Where did the laws of nature come from?

stevevw · Jun 23, 2016

KCfromNC said:
What mechanism are you proposing which would consistently filter out mutations that even you admit are beneficial?

I am saying if mutations are basically an error in what is already working good then a so called beneficial mutation runs against this and therefore will not be prominent as benefit doesn't come from an error normally and errors dont normally make better and fitter life. So these beneficial mutations are either perceived as benefits but the complete effects are not considered which may turn out to be a non benefit in reality. Or the mutations are so slight that any benefit is not fixed on its own and therefore is not selected in the first place. To have a benefit they would need to become more prominent by adding more beneficial mutations. But for this to happen they would need to be all adding up to the same benefit in function from a blind process which seems unlikely. The chances are the benefit will be missed and any benefit isolated will not be selected.

As one of the papers has shown even beneficial mutations can cause each other to have diminishing returns when accumulated through negative epistasis rather then adding up to contribute to the specific building that protein folds require to be functional and fit. The space for functional protein sequences is very narrow and the space for non function is very wide that the odds are massive for creating the specific folds needed. So logic tells you that a blind proceed is going to miss the mark even with time. But even if we allow some to get through the amount needed for making all of life would need a massive amount of beneficial mutations that hit a finite mark time and time again and need more time then the existence of earth being around. To accommodate that many rare beneficial mutations would need to also include an awful lot of negative ones which from the evidence seems to show that there are more negative mutations than beneficial ones. That would mean life having to accommodate too many negative mutations which would make life less fit in the end.

KCfromNC · Jun 23, 2016

stevevw said:
I am saying if mutations are basically an error in what is already working good

"Working good" isn't the same as "no room for improvment".

RealityCheck01 · Jun 23, 2016

stevevw said:
So a lay person ....

stevevw: This is what was actually written by Derek Meyer: And then also he's involved in the anti-science DI. That's why I call him a nutter.
Douglas Axe chose to let people who know about the "nut" nature of DI to think that he is a nutter by associating with the Discovery Institute.
You need to cite the list of hundreds ("many") of papers that Douglas Axe has published - or 10's - or less than 10?

For everyone's information : PubMed has 9 papers published by Axe DD

!
Douglas Axe earned a Phd at Caltech - there is a 1987 paper from Axe DD at Caltech. That suggests a 29 year career and only 9 papers. This is not good. The publication expectations for academic positions varies a lot but I have seen numbers of at least 1 or 2 good papers a year for a lecturer/research fellow.

Douglas Axe

Douglas Axe

Click to expand...

is the director of the Discovery Institute-run Biologic Institute [1], co-author of Science and Human Origins, and signatory to the Discovery Institute petition A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism.
Credentials
Axe is a molecular biologist, and is as such one of relatively few people with real credentials who is affiliated with the intelligent design movement. Drawing on his knowledge of biology, Axe has authored a few relatively mundane papers, at least some of which have been published in low-tier, although genuine, journals. Although none of these papers contain – or even attempts to mount – any refutation of evolution, much less evidence for intelligent design, Axe’s work has been hailed by the Discovery Institute as evidence supporting their views. Even Axe himself has admitted that this is not the case.[2]

He has published extensively in the Biologic Institute’s house journal BIO-Complexity, but that does not count.
Fallacies and ignorance
Axe is on the record arguing that problems with evolution are evidence for intelligent design,[3] insofar as if the theory of evolution cannot explain some data it means that there can be no naturalistic explanation at all.

His expertise in the fields relevant to assessing evolutionary explanations has also been questioned.[4]

stevevw · Jun 24, 2016

KCfromNC said:
"Working good" isn't the same as "no room for improvement".

An error is an error is an error. A mutation is an error in our DNA which is already coded to function properly. The codes are the right ones and are like a language which need to spell out a particular language to work properly that will produce life. A mutation causes that specific language not to read properly. Its got nothing to do with improvements and all to do with keeping the right language in the first place.

stevevw · Jun 24, 2016

RealityCheck01 said:
Double post

stevevw · Jun 24, 2016

RealityCheck01 said:
stevevw: This is what was actually written by Derek Meyer: And then also he's involved in the anti-science DI. That's why I call him a nutter.
Douglas Axe chose to let people who know about the "nut" nature of DI to think that he is a nutter by associating with the Discovery Institute.
You need to cite the list of hundreds ("many") of papers that Douglas Axe has published - or 10's - or less than 10?

For everyone's information : PubMed has 9 papers published by Axe DD !
Douglas Axe earned a Phd at Caltech - there is a 1987 paper from Axe DD at Caltech. That suggests a 29 year career and only 9 papers. This is not good. The publication expectations for academic positions varies a lot but I have seen numbers of at least 1 or 2 good papers a year for a lecturer/research fellow.

Douglas Axe

Thats what I am talking about,taking the personal opinion of a lay person as evidence for discrediting a scientists who has studied the area for which he is writing his papers on. The amount of papers has little to do with the quality of work or whether he is right or wrong about the topic. All I am seeing is a lot of fallacies that are trying to discredit someone based on irrelevant arguments of association or false comparisons. All to try and undermine someone who is disagreeing with some of the claims evolution makes. As I stated before Doug Axe is not the only one and there are mainstream scientists who also say similar things , not that this should make a difference as to whether they are mainstream or not. But thats the way the debate is pushed so that those who disagree are made to jump through hoop. It seems people have to present the highest of high in support for anything that goes against what evolution states. Yet the ironic thing is people can present almost anything such as the blogs that have been used as support to prove evolution's case and not a single word is said about that not being a credible source. So it seems one rule for some (supporters of the theory of evolution) and another for anyone who disagrees.

Derek Meyer · Jun 24, 2016

stevevw said:
An error is an error is an error. A mutation is an error in our DNA which is already coded to function properly.

Actually, some errors occurring in DNA with procreation are advantageous in some circumstances. Some errors in DNA during procreation provide an advantage and the carriers of such DNA will be more likely to have more offspring than the others so that those genes will be more likely to spread in the population.

Derek Meyer · Jun 24, 2016

stevevw said:
Thats what I am talking about,taking the personal opinion of a lay person as evidence for discrediting a scientists who has studied the area for which he is writing his papers on.

Actually, Douglas Axe discredited himself when he joined a completely anti- scientific organisation such as DI. The guy is crazy.

KCfromNC · Jun 24, 2016

stevevw said:
An error is an error is an error. A mutation is an error in our DNA which is already coded to function properly.

Then you're disagreeing with the sources you posted which identify some mutations as beneficial. Who should we believe - you or your experts?

stevevw · Jun 24, 2016

KCfromNC said:
Then you're disagreeing with the sources you posted which identify some mutations as beneficial. Who should we believe - you or your experts?

As stated earlier it all depends on the interpretation you give to benefit. What may seem like a benefit in one way also comes with a cost to fitness in the end. Remember basically a mutation is a change in what was already good and working. The point is how does a process that changes what was already good and working make something better when the process it uses has a high chance of making it worse. Even if we say that in some rare cases a benefit is carried through it is only a very small fraction of a bigger feature which would require many beneficial mutations to all line up and work together in a blind process.

When you consider that this is just for one feature and if you add all the features that are needed to morph new types of creatures and all the new types of creatures that have ever existed it would seem impossible even with time. Beneficial mutations are rare and therefore dont come along that often. The DNA would also have to carry many negative mutations because they are said to be more common that beneficial ones. Therefore that would wipe out species and not build better ones. The changes seen in most of life which may be perceived as benefits are usually from tinkering with existing genetic info. This is more to do with changes within types rather than producing new complex info to make new types of features and creatures. This doesn't amount to Darwinian type evolution which requires new info to be created that was never there to begin with. This type of beneficial evolution seems impossible and is unproven. The problem is evolution assumes what happens within a species is what can make new types of creatures that require new genetic info.

stevevw · Jun 24, 2016

Derek Meyer said:
Actually, Douglas Axe discredited himself when he joined a completely anti- scientific organization such as DI. The guy is crazy.

