Where did the laws of nature come from?

[KCfromNC]

I have always stated that natural selection plays a role in evolution. I have just questioned what role and the level of ability for evolving the proteins and gene networks that are required for life. I have stated this from the beginning and I have stated this for a long time of this site.

If you want to pretend you never wrote the claims which I was discussing, that's on you. Anyone who is interested can look back and see the original claim and notice how different it is from what you're saying it was now.

Do I detect a little back tracking now.

No, that's just me again reminding you that you're not very good at trying to put words in my mouth.

 

[KCfromNC]

Yes that little section just underneath the portion you keep referring to that I have asked you to comment on several times now.

I commented on it when you first posted it, back when you thought it supported your assertion that natural selection was negligible. If you're really that interested in what I said nothing's stopping you from going back and reading. It still has nothing to do with that claim you're now running away from, though, so I don't see the point.

Is it really that hard to just admit you were wrong? Why the need for all these attempts at distraction?

 

[stevevw]

I haven't read the studies, but dollars to donuts, I guarantee their own conclusions are not what you're purporting them to be. I don't trust creationist interpretations of scientific papers, they've never gotten it right. Not once.

And I dont trust people who make judgements without checking first and basing things on assumptions and their own personal bias. As I stated I am not a creationists but it seems your using that excuse before you even check out the evidence. Thats like claiming someones guilty before they even get a chance to walk into the court room. That speaks a lot about where your coming from.

 

[stevevw]

I commented on it when you first posted it, back when you thought it supported your assertion that natural selection was negligible. If you're really that interested in what I said nothing's stopping you from going back and reading. It still has nothing to do with that claim you're now running away from, though, so I don't see the point.

yes it does, it exactly supports what I said that we can only use a negligible level of natural selection for the evolution of genomic, cellular, and developmental evolution.

Is it really that hard to just admit you were wrong? Why the need for all these attempts at distraction?

Why would I admit I am wrong when its there in black and white that it supports exactly what I said. We seem to be going around in circles. I asked you a simple question to answer and you avoid it by making me have to search back in pages of posts. Its a simple request to explain what the statement means.

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

You just cant bring yourself to admit the obvious can you. A plain reading shows it is saying that we can only use a negligible level of natural selection for the evolution of genomic, cellular, and developmental evolution.

As with your earlier admissions the same logic applies. When I asked what these statements meant you stated

Statement from paper.
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/

KCfromNC replied
This means that complexity may not be the result of selection. That has nothing to do with your claim that selection is negligible, just that it isn't the only thing which drives evolution. Didn't I correct you on this multiple times already?

Statement from paper.
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

KCfromNC replied
This means that transcriptional networks may not be the result of selection. That has nothing to do with your claim that selection is negligible, just that it isn't the only thing which drives evolution.

When the statemnet said there's no tendency of evolution towards increased complexity your answer was this means that complexity may not be the result of selection. Which is the logical and correct answer.

So therefore the same applies for the further statemnet the same paper made that many aspects of genomic, cellular, and developmental evolution can only be understood by invoking a negligible level of adaptive involvement IE

This means that genomic, cellular, and developmental evolution have negligible levels of adaptive forces and may not be the result of natural selection.

So that supports exactly what I said. But from memory you didn't admit this to begin with. So finally you are starting to acknowledged what the papers are saying.

 

[HitchSlap]

And I dont trust people who make judgements without checking first and basing things on assumptions and their own personal bias. As I stated I am not a creationists but it seems your using that excuse before you even check out the evidence. Thats like claiming someones guilty before they even get a chance to walk into the court room. That speaks a lot about where your coming from.

So what is the point you're trying to make?

 

[stevevw]

So what is the point you're trying to make?

If you were to go back over the posts you would find a books worth of explanation as I have had to repeat myself over and over again. The papers are showing that natural selection is unable, insufficient, and can even be a set back for evolving genomic, cellular and transcriptional networks and that non adaptive forces are more responsible. The evidence doesn't match how natural selection works with life adapting through a blind process of sifting through many possible combinations for which many are negative or non functional to build the specific forms for life. The evidence shows that non adaptive forces such as development genetic biases which provide set paths that life can develop along and produce certain forms which are consistent across even distantly related life rather than blindly trying to find the right stuff for life through a adaptations.

Life works with environments rather than trying to adapt to them by drawing genetic material from the surrounding environment through processes like HGT and symbiosis. Creatures can change forms in development biology rather than through adaptations. Extra genetic material can be passed on which changes how creatures behave and develop. Creatures can change environments to suit themselves rather than change themselves to suit environments known as. These are all non adaptive forces which are responsible for how life changes and account for the high levels of complexity and variety which evolution through natural selection and mutations alone cant account for.

Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? Yes, urgently

We believe that the EES (extra evolutionary synthesis) will shed new light on how evolution works. We hold that organisms are constructed in development, not simply ‘programmed’ to develop by genes. Living things do not evolve to fit into pre-existing environments, but co-construct and coevolve with their environments, in the process changing the structure of ecosystems.

The number of biologists calling for change in how evolution is conceptualized is growing rapidly. Strong support comes from allied disciplines, particularly developmental biology, but also genomics, epigenetics, ecology and social science1, 2. We contend that evolutionary biology needs revision if it is to benefit fully from these other disciplines. The data supporting our position gets stronger every day.

The story that SET (standard evolutionary theory) tells is simple: new variation arises through random genetic mutation; inheritance occurs through DNA; and natural selection is the sole cause of adaptation, the process by which organisms become well-suited to their environments. In this view, the complexity of biological development — the changes that occur as an organism grows and ages — are of secondary, even minor, importance.

In our view, this ‘gene-centric’ focus fails to capture the full gamut of processes that direct evolution. Missing pieces include how physical development influences the generation of variation (developmental bias); how the environment directly shapes organisms’ traits (plasticity); how organisms modify environments (niche construction); and how organisms transmit more than genes across generations (extra-genetic inheritance). For SET, these phenomena are just outcomes of evolution. For the EES , they are also causes.

Valuable insight into the causes of adaptation and the appearance of new traits comes from the field of evolutionary developmental biology (‘evo-devo’). Some of its experimental findings are proving tricky to assimilate into SET. Particularly thorny is the observation that much variation is not random because developmental processes generate certain forms more readily than others.

In our view, this concept — developmental bias — helps to explain how organisms adapt to their environments and diversify into many different species. For example, cichlid fishes in Lake Malawi are more closely related to other cichlids in Lake Malawi than to those in Lake Tanganyika, but species in both lakes have strikingly similar body shapes4. In each case, some fish have large fleshy lips, others protruding foreheads, and still others short, robust lower jaws.

SET explains such parallels as convergent evolution: similar environmental conditions select for random genetic variation with equivalent results. This account requires extraordinary coincidence to explain the multiple parallel forms that evolved independently in each lake. A more succinct hypothesis is that developmental bias and natural selection work together4, 5. Rather than selection being free to traverse across any physical possibility, it is guided along specific routes opened up by the processes of development5, 6.
http://www.nature.com/news/does-evolutionary-theory-need-a-rethink-1.16080

 

[HitchSlap]

If you were to go back over the posts you would find a books worth of explanation as I have had to repeat myself over and over again. The papers are showing that natural selection is unable, insufficient, and can even be a set back for evolving genomic, cellular and transcriptional networks and that non adaptive forces are more responsible. The evidence doesn't match how natural selection works with life adapting through a blind process of sifting through many possible combinations for which many are negative or non functional to build the specific forms for life. The evidence shows that non adaptive forces such as development genetic biases which provide set paths that life can develop along and produce certain forms which are consistent across even distantly related life rather than blindly trying to find the right stuff for life through a adaptations.

Life works with environments rather than trying to adapt to them by drawing genetic material from the surrounding environment through processes like HGT and symbiosis. Creatures can change forms in development biology rather than through adaptations. Extra genetic material can be passed on which changes how creatures behave and develop. Creatures can change environments to suit themselves rather than change themselves to suit environments known as. These are all non adaptive forces which are responsible for how life changes and account for the high levels of complexity and variety which evolution through natural selection and mutations alone cant account for.

Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?
The story that SET (standard evolutionary theory)tells is simple: new variation arises through random genetic mutation; inheritance occurs through DNA; and natural selection is the sole cause of adaptation, the process by which organisms become well-suited to their environments. In this view, the complexity of biological development — the changes that occur as an organism grows and ages — are of secondary, even minor, importance.

In our view, this ‘gene-centric’ focus fails to capture the full gamut of processes that direct evolution. Missing pieces include how physical development influences the generation of variation (developmental bias); how the environment directly shapes organisms’ traits (plasticity); how organisms modify environments (niche construction); and how organisms transmit more than genes across generations (extra-genetic inheritance). For SET, these phenomena are just outcomes of evolution. For the EES (extra evolutionary synthesis), they are also causes.

Valuable insight into the causes of adaptation and the appearance of new traits comes from the field of evolutionary developmental biology (‘evo-devo’). Some of its experimental findings are proving tricky to assimilate into SET. Particularly thorny is the observation that much variation is not random because developmental processes generate certain forms more readily than others.
http://www.nature.com/news/does-evolutionary-theory-need-a-rethink-1.16080

Which means what...to you?

 

[stevevw]

Which means what...to you?

It means exactly what the papers are saying. many supporters of evolution take the view that natural selection accounts for everything we see. This relies on a blind process to find a needle in the hay stack of specific structures that make functional life. The evidence doesn't show this. It shows that life is more guided and develops along more specific paths where the needed specific codes are available to be utilized through the environment and other life sharing that environment. Natural selection then comes in as a fine tuner for life. It doesn't create life it just refines what is already existing.

This fits better with what we see with things like the Cambrian explosion where a vast amount of complex variety came about quickly. Natural selection would have needed a very long time of evolving different lines of transitions that would often evolve the wrong non functional life to eventually get the functional specific forms we see today. The evidence doesn't show this it shows complexity early and suddenly, it points to preexisting info being there to be utilized somehow. It shows life can develop through other processes besides natural selection which has no direction and random mutations.

 

[HitchSlap]

It means exactly what the papers are saying. many supporters of evolution take the view that natural selection accounts for everything we see. This relies on a blind process to find a needle in the hay stack specific structures that make functional life. The evidence doesn't show this. It shows that life is more guided and develops along more specific paths where the needed specific codes are available to be utilized through the environment and other life sharing that environment. Natural selection then comes in as a fine tuner for life. It doesn't create life it just refines what is already existing. This fits better with what we see with things like the Cambrian explosion where a vast amount of complex variety came about quickly. Natural selection would have needed a very long time of evolving different lines of transitions that would often evolve the wrong non functional life to eventually get the functional specific forms we see today. The evidence doesn't show this it shows complexity early and suddenly, it points to preexisting info being there to be utilized somehow. It shows life can develop through other processes besides natural selection which has no direction and random mutations.

Lol. I was waiting for the "goddidit."

I don't think the authors of that paper are cdesign proponentsists.

 

[stevevw]

Lol. I was waiting for the "goddidit."

I don't think the authors of that paper are cdesign proponentsists.

Of course not, none of the authors or papers are religious or from any religious organization and not that this would automatically make them wrong. No one is saying anything about Goddidit. They are saying that the way some make out that natural selection is all powerful to be able to account for everything from why we get angry to complex cells is unproven and doesn't fit the evidence. There are more set paths that life follows which fits the evidence better and makes more sense. These are logical scientific arguments which are supported by scientific evidence and not based on religious thought. In some ways they are saying what you are claiming Goddidit by saying that some make out that (naturalselectiondidit) and giving natural selection a god like power.ie from Micheal Lynches paper
The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity

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.

The literature is permeated with dogmatic statements that natural selection is the only guiding force of evolution, with mutation creating variation but never controlling the ultimate direction of evolutionary change

This stance is not very different from the intelligent-design philosophy of invoking unknown mechanisms to explain biodiversity. Although those who promote the concept of the adaptive evolution of the above features are by no means intelligent-design advocates, the burden of evidence for invoking an all-powerful guiding hand of natural selection should be no less stringent than one would demand of a creationist. If evolutionary science is to move forward, the standards of the field should be set no lower than in any other area of inquiry.
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl_1/8597.full

 

[HitchSlap]

Of course not, none of the authors or papers are religious or from any religious organization and not that this would automatically make them wrong. No one is saying anything about Goddidit. They are saying that the way some make out that natural selection is all powerful to be able to account for everything from why we get angry to complex cells is unproven and doesn't fit the evidence. There are more set paths that life follows which fits the evidence better and makes more sense. These are logical scientific arguments which are supported by scientific evidence and not based on religious thought. In some ways they are saying what you are claiming Goddidit by saying that some make out that (naturalselectiondidit) and giving natural selection a god like power.ie from Micheal Lynches paper
The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity

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.

The literature is permeated with dogmatic statements that natural selection is the only guiding force of evolution, with mutation creating variation but never controlling the ultimate direction of evolutionary change

This stance is not very different from the intelligent-design philosophy of invoking unknown mechanisms to explain biodiversity. Although those who promote the concept of the adaptive evolution of the above features are by no means intelligent-design advocates, the burden of evidence for invoking an all-powerful guiding hand of natural selection should be no less stringent than one would demand of a creationist. If evolutionary science is to move forward, the standards of the field should be set no lower than in any other area of inquiry.
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl_1/8597.full

I stand by my previous statement regarding creationists, and their deliberate misrepresentation of the data.

 

[KCfromNC]

yes it does, it exactly supports what I said that we can only use a negligible level of natural selection for the evolution of genomic, cellular, and developmental evolution.

Is that "from memory"? Here's what you actually claimed :

Natural selection (adaptive forces) are negligible and/or minimal when it comes to how life can change and develop.

As I've said repeatedly, if you're retreating from your original claim don't let me stop you. But at least be honest about it.

[snipped a bunch of quotes which don't say what you wish they did]

You might want to learn what the word "may" means. It'll help you understand what I mean when I write sentences which include that word.

 

[RickG]

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

I think an important thing to take from that paper is the understanding of "population" genetics. By that I believe the most important thing is not so much the details in genetics, but rather the understanding that it is populations that evolve, not individuals.

And frankly, I think the worst arguments for evolution are those of specific details in genetics, DNA, etc.. The easiest argument to understand and observe showing evolution is that of the fossil record. But that too can get off track with semantics such as transitions fossils. In reality, transitional fossils are not necessary to show evolution. All that is needed to see evolution in progress is the progression of the fossil record with nothing out of order. If evolution were false, we would find fossils of all life forms in all layers of sedimentary strata. The fact is, all life forms are found in specific layers of strata that we would expect to see with evolution.

 

[Loudmouth]

Many aspects of cellular evolution is talking about how single celled life evolved into complex multi celled life.

It is talking about specific aspects of cellular evolution, not cellular evolution as a whole.

If thats not a general coverage of evolution then what is.

A statement lacking the qualifiers that their argument only covers some aspects of cellular evolution.

Many aspects of genomic evolution is talking about the whole genome . . .

Many aspects does not equal whole genome. You are making stuff up again.

Until you can figure out these simple statements, further discussion is useless.

 

[stevevw]

I stand by my previous statement regarding creationists, and their deliberate misrepresentation of the data.

That has nothing to do with whats happening here. The papers are from scientific sources and they clearly state what is happening. They have even been supported to some extent by supporters of evolution as per previous posts with the acknowledgement that the papers are saying that complexity and transcriptional networks may not by the result of natural selection.

I think its a bit of a cop out that you use the creationists reason for trying to discredit the paper I posted. It even states that some will do this instead of looking at the evidence and assessing it on its own merits. Have you even read the paper that I linked.

 

[VirOptimus]

That has nothing to do with whats happening here. The papers are from scientific sources and they clearly state what is happening. They have even been supported to some extent by supporters of evolution as per previous posts with the acknowledgement that the papers are saying that complexity and transcriptional networks may not by the result of natural selection.

I think its a bit of a cop out that you use the creationists reason for trying to discredit the paper I posted. It even states that some will do this instead of looking at the evidence and assessing it on its own merits. Have you even read the paper that I linked.

Have you asked the authors what the articles mean yet? If not, why?

 

[stevevw]

It is talking about specific aspects of cellular evolution, not cellular evolution as a whole.

A statement lacking the qualifiers that their argument only covers some aspects of cellular evolution.

Then why does it say many aspects of cellular evolution. What about the many aspects of transcriptional networks and developmental evolution it also mentions that natural selection is negligible for.

Doesnt the meaning of "many" mean more than a specific.
Many means: very many; being or existing in great quantity,

Why is the paper talking about all of evolution when it states, 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.

Isn't central to building complex organisms a pretty big part of building complex organisms.
CENTRAL meaning of the greatest importance; principal or essential.synonyms: main, chief, principal, primary, leading, foremost, first, most important, predominant, dominant.

Why does the paper say Numerous aspects of genomic architecture, gene structure, and developmental pathways are difficult to explain without invoking the nonadaptive force.

Numerous meaning "great in number; many". So numerous aspects of genomic structure certainly is more than a specific that you are trying to imply. A great number of aspects of the genome in fact.

So we have numerous and many aspects of cellular, transcriptional networks, developmental evolution, genomic architecture, gene structure, and developmental pathways are much more than some specific and small thing you want to imply. First it was total denial that the papers were referring to natural selection having any lack of ability. Then after pages of persistent debating there was finally an admission with qualification that it only applied to a very small part of evolution. Now pages of debating again is slowly establishing that it is more than a small specific part but many and numerous parts or aspects. Its like extracting a tooth. LOL.

Many aspects does not equal whole genome. You are making stuff up again.

Its not me but the paper. I think you are the one making out that things are not what they are really saying by minimizing things. Numerous aspects of genome architecture is certainly greater than a specific and indicates it is talking about many parts of the genome.

Until you can figure out these simple statements, further discussion is useless.

I think its the other way around. Its all there is plain black and white English. Have you read the paper. The language is clear that it is talking about a major part of evolution. The central mechanisms of how evolution works, evolvability means the ability to evolve in the first place gene structures, transcriptional networks, developmental pathways, cellular networks, genomic architecture. They are all the major core tenets of evolution. There isn't much left.

But still even if we go with your limitations o what the paper is saying then it is still saying that natural selection is insufficient and unable or negligible to evolve all these aspects of genomes. Thats still a fair amount and something that would render evolution by natural selection pretty lame.

 

[stevevw]

Have you asked the authors what the articles mean yet? If not, why?

How is it that you cant use your own intelligence to assess what the papers are saying. Its like I have to jump through hoops and having nothing short of the original author to even be allowed to state my opinion. Yet I have never seen anyone form your side bring in original authors to back what they say. I suspect this is another ploy of desperation to try and put obstacles up to discredit things. I have posted other independent commentators who agree with what the papers are saying and still there are objections. You still havnt given your opinion as to what you think the papers are saying. The author even qualifies what he has said in his conclusion which shows that he realizes he has brought up something that is challenging evolution by natural selection.

Michael Lynch
This tone of dissent is not meant to be disrespectful. 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.
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl_1/8597.full

 

[VirOptimus]

How is it that you cant use your own intelligence to assess what the papers are saying. Its like I have to jump through hoops and having nothing short of the original author to even be allowed to state my opinion. Yet I have never seen anyone form your side bring in original authors to back what they say. I suspect this is another ploy of desperation to try and put obstacles up to discredit things. I have posted other independent commentators who agree with what the papers are saying and still there are objections. You still havnt given your opinion as to what you think the papers are saying. The author even qualifies what he has said in his conclusion which shows that he realizes he has brought up something that is challenging evolution by natural selection.

Michael Lynch
This tone of dissent is not meant to be disrespectful. 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.
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl_1/8597.full

So no. Why?

 

[KCfromNC]

If thats not a general coverage of evolution then what is.

The part of the paper where natural selection is listed first among four main forces driving evolution.