the one who is biased by allowing that to blind you from the rest of the debate.

 

[VirOptimus]

Your argument is built on a false premise. Your trying to make out that if someone is associated with God or religion, that they havnt got a brain, are automatically wrong and dont have the capacity to hold both positions while being aware of that and not allowing it to taint the evidence. My argument isn't based on the words blind and design and there's a whole lot more evidence that you are dismissing. But because you choose to only focus on those two words shows that you are the one who is biased by allowing that to blind you from the rest of the debate.

You havent shown anything, you misrepresent the science through your filter, through your belief.

Time and time again you are called on it, your arguments are shown to be faulty or outright lies but you never admit it. You always double down. That is not how a scienctific debate works.

If you want to challange the science, write an article for peer-review.

Many scientists belive in god(s) and do excellent science, but that is because they leave their belief out of their science. I dont care what you belive or what god(s) you think exist as long as you dont try to sneak it into the science.

 

[stevevw]

You havent shown anything, you misrepresent the science through your filter, through your belief

You need to show how rather then make empty assertions. Haven't shown anything is just as much an extreme claim "that science wouldn't make" as you want to say how science operates. Saying I have shown nothing is a false assertion as I have already shown that an acknowledgement that the papers do question natural selection. Whether some want to say its a particular thing thats in question or something different the fact is natural selection is being questioned. So your assertion has been proven wrong already which then questions your motives and ability to see things clearly and in balance because you have denied the obvious. I stated this before and still you keep to this totally proven wrong which shows that you are not looking at the evidence but persisting with a blind assertion.

Time and time again you are called on it, your arguments are shown to be faulty or outright lies but you never admit it. You always double down. That is not how a scientific debate works.

Ah it wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that those who are calling me on it are supporters of evolution and maybe they are also biased. I have only been challenged on one point, and what has been said isn't my views by the way but what the papers say. The point is that the papers I posted state that natural selection is either insufficient, has inability, not necessary, negligible, minimal for evolving gene networks. The papers even say that naturals election can cause the opposite of evolving complex gene networks.

Some said that the papers were not applying to natural selection and somehow it is not really saying these things which is wrong because its there is black and white. So they are the ones who are maybe not acknowledging the truth. Some said that the papers were applying to specific situations for natural selection being able to evolve gene networks like only complex life. So you tell me how I am lying. Its a simple debate about natural selections capability. You tell me how I am wrong in regards to these papers.

The reason I am persisting isn't because I am doubling down, its because I believe I am correct about these papers and wont back down. Scientists get into debates all the time, look at Dawkins. They stick to their views no matter what as well. It seems you are placing unreal demands on me and not others and because I have been sticking to what I have said rather than show me how I am wrong and engage in debate you are now attacking my credibility which is a false argument anyway.

If you want to challenge the science, write an article for peer-review

So your now saying anyone who ever challenges the science on this debate site cannot do it unless they write a paper on it. Well we may as well shut down the site because you have just discounted just about all the people on here that will participate in the debate. So in other words it is OK for people supporting evolution to not supply any papers for what they say because they are right anyway no matter what and anyone that disagrees can only disagree if they write a paper.

Many scientists believe in god(s) and do excellent science, but that is because they leave their belief out of their science. I dont care what you believe or what god(s) you think exist as long as you dont try to sneak it into the science.

I also leave my beliefs out of the science by supplying scientific papers for what I have said. You do realize that non believers do criticize evolution and question things like natural selections ability. The papers I have posted just happen to be some of them. If you really believe what you say about how science works then you would know that part of this is questioning what has been proposed. That is how Einstein came up with his theory to show that Newton was wrong about gravity. So you should be embracing these papers and not rejecting them like they are some creationists ploy.

 

[stevevw]

The same points would apply. The papers you cited do not say natural selection has a "minor role or not much role at all" or "negligible and/or minimal".

I am not sure what you are saying here. Are you saying because the papers are not saying those exact words then what I am saying is false. Or are you saying the words the papers use such as insufficient and negligible dont really mean natural selection is insufficient or negligible when it comes to evolving gene networks and complexity.

We could also have 5 August 2016 stevevw: A Lynch citation to a quote starting "all four major forces play a substantial role in genomic evolution" explicitly debunks a "minor role or not much role at all" claim.
But you already know that Lynch debunks your claim no matter how you rephrase it.

How does Lynch debunk my claim. Look at that entire section and you see where he places natural selection. Natural selection may play a substantial role but its not in evolving complex gene networks and Lynch clearly states this. As stated earlier natural selection may play a bigger role in refining features but not creating them and that may be more about taking out the weak aspects and losing info than gaining it.


The goal here is to dispel a number of myths regarding the evolution of organismal complexity (Table 1). Given that life originated from inorganic matter, it is clear that there has been an increase in phenotypic complexity over the past 3.5 billion years, although long-term stasis has been the predominant pattern in most lineages. What is in question is whether natural selection is a necessary or sufficient force to explain the emergence of the genomic and cellular features central to the building of complex organisms.


Second, all four major forces play a substantial role in genomic evolution. 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 or in other words (natural selection) my emphasis.


So how does natural selection play a substantial role in the actual building of genetic networks when Lynch clearly states that

What is in question is whether natural selection is a necessary or sufficient force to explain the emergence of the genomic and cellular features central to the building of complex organisms.

many aspects of genomic, cellular, and developmental evolution can only be understood by invoking a negligible level of adaptive involvement or (natural selection , my emphasis).

The above statemnet clearly says that natural selection doesn't not and cannot be responsible for genomic complexity. If you read the rest of the paper he quailifies that complexity as being everything after simple single celled life.

 

[Loudmouth]

You need to show how rather then make empty assertions.

We have shown. Time and again, you reword scientific articles to make them say things they never actually said. For example, a paper will say that natural selection had "a negligible role in producing complex genetic networks." You will reword that to read, "natural selection has a negligible role in evolution." Notice how the words change?

You do this over and over and over.

 

[Loudmouth]

I am not sure what you are saying here. Are you saying because the papers are not saying those exact words then what I am saying is false.

DING DING DING DING!!!!!!!

We have a winner!!!

How does Lynch debunk my claim. Look at that entire section and you see where he places natural selection. Natural selection may play a substantial role but its not in evolving complex gene networks and Lynch clearly states this.

You keep trying to claim that natural selection plays a negligible role. Period. Do you understand why leaving out the specifics is misrepresenting the science?

 

[RickG]

We have shown. Time and again, you reword scientific articles to make them say things they never actually said. For example, a paper will say that natural selection had "a negligible role in producing complex genetic networks." You will reword that to read, "natural selection has a negligible role in evolution." Notice how the words change?

You do this over and over and over.

My guess is he is taking it directly from the "creation science" literature which is well know for quote mines and deliberate misrepresentations.

 

[stevevw]

We have shown. Time and again, you reword scientific articles to make them say things they never actually said. For example, a paper will say that natural selection had "a negligible role in producing complex genetic networks." You will reword that to read, "natural selection has a negligible role in evolution." Notice how the words change?

You do this over and over and over.

Ok so first off you now acknowledge that the papers say the role of natural selections in evolving complex gene networks is negligible and insufficient which is something I was having a hard time pinning you down on.

Second what are gene networks or complex genetic networks which are both mentioned and how do they come about according to evolution theory. According to evolution these networks evolve. How else would they say they came about. You just have to use logic and common sense to know they are talking about evolution. The reason they are questioning natural selections role is because that is what has been said to be one of the main forces for evolution. Why else would the paper be questioning natural selections role if it wasn't about evolution.

I have said that the papers are saying that natural selection has inability, is insufficient, is negligible in evolving gene networks and complex life. The papers states clearly at its introduction that it is speaking about gene evolution which is evolution. That is what is evolved, the protein sequences and genetic networks, are what produce the features we see which is what evolution theory is all about. The paper then states things like this

There is no consistent tendency of evolution towards increased genomic complexity

Evolutionary-genomic studies show that natural selection is only one of the forces that shape genome evolution and is not quantitatively dominant
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2651812/

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.

It has long been known that natural selection is just one of several mechanisms of evolutionary change, but the myth that all of evolution can be explained by adaptation continues to be perpetuated by our continued homage to Darwin's treatise

cellular, and developmental evolution can only be understood by invoking a negligible level of adaptive involvement

The literature is permeated with dogmatic statements that natural selection is the only guiding force of evolution

And this section is speaking about the ability and role of natural selection in evolving all complex life (eukaryotes) after the rise of single celled prokaryotes life. So this is talking about all life which is what evolution is about.

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

So how is it not evolution. You are also trying to make things so fixed on particular words as to make it a blinkered view of things to take things out of context and do exactly what you are accusing me of. I am just putting it in everyday language that is so often used in these debates so that it is clear about what the papers are actually saying.

 

[stevevw]

My guess is he is taking it directly from the "creation science" literature which is well know for quote mines and deliberate misrepresentations.

You havnt been following the debate and I am surprised to be honest for someone who is a believer and also supports aspects of evolution that you take this stand. It only confirms to me that some choose to just see the debate in two camps evolution and creationism. I haven't supplied any support from creationists sites and if you check all the papers come from mainstream scientists and sites who actually support evolution in some ways. The arguments are based on the scientific evidence.

 

[stevevw]

DING DING DING DING!!!!!!!

We have a winner!!!


You keep trying to claim that natural selection plays a negligible role. Period. Do you understand why leaving out the specifics is misrepresenting the science?

the paper does say natural selection plays a negligible role in evolution.

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 (or natural selection) my emphasis.
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl_1/8597.full

 

[stevevw]

You said it was negligible. And then proceeded to post a paper which says it is one of the four fundamental forces driving evolution as "proof" of that claim - all the while doing your best to find quotes which made it look like the paper was saying the opposite.

If you need to prop up your religion that way no one can stop you. But at least understand why I've been saying you're quote-mining rather than actually understanding the context of what you're posting.

I said it was negligible as the paper stated for evolving gene networks which is another way of saying creating gene networks. The basis for may who support evolution is that natural selection and random mutations are what evolves all the complexity and variety we see. They give natural selection an all powerful and elevated position. These papers are just bring natural selection down to where it really should be. If you read the paper it clearly states what role natural selection plays over and over again. You are the one now taking things out of context and finding quotes to suit by focusing on this one quote in isolation.

AS stated before natural selection may play a role that is not associated with the the evolution of gene networks themselves but act as a refiner which is still a role. I have never said that natural doesn't happen. I am challenging the power it has been given by supporters of Darwin's theory which places natural selection as the main and only force for the evolution of everything. It has been used to account for everything from why people get along to complexity of DNA. The papers challenge this overuse with scientific evidence showing there are other forces that are more responsible for how gene networks come about. This is not an unknown topic in evolutionary circles and I cant believe that some are denying this.

If the papers are not stating that natural selection plays a negligible, or insufficient role then what do these statements mean

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/

This Analysis shows that many of the qualitative features of known transcriptional networks can arise readily through the non-adaptive processes of genetic drift, mutation and recombination, raising questions about whether natural selection is necessary or even sufficient for the origin of many aspects of gene-network topologies.
http://www.nature.com/nrg/journal/v8/n10/abs/nrg2192.html

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

the paper does say natural selection plays a negligible role in evolution.

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 (or natural selection) my emphasis.
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl_1/8597.full

I notice your quote says "many aspects of genomic, cellular, and developmental evolution", i.e. not all of evolution.

In the paper itself, we can discover what is hidden by such cherry picking:

"First, evolution is a population-genetic process governed by four fundamental forces. Darwin articulated one of those forces, the process of natural selection... The remaining three evolutionary forces are nonadaptive in the sense that they are not a function of the fitness properties of individuals.
... all four major forces play a substantial role in genomic evolution."

So we can see explicit acknowledgement that natural selection is the only evolutionary force that is adaptive, i.e. a function of fitness, and it plays a substantial role in genomic evolution.

'nuff said.