Thats a poor argument because saying that ID is completely anti science is untrue and can be proved wrong. Completely means having no science at all to it. Whereas some may say that ID's motives may be religious it is based on a scientific approach and proves this with the scientific methods and testing it uses in its papers. It doesn't mention God or creation and uses a scientific bases for why life may be intelligently designed. But once again that is an argument of association and not looking at the content of the papers. If you read his papers you will find they are scientifically based and the methods and testing are all described. One may claim that the scientific method is wrong but they are still scientific. So your assertion is based on wrong info or assumption you may hear from others and not investigating the actual work itself.

stevevw · Jun 24, 2016

Derek Meyer said:
Actually, some errors occurring in DNA with procreation are advantageous in some circumstances. Some errors in DNA during procreation provide an advantage and the carriers of such DNA will be more likely to have more offspring than the others so that those genes will be more likely to spread in the population.

Even if this was the case when you say some errors which seems contradictory anyway to make things better. But even considering some errors in some cases indicates they are rare. So being rare and considering the amount needed to produce all life which would be millions upon millions there wouldn't be enough time to make all the complex variety we see. Remember these rare benefits will come in among many more negative ones. Tests show that evolution doesn't work towards more complexity but maintains what is. Complexity has been around from the beginning and life is just an adjustment of that. In some ways things have become less complex and fitter.

But apart from all that your belief of God being the creator of life would indicate that life wasn't created from some naturalistic process that was self creating and didn't need some direction from God. So even if there may be some evolution in the sense of life being able to sift through genetic info and find suitable info to adapt this process would have been instilled as part of Gods creation anyway. therefore it isn't something that was totally a blind process like Darwinian evolution and was intelligently intended and designed.

stevevw · Jun 25, 2016

[serious] said:
The trouble being that none of those papers actually supports your claim, and that structurally, your argument is a some, all, none fallacy (I forget the proper name for it) Even if most mutations are harmful (they aren't) then that still allows good mutations to arise and spread to fixation.

The argument based on having only two options to choose from when there could be more is called a false dilemma. I wasn't saying there was only two options of all or nothing. As I have said before evolution happens but not juts the way that some say it does. So its the type of evolution and it comes down to quality and quantity and not that it doesn't happen at all.

stevevw · Jun 25, 2016

KCfromNC said:
What mechanism are you proposing which would consistently filter out mutations that even you admit are beneficial?

Its not a case of filtering them out. Its more to do with them being recognized in the first place because they are so minor or the accumulated effects of beneficial mutations incur fitness costs so therefore become negative. As even small changes require multiple mutations that are all beneficial and all work together in the same direction to add up to a particular feature in a blind process. As the folds for functional proteins are so specific and require many sequences all in their right orders to happen by chance mutations they are not going to find those correct structures in one go. So between the point of taking out the existing sequences and then trying to replace them with the new ones which have to be functional there's going to be many non functional ones in between. That will wreck the combinations of all of them being correct and destroy the lot.

Because the correct sequences for the specific folds are so finite in a vast space of possible incorrect ones the chances are it is going to forever be finding the wrong combinations in a blind process. Because the process will involve taking on negative mutations on the way to be fully functional this will keep wrecking the chances of success. Being able to hit the jackpot of getting all the correct sequences in one go through a blind process would be impossible without any prior knowledge of whats needed. It would be like trying to get all the right combinations lining up in a 200 column slot machine in one go. Chances are thats not going to happen. Tests show that evolution doesn't work towards more complexity and incurs fitness costs in the long run. So what may seem like a benefit at one point becomes negative. Humans are accumulating negative mutations which are accumulating and incurring fitness costs.

