Where did the laws of nature come from?

[RealityCheck01]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1334920

Oncedeceived, Natural genetic engineering in evolution is a paper stating what biologists knew in 1992 (24 years ago) - conventional evolutionary theory had a hard time explaining molecular genetics results.

 

[RealityCheck01]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19213802

stevew, this paper does not support your claim of Natural selection (adaptive forces) are negligible and/or minimal when it comes to how life can change and develop. (my emphasis added).
Darwinian evolution in the light of genomics states known biology ("natural selection is only one of the forces that shape genome evolution") and that natural selection is not "quantitatively dominant". This means that natural selection is responsible for < 50% of evolution, not that natural selection can be neglected or is "minimal".

 

[RealityCheck01]

http://www.nature.com/nrg/journal/v8/n10/abs/nrg2192.html

stevew, this paper does not support your claim of Natural selection (adaptive forces) are negligible and/or minimal when it comes to how life can change and develop. (my emphasis added).
The evolution of genetic networks by non-adaptive processes (2007) by Michael Lynch is about transcriptional networks (not strictly "life"). It does not say that natural selection is not responsible for the "origin of many aspects of gene-network topologies". It says that non-adaptive processes can just as easily explain these aspects in computational procedures.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Oncedeceived, the opinion of one scientist described in a magazine article is not the scientific literature.

http://www.pnas.org/content/104/30/12235.abstract

However, once the mutations are incorporated into the genome, they may generate developmental constraints that will affect the future direction of phenotypic evolution. It appears that the driving force of phenotypic evolution is mutation, and natural selection is of secondary importance.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-015-9794-2

 

[RealityCheck01]

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

stevew, this paper does not support your claim of Natural selection (adaptive forces) are negligible and/or minimal when it comes to how life can change and develop. (my emphasis added).
The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity (2007) by Michael Lynch is a criticism of natural selection being overused as an explanation of biodiversity by biologist, i.e. the non-adaptive processes are not considered as much as he thinks they should. This is a critism of scientific literature, not giving evidence that natural selection is "negligible and/or minimal" in evolution.
The paper has a definition of evolution that is widely used:

First, evolution is a population-genetic process governed by four fundamental forces. Darwin (6) articulated one of those forces, the process of natural selection, for which an elaborate theory in terms of genotype frequencies now exists (10, 11). The remaining three evolutionary forces are nonadaptive in the sense that they are not a function of the fitness properties of individuals: mutation is the ultimate source of variation on which natural selection acts, recombination assorts variation within and among chromosomes, and genetic drift ensures that gene frequencies will deviate a bit from generation to generation independent of other forces. Given the century of work devoted to the study of evolution, it is reasonable to conclude that these four broad classes encompass all of the fundamental forces of evolution.

The next paragraph is

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 (12, 13). Because all three nonadaptive forces of evolution are stochastic in nature, this conclusion raises some significant technical challenges. It is tempting to think that stochastic processes have no implications for the direction of evolution. However, the effects of mutation and recombination are nonrandom, and by magnifying the role of chance, genetic drift indirectly imposes directionality on evolution by encouraging the fixation of mildly deleterious mutations and discouraging the promotion of beneficial mutations.

(my emphasis added)
All 4 forces are needed to understand evolution. But there are many aspects that have negligible contribution from natural selection.

 

[Oncedeceived]

stevew, this paper does not support your claim of Natural selection (adaptive forces) are negligible and/or minimal when it comes to how life can change and develop. (my emphasis added).
The evolution of genetic networks by non-adaptive processes (2007) by Michael Lynch is about transcriptional networks (not strictly "life"). It does not say that natural selection is not responsible for the "origin of many aspects of gene-network topologies". It says that non-adaptive processes can just as easily explain these aspects in computational procedures.

Did you miss this: 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. Emphasis mine.

 

[Loudmouth]

Oncedeceived, the opinion of one scientist described in a magazine article is not the scientific literature.

Darwin even spoke of neutral evolution of organs, most notably with vestigial organs. Obviously, Darwinian evolution has incorporated neutral evolution from the very start, and continues to. At no point has Darwinian evolution ever required natural selection to be dominant over neutral drift, especially where it concerns genomes.

It is nothing more than a made up controversy meant to muddy the waters.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Did you miss this:

Did you read what you quoted in my reply to stevew?

stevew, this paper does not support your claim of Natural selection (adaptive forces) are negligible and/or minimal when it comes to how life can change and develop. (my emphasis added).
The evolution of genetic networks by non-adaptive processes (2007) by Michael Lynch is about transcriptional networks (not strictly "life"). It does not say that natural selection is not responsible for the "origin of many aspects of gene-network topologies". It says that non-adaptive processes can just as easily explain these aspects in computational procedures.

That is exactly what I said the Lynch paper says.

 

[RealityCheck01]

http://www.pnas.org/content/104/30/12235.abstract

The new mutation theory of phenotypic evolution is once again an opinion of Masatoshi Nei.
But I am glad that you agree that stevew is wrong with this citation. As Nei states and you quoted: "It appears that the driving force of phenotypic evolution is mutation, and natural selection is of secondary importance.", i.e. natural selection is less important, not "negligible and/or minimal".

A book with the title "There is More to Evolution than Just Natural Selection" is a well Duh moment ! This is what the modern evolutionary synthesis has been stating for well over 30 years.
Read my post More about adaptive processes in biology - biologists have been aware that they are not the only processes since before 1979...

 

[KCfromNC]

I will have to go and look, I haven't went through the whole thread.

Nah, no reason to have any idea what the discussion is about before trying to correct people.

You said his claim wasn't that it was "not dominant" and it clearly was there in black and white.

No, that was a quote from a source he was trying to use to support his claim that "Natural selection (adaptive forces) are negligible". Even you can see that they are different.

Natural selection can change nothing.

Citation needed.

It changes nothing it works on what has been changed.

Citation needed.

 

[KCfromNC]

Did you actually read this paper? Just want to make sure this isn't another example of you knowing what must be in your source without looking at them.

Still wondering about this question.

 

[KCfromNC]

http://www.pnas.org/content/104/30/12235.abstract

However, once the mutations are incorporated into the genome, they may generate developmental constraints that will affect the future direction of phenotypic evolution. It appears that the driving force of phenotypic evolution is mutation, and natural selection is of secondary importance.

Hey look, a creationist posting a paper touting natural selection as important to try and back up a claim that "Natural selection (adaptive forces) are negligible".

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-015-9794-2

Did you read this book? What are the 5 most important paragraphs which support the claim that "Natural selection (adaptive forces) are negligible"?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Did you read what you quoted in my reply to stevew?

That is exactly what I said the Lynch paper says.

The point I was making was in reference to the out and out falsehood that KC posted against stevew.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Hey look, a creationist posting a paper touting natural selection as important to try and back up a claim that "Natural selection (adaptive forces) are negligible".

Did you read this book? What are the 5 most important paragraphs which support the claim that "Natural selection (adaptive forces) are negligible"?

Natural selection is important to what succeeds, no one is claiming otherwise. Sometimes, natural selection is negligible.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Nah, no reason to have any idea what the discussion is about before trying to correct people.

Your falsehood against steveew was clearly obvious.

No, that was a quