Where did the laws of nature come from?

[KCfromNC]

The papers are from scientific sources and they clearly state what is happening.

You mean like when they clearly state that natural selection is one of the main forces driving evolution?

I think its a bit of a cop out that you use the creationists reason for trying to discredit the paper I posted.

You posted at least one paper from a creationist source. Why is discussing that a cop out?

 

[KCfromNC]

there is no longer any justification for blindly launching suppositions about adaptive scenarios without an evaluation of the likelihood of nonadaptive alternatives.

How does this support your claim that natural selection is negligible?

 

[stevevw]

Is that "from memory"? Here's what you actually claimed :
stevevw said: ↑
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.

And as Ive shown time and time again the papers support that.

Paper states
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

Its saying the same thing that natural selection is negligible when it comes to development evolution

[snipped a bunch of quotes which don't say what you wish they did] The rest of the adjectives in the papers describing natural selection such as insufficient, inability, is even necessary, and promotes the opposite of evolution of complex gene networks all fall within the meanings minimal and negligible.

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.

Yeah I kind of didn't expect you to completely acknowledge things right away. But your slowly getting there. The trouble is the papers dont say may there are more sure of themselves. So may is your input which contradicts the papers. The important thing is that you are beginning to acknowledging what the papers are saying.

 

[stevevw]

How does this support your claim that natural selection is negligible?

First off its not my claim, the papers say that natural selection is negligible. So you need to ask if that statemnet supports what the same paper has said and whether it is going to contradict what it has said about natural selection being negligible. The statemnet says there is no justification to blindly appeal to natural selection when there is no evidence to support it. Because of this we need to evaluate the likelihood non adaptive alternatives.

So that statemnet is neither here nor there. Its just telling us to evaluate things based on the evidence and not on assuming things like many do with the ability of natural selection. If anything it is calling out how supporters of evolution assume what natural selection can do and there's no evidence for it.

 

[stevevw]

You mean like when they clearly state that natural selection is one of the main forces driving evolution?

I have already said that I have never said that natural selection doesn't play a role in how life changes. What we are talking about is the evolution of gene networks, developmental pathways, transcriptional networks and genomic architecture for which these papers state that natural selection is insufficient and unable to evolve. So obviously the role of natural selection is referring to something else. As stated before that something else is more of a refinement role after gene structures have been developed.

You posted at least one paper from a creationist source. Why is discussing that a cop out?

which one was that in the many Ive posted. Funny how that is remembered so well and there's a willingness to bring that up and discuss that. Yet there's a big reluctance to talk about the details of all the other ones. So are you saying because there may have been one from a creationists site that now negates all the others from scientific sites. But by all means bring it up. My point was that it seems that some are trying to bring up this creationists verses science thing which can be used as a weapon for polarizing the debate and then this starts to take everything to the extremes and nothing is discussed in the center which is actually where the balanced debate should be.

 

[KCfromNC]

I have already said that I have never said that natural selection doesn't play a role in how life changes.

You've said it is negligible. The paper says it is one of the four primary forces driving evolution. Who are we supposed to believe?

which one was that in the many Ive posted.

The one written by the guy who thinks that thermodynamics disproves evolution. Know your sources - it'll help you prevent mistakes in the future.

Funny how that is remembered so well and there's a willingness to bring that up and discuss that.

I guess it would be a lot better for your case if people didn't actually read the sources you are quote-mining from.

 

[KCfromNC]

And as Ive shown time and time again the papers support that.

I'm enjoying the fact that you're now even quote-mining yourself. When you ask us to ignore key words in your own quote to make them make sense it's probably time for a rethink of what you're hoping to accomplish here.

 

[Loudmouth]

The idea is relatively new and as the papers I have supplied are saying such as the one calling for "Evolution needs a rethink" it is something that is gaining more popularity mainly because it fits the evidence better.

That doesn't change the fact that natural selection is a major mechanism in the evolution of species. Even those calling for a rethink acknowledge this.

The study involves several areas of science and as the paper states "the call for change is getting stronger all the time". Its not seen as a great discovery at the moment because some people like some on this site are resisting the changes because they want to hold onto the traditional views and are therefore rejecting the evidence.