According to scientists natural selection may not even be capable or responsible for how creatures can change. The level of complexity we see is beyond the capabilities of natural selection and random mutations to create and the evidence points to non adaptive mechanisms being responsible for how life changes. I have posted many papers on how other non adaptive processes are more responsible and explain better what we see in life and how life changes. Darwinian evolution doesn't explain what we see and more and more scientists are acknowledging this. Thats why it makes more sense that all life has some access to genetic info such as through HGT and that that info has been around for a long time. Its more a case of refinements to existing genetic material without having to be subjected to adaptive processes based on blind chance and everything being just right all at once.

KCfromNC · Jun 27, 2016

stevevw said:
As stated earlier it all depends on the interpretation you give to benefit.

So why specifically do you disagree with the interpretation in the sources you posted earlier?

The point is how does a process that changes what was already good and working make something better when the process it uses has a high chance of making it worse.

If you admit that there's a chance of beneficial mutations happening, what exactly is the issue here?

Even if we say that in some rare cases a benefit is carried through it is only a very small fraction of a bigger feature which would require many beneficial mutations to all line up and work together in a blind process.

At least now I understand why you're trying to deny selection happens. Unfortunately for your "blind process" claim, it does.

When you consider that this is just for one feature and if you add all the features that are needed to morph new types of creatures and all the new types of creatures that have ever existed it would seem impossible even with time.

The evidence says otherwise. I'll take that over your feelings on the subject any day of the week.

stevevw · Jun 27, 2016

KCfromNC said:
So why specifically do you disagree with the interpretation in the sources you posted earlier?

Because the benefit often cited from random mutations is short lived. They either come with a cost because the benefit was produced by altering the existing genetic sequences and that alteration also causes some slight fitness cost ie the benefit is the result of switching off a function which may have had use for something else which will cause some affect to the creature. Or the benefit is slight and when added to other mutations loses its benefit in the long run. So what may seem like a benefit at first ends up being diminished as the papers have indicated from negative epistasis. I keep coming back to mutations being an alteration of what is already working and good. So any alteration no matter how it may seem is still not optimal as it changes what was already working.

If you admit that there's a chance of beneficial mutations happening, what exactly is the issue here?

The issue is are they beneficial enough to create all the complexity and variety of life that has ever walked this earth. Considering that if there is such a thing as a beneficial mutation then its very rare and too rare to have the time to come along and create every feature and system that every living thing has. Evolution is giving beneficial mutations and natural selection more creative power than it has because it has too as thats the only thing it has to explain how life came about without any guidance or direction from an intelligent source. Whereas even non religious supporters of evolution are saying that placing so much emphasis on adaptation through evolution as the only way life can change is not supported and unrealistic.

At least now I understand why you're trying to deny selection happens. Unfortunately for your "blind process" claim, it does.

I am not denying selection happens. I am saying it doesn't happen the way you think it does and have as much creative power as you think. Its not be be all and end all answer to how life came about. Like they say its good at explaining the survival of the fittest but not the arrival of the fittest. Its the creative power it gives mutations in the ability to be able to create new complex systems and features. Theres no evidence for this and its all based on the assumption.

The evidence says otherwise. I'll take that over your feelings on the subject any day of the week.

Mine is not based on feelings at all. I have given ample evidence but I see none from you.

The following paper actually says that natural selection can be a restriction on evolving more complex life compared to more simple life so it seems natural selection is incapable to producing more complex structures because it can't cope with the extra work through a blind process. As Has been mentioned several times before its the non adaptive processes that are making the changes we see more than natural selection and random mutations because they rely on pre-existing and set pathways which can navigate their way to high complexity which is needed rather than directionless evolution which keeps ending up dead ends.

Nothing in Evolution Makes Sense Except in Light of Population Genetics

Multicellular species experience reduced population sizes, reduced recombination rates, and increased deleterious mutation rates, all of which diminish the efficiency of selection (13). It may be no coincidence that such species also have substantially higher extinction rates than do unicellular taxa.

Thus, although the idea that regulatory modules with functional significance in today's organisms can only have arisen via natural selection is seductive, it remains to be determined how the stepwise alterations necessary for the construction of genetic pathways come about.

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.

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

Heres another paper that says natural selection isn't as powerful as made out and isn't up to the task of creating life as evolution claims. According to this paper genetic drift is encouraging the fixation of mildly deleterious mutations and discouraging the promotion of beneficial mutations.
The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity
there is no compelling empirical or theoretical evidence that complexity, modularity, redundancy or other features of genetic pathways are promoted by natural selection
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl_1/8597.full

KCfromNC · Jun 27, 2016

stevevw said:
Because the benefit often cited from random mutations is short lived.

Citation needed.

The issue is are they beneficial enough to create all the complexity and variety of life that has ever walked this earth.

And the answer is yes, at least according to the people who study this kind of stuff for a living.

I am not denying selection happens. I am saying it doesn't happen the way you think it does and have as much creative power as you think.

Then exactly how does it work and how does that provide support for your version of creationism?

Mine is not based on feelings at all. I have given ample evidence but I see none from you.

Evidence for what? Just look at any college level evolution textbook and you'll find thousands of pages of evidence for the actual scientific approach to this subject.

Heres another paper that says natural selection isn't as powerful as made out and isn't up to the task of creating life as evolution claims.

Uh, you posted the same link twice.

Anyway, that's nice. The paper does nothing to support your faith that beneficial mutations don't happen though, so I'm not sure why your brought it up.

RealityCheck01 · Jun 27, 2016

stevevw said:
Thats what I am talking about,taking the personal opinion of a lay person as evidence for discrediting a scientists who has studied the area for which he is writing his papers on. ...

That is not we are taking about, stevevw.
28 June 2016 stevevw: Douglas Axe discredited his competence by associating with the Discovery Institute by being the director of the DI-funded Biologic Institute.
28 June 2016 stevevw: The evidence is that Douglas Axe is not an expert on evolution - he has published 9 paper in 29 years which makes him an expert on nothing (experts publish multiple papers per year!).
28 June 2016 stevevw: At least one of those papers was slightly dubious and wrongly cited by IDiots as evidence against evolution: Axe (2004) and the evolution of enzyme function

Still not addressed or acknowledged:

Michael · Jun 27, 2016

RealityCheck01 said:
I suggest you start with Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_reconnection

Magnetic reconnection is a physical process in highly conducting plasmas in which the magnetic topology is rearranged and magnetic energy is converted to kinetic energy, thermal energy, and particle acceleration.

What do you not understand about term "in highly conductive plasmas", and the term "magnetic energy is converted to kinetic energy" RC?

RealityCheck01 · Jun 27, 2016

Michael said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_reconnection

Michael hijacks the thread into his delusions about textbook physics

!

For everyone's information: Michael's delusions about the Sun held since 2005, lightning in plasma, magnetic reconnection in vacuum, the work of Birkeland, Electric Universe sources and an EU critique. where the "magnetic reconnection in vacuum" bit is a section in a plasma physic textbook with an example of magnetic reconnection in vacuum, i.e. no plasma

! This is a real physical process. It is also a trivial process - the interesting stuff starts in the next section about MR in plasma. Wikipedia is not a textbook designed to teach physics. The Wikipedia article leaps straight to the interesting stuff.

I also cite several papers that mention MR in vacuum. Other posters have supplied other examples and a tutorial on deriving MR from Maxwell's equations without plasma. Michael's response is repeated posts from 2011 about a delusion that MR can only happen in plasma.

MR is magnetic field lies "reconnecting". MR can actually be done with a couple of fridge magnetics in air!

Where did the laws of nature come from?

inquisitive

Regular Member

Newbie

inquisitive

inquisitive

inquisitive

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

inquisitive

inquisitive

inquisitive

inquisitive

inquisitive

Regular Member

inquisitive

Regular Member

Newbie

Contributor

Newbie

Similar threads