Where did the laws of nature come from?

[Radrook]

Would it be possible to have a mutually respectful discussion about the following:

How did the laws of nature, which are metaphysical, come into being from un-directed, random materialistic processes?

Umm, that's easy! The chemicals did it!

 

[Eudaimonist]

Umm, that's easy! The chemicals did it!

Good strawman.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Motherofkittens]

This is my first post. I read up to page 100. Sorry if someone already posted what I am going to. I think I understand the problem or two. English is not your native language, is it? You misunderstand and misunderstand the most basic of English. Two examples by two different posters (paraphrasing), 1. "your imaginary non adaptive roles play no part in evolution" you thought s/he meant "non adaptive roles play no part in evolution". See the difference? 2. Someone said "may" and you thought they said "is". See the difference? And of course you have absolutely no idea what the papers that you site mean. So many people have told you and told you. You';re reading it wrong. Are you that arrogant that you think 150 years worth of science in multiple fields and everyone in this thread is wrong. Did you even think a second to say, "hey, let me reconsider.

Here's Lynch himself speaking"

"Contrary to popular belief, evolution is not driven by natural selection alone. Many aspects of evolutionary change are indeed facilitated by natural selection, but all populations are influenced by nonadaptive forces of mutation, recombination, and random genetic drift. These additional forces are not simple embellishments around a primary axis of selection, but are quite the opposite—they dictate what natural selection can and cannot do. Although this basic principle has been known for a long time, it is quite remarkable that most biologists continue to interpret nearly aspect of biodiversity as an outcome of adaptive processes. This blind acceptance of natural selection as the only force relevant to evolution has led to a lot of sloppy thinking, and is probably the primary reason why evolution is viewed as a soft science by much of society.

Does that sound like he is saying natural selection is negligible or practically non exist? Now we know (well you know, everybody else knew) what he meant by natural selection being one of four "fundamental forces". Just what it sounds like. A fundamental force. Can you now finally realize you are wrong? Please answer with a yes or no. I hope you read this.

Sandwalk: Michael Lynch on modern evolutionary theory

And ... the uncritical acceptance of natural selection as an explanatory force for all aspects of biodiversity (without any direct evidence) is not much different than invoking an intelligent designer (without any direct evidence). True, we have actually seen natural selection in action in a number of well-documented cases of phenotypic evolution (Endler 1986; Kingsolver et al. 2001), but it is a leap to assume that selection accounts for all evolutionary change, particularly at the molecular and cellular levels. The blind worship of natural selection is not evolutionary biology. It is arguably not even science. Natural selection is just one of several evolutionary mechanisms, and the failure to realize this is probably the most significant impediment to a fruitful integration of evolutionary theory with molecular, cellular, and developmental biology."

Sandwalk: Michael Lynch on modern evolutionary theory

See what he means? What everyone in this thread had already told you.
Also, life begin either 3.85 billion years ago or 3.65 billion years ago. The Cambrian explosion was 541 million years ago . Do you really think that is "early on"?

"Some researchers argue that the apparent rapid diversification of body plans is an artifact of an increase in the rate of fossilization, due in part to the evolution of skeletons, which fossilize more effectively.5 Many of the early Cambrian animals possessed some type of hard mineralized structures (spines, spicules, plates, etc.). In many cases these, often very tiny, mineralized structures are all that are found as fossils. There were major changes in marine environments and chemistry from the late Precambrian into the Cambrian, and these also may have impacted the rise of mineralized skeletons among previously soft-bodied organisms.6 -" See more at: Does the Cambrian Explosion pose a challenge to evolution?

Number two is that you've been studying evolution for years and years...but from ID sites. I used to be a creationist too. If what they said were true (it's not true, I must stress that to you) evolution would be stupid, crazy, ridiculous , absurd. Please please read a beginners guild to evolution. It will help alot. You are making huge mistakes about evolution 101.

Oh, there was a bunch more stuff you got very wrong but I forget.

 

[stevevw]

This is my first post. I read up to page 100. Sorry if someone already posted what I am going to. I think I understand the problem or two. English is not your native language, is it? You misunderstand and misunderstand the most basic of English. Two examples by two different posters (paraphrasing), 1. "your imaginary non adaptive roles play no part in evolution" you thought s/he meant "non adaptive roles play no part in evolution". See the difference?

High thanks for the reply. I have hesitated to reply to this thread as it was going nowhere as the same arguments were being repeated. But I will respond to a couple of things you said as you are a new poster that I wanted to clarify. I think I remember that quote in your number 1 point where you say I don't understand basic English. But I think you have just repeated the same statement twice. If the other person said that non-adaptive forces play no role in evolution and I thought that it meant exactly as it read that "natural selection plays no role in evolution" then how else can someone interpret that. My point was that this was wrong according to Lynch and other papers.

2. Someone said "may" and you thought they said "is". See the difference?

Yes this was an ongoing debate, you obviously forgot the other quotes which to me were actually acknowledging something different. But I don't want to get into this as it was about semantics rather than the topic.

So many people have told you and told you. You';re reading it wrong. Are you that arrogant that you think 150 years worth of science in multiple fields and everyone in this thread is wrong. Did you even think a second to say, "hey, let me reconsider.

What am I saying that will change a theory after 150 years? Maybe you are reading more into it that there is. Like I said it seems some overreact when they are challenged. Yet the idea of science is to challenge the age-old theories so that new and better theories are made.

Here's Lynch himself speaking"

"Contrary to popular belief, evolution is not driven by natural selection alone. Many aspects of evolutionary change are indeed facilitated by natural selection, but all populations are influenced by nonadaptive forces of mutation, recombination, and random genetic drift. These additional forces are not simple embellishments around a primary axis of selection, but are quite the opposite—they dictate what natural selection can and cannot do. Although this basic principle has been known for a long time, it is quite remarkable that most biologists continue to interpret nearly aspect of biodiversity as an outcome of adaptive processes. This blind acceptance of natural selection as the only force relevant to evolution has led to a lot of sloppy thinking, and is probably the primary reason why evolution is viewed as a soft science by much of society.

Does that sound like he is saying natural selection is negligible or practically non exist? Now we know (well you know, everybody else knew) what he meant by natural selection being one of four "fundamental forces". Just what it sounds like. A fundamental force. Can you now finally realize you are wrong? Please answer with a yes or no. I hope you read this.

First I have not said that natural selection does not play any role at all which you have stated and that seems to be part of the problem that some are attributing thoughts onto me that I have not stated. I think this is partly because when someone does challenge a view they go to extremes and take it as either all or nothing. I have merely stated that Natural selection plays a minor role in how organisms can gain complexity.

To me, that is what Lynches papers are about. For example using the quote from the paper you used it states,

These additional forces (non-adaptive forces, my emphasis) are not simple embellishments around a primary axis of selection, but are quite the opposite—they dictate what natural selection can and cannot do.

So to me, this means that though natural selection plays a role it is not the controlling or major force when it comes to creating and developing the structures that build complex organisms. As I stated during the debate Natural selection may be a refiner of what has already been created by other forces or processes and in this sense, it does not create complex life itself. In fact, the processes of selection and random mutations will undermine pre-existing complex structures by introducing non-beneficial mutations as well. Any small advance in complexity would have to go through many non-beneficial mutations that would put at risk those specific complex structures and be a cost to fitness. Fynch also alludes to this in one of his papers as I posted earlier.

Sandwalk: Michael Lynch on modern evolutionary theory

And ... the uncritical acceptance of natural selection as an explanatory force for all aspects of biodiversity (without any direct evidence) is not much different than invoking an intelligent designer (without any direct evidence). True, we have actually seen natural selection in action in a number of well-documented cases of phenotypic evolution (Endler 1986; Kingsolver et al. 2001), but it is a leap to assume that selection accounts for all evolutionary change, particularly at the molecular and cellular levels. The blind worship of natural selection is not evolutionary biology. It is arguably not even science. Natural selection is just one of several evolutionary mechanisms, and the failure to realize this is probably the most significant impediment to a fruitful integration of evolutionary theory with molecular, cellular, and developmental biology."

Yes and this was the other point I was making was that though selection plays a role many biologists exaggerate that role and give it more creative ability and power than it has. That in itself tells you that it is overstated and that some will react by trying to defend its position. Fynch also alludes to this point on several occasions including the quote you have posted above ie
Although this basic principle has been known for a long time, it is quite remarkable that most biologists continue to interpret nearly aspect of biodiversity as an outcome of adaptive processes. This blind acceptance of natural selection as the only force relevant to evolution has led to a lot of sloppy thinking, and is probably the primary reason why evolution is viewed as a soft science by much of society.

Sandwalk: Michael Lynch on modern evolutionary theory

See what he means? What everyone in this thread had already told you.
Also, life begin either 3.85 billion years ago or 3.65 billion years ago. The Cambrian explosion was 541 million years ago. Do you really think that is "early on"?

The Cambrian period is the first point where we begin to see the type of body plans we see today. So in that sense its the only point to see what life was like when it was evolving from non-life. The time factor will only matter if you want to speculate that in all that long period of time something happened to create the Cambrian period. Becuase evolution is assumed to be correct then that something is assumed to have happened whatever that may be. But that is still speculation. All we can do is go by what we see and that happens to be a sudden appearance of complex life with all the modern day type body plans. From there life grew.

"Some researchers argue that the apparently rapid diversification of body plans is an artifact of an increase in the rate of fossilization, due in part to the evolution of skeletons, which fossilize more effectively.5 Many of the early Cambrian animals possessed some type of hard mineralized structures (spines, spicules, plates, etc.). In many cases these, often very tiny, mineralized structures are all that are found as fossils. There were major changes in marine environments and chemistry from the late Precambrian into the Cambrian, and these also may have impacted the rise of mineralized skeletons among previously soft-bodied organisms.6 -" See more at: Does the Cambrian Explosion pose a challenge to evolution?

There are many theories for the Cambrian period but most say that it was a sudden appearance of complex life from more or less nowhere.

Number two is that you've been studying evolution for years and years...but from ID sites. I used to be a creationist too. If what they said were true (it's not true, I must stress that to you) evolution would be stupid, crazy, ridiculous, absurd. Please please read a beginners guild to evolution. It will help a lot. You are making huge mistakes about evolution 101.

First of all I am not a creationist. Second I have studied evolution from non-religious sites including at Uni. Third who said I don't support evolution. I am not saying there is not evolution but questioning the role it plays. Its a bit like Natural selection, no one is saying there is no selection. Its the amount that happens and the role it plays. As Lynch has stated many biologists overstate its role and ability.

Oh, there was a bunch more stuff you got very wrong but I forget.

Fair enough. Out of interest, you say that you use to be creationists. So do you still have a faith in God?