How would this new theory help your argument?

The problem I havnt been shown that I am wrong.

I have shown that you are wrong on multiple occasions. For whatever reason, you can't seem to understand that "many" does not equal "all".

The only thing that has been stated is the the paper is referring to natural selections inability or being insufficient or negligible for a specific section of evolution which is complexity and not applying to all of evolution. I disputed that and said the papers were applying to all complexity.

"many aspects of genomic, cellular, and developmental evolution can only be understood by invoking a negligible level of adaptive involvement (Kimura, 1983; Lynch, 2007).
"

That is your own reference. Notice that is says many aspects, not all aspects. If you can't fess up to this simple fact, then we can't help you.

 

[Loudmouth]

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

Many does not mean very many. Two different things.

Is English your first language? There are many people in the US military. Does that mean the vast majority of Americans are in the military?

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.

The paper is talking about the initial duplication of gene networks which isn't all of evolution. After the initial duplication, natural selection acts upon mutations that occur in the duplicated genes. The actual adaptive changes are guided by natural selection.

This whole "rethink" is nothing more than salesmanship, which is why the vast majority of scientists find their arguments to be irrelevant, at best. The theory already accepts that neutral drift occurs, and that neutral drift can produce potential interactions that can be beneficial later on. What they want a rethink on already exists in the current theory. On top of that, no scientist has ever said that every genetic change is subject to natural selection. It is a controversy that doesn't exist, but one that some scientists try to drum up to make their own ideas look more important.

 

[Loudmouth]

And as Ive shown time and time again the papers support that.

Paper states
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

Its saying the same thing that natural selection is negligible when it comes to development evolution

Notice that is says "many aspects", not all aspects. On top of that, nowhere does it say that natural selection is negligible when it comes to developmental evolution.

 

[stevevw]

I'm enjoying the fact that you're now even quote-mining yourself. When you ask us to ignore key words in your own quote to make them make sense it's probably time for a rethink of what you're hoping to accomplish here.

How have I done that.

 

[stevevw]

You've said it is negligible. The paper says it is one of the four primary forces driving evolution. Who are we supposed to believe?

certainly not you as you are now quote mining what I have said by leaving out vital pieces of what I said which proves that the papers agree with me.

You even posted the full quote stating that it was my original quote in post Yesterday at 1:59 AM #1612

My original post showing I have qualified what natural selection is negligible and /or minimal for which is how life changes and develops.

Steve said as quoted by KCfromNC
Natural selection (adaptive forces) are negligible and/or minimal when it comes to how life can change and develop.

KCfromNC said.
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.

So you have left off the part that says natural selection is negligible when it comes to life changes and develops.

The quote from the paper says
many aspects of genomic, cellular, and developmental evolution can only be understood by invoking a negligible level of adaptive involvement (natural selection) emphasis added.

The one written by the guy who thinks that thermodynamics disproves evolution. Know your sources - it'll help you prevent mistakes in the future.

I had to ask because I cant remember posting an obvious creationists article. So I went back and checked and as I suspected you have got your info mixed up or wrong. The paper you are referring to, Evidence Of Design In Bird Feathers And Avian Respiration is not about thermodynamics disproving evolution. Its about the structure of bird features and how the bird respiratory system works which show complex components that may point to design. It is a peer reviewed scientific paper n a scientific journal.

I guess it would be a lot better for your case if people didn't actually read the sources you are quote-mining from.

No it would be better if they did read them so that you don't make mistakes and assumptions about what you think the paper is about.

 

[stevevw]

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

The part that states natural selection is one of four driving forces for evolution doesn't say anything about what specific areas it is referring natural selection too. So it could be referring to anything evolution as it covers a lot. You will have to explain what part of evolution it refers to.

 

[stevevw]

double post

 

[stevevw]

So no. Why?

I am not going to be made to jump through all sorts of hoops by going to the original author to prove a debate on a debate forum. No one else is expected to or asked so why is it that I am being made to go to these lengths. The papers are clear and there is no need to bring in the author just so you are satisfied that I am right. You havnt even shown I am wrong anyway to warrant such a dramatic action.

 

[VirOptimus]

I am not going to be made to jump through all sorts of hoops by going to the original author to prove a debate on a debate forum. No one else is expected to or asked so why is it that I am being made to go to these lengths. The papers are clear and there is no need to bring in the author just so you are satisfied that I am right. You havnt even shown I am wrong anyway to warrant such a dramatic action.

They are clear alright, but as you have been shown again and again they dont say what you think they do. You are in error.

I bet that even if the authors where to say you are in error you wouldnt change your mind.

 

[stevevw]

They are clear alright, but as you have been shown again and again they dont say what you think they do. You are in error.

I bet that even if the authors where to say you are in error you wouldn't change your mind.

You seem to be making an awful lot of assumptions. If It was proven by the evidence that I was wrong I would have no problem acknowledging that. But the issue here is that your side is not acknowledging the evidence in the first place which is clear. The papers clearly state that natural selection is insufficient, unnecessarily, contributes negligible levels for evolving developmental pathways, transcriptional networks, genomic architecture and complex gene networks.
I have shown this many times and if you cant show evidence to the contrary then all your assertions are just words with no support.

You keep making claims on behalf of others who you are relying on to prove your case. But you havnt even supported a case that they are right in the first case. As I have said before for how "the burden of proof is biased when it comes to supporters of evolution automatically assuming that anyone who agrees with evolution is right and doesn't have to prove anything". In other words you are claiming they are right because they agree with you and not because they have provided any evidence for it. This is not a valid bases for proving an argument.

As I have said for which you havnt replied back to me yet, KCfromNC has acknowledged that natural selection may not be able to evolve transcriptional networks, genomic architecture, developmental evolution, and gene complexity based on what the papers have said. So that goes partway to supporting what I have said about the papers. His argument is the papers and in particular the one by Michael Lynch are saying that they are only referring to specific situations for natural selection evolving complex gene structure and not applying to evolution generally. So if you want to go with your fellow debaters then you should begin with acknowledging this much before you start demanding I go to the author to prove my case.

Like I said I disagree with KCfromNC and say that the papers are referring to a big part of evolution for natural selections ability to evolve gene networks. I posted the segments of that paper showing they are referring to many and numerous aspects of the genome. I think that this is enough to warrant a response with some counter evidence to show I am wrong about what the papers say and that the papers are wrong before we go any further. But it seems there is a purposeful avoidance of even acknowledging what the papers say.

 

[stevevw]

They are clear alright, but as you have been shown again and again they dont say what you think they do. You are in error.

Ok in reflection on my other post I think I need to narrow things down to a specific example for you to address as you seem to be claiming that you understand why I and the papers are wrong by saying it is a clear case that I am wrong. So I will pose the same two simple statements from the papers that KCfromNC answered with honesty for you to give your explanation as to what they refer to.

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.

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.

 

[KCfromNC]

How have I done that.

By bold-facing and focusing on only certain words in your quote rather than taking all the words in context.

 

[KCfromNC]

certainly not you as you are now quote mining what I have said by leaving out vital pieces of what I said which proves that the papers agree with me.

The papers do not agree with you. You claim that natural selection is negligible and/or minimal when it comes to how life can change and develop. The paper names is first among four major forces driving evolution.

The quote from the paper says

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

Like I said before, if you're going to backtrack and now claim you're only talking about an unspecified subset of "genomic, cellular, and developmental evolution" that's fine. It would have saved a bunch of time and useless purple text if you'd have just admitted you were wrong a while back, though.

I had to ask because I cant remember posting an obvious creationists article. So I went back and checked and as I suspected you have got your info mixed up or wrong. The paper you are referring to, Evidence Of Design In Bird Feathers And Avian Respiration is not about thermodynamics disproving evolution.

Good thing no one actually said it did.

I said it was from a creationist source and it was - both the author and at least 1 editor from that journal work in creationist organizations. I can't stop you from quote-mining others sources, but at least try to read and respond to what I've actually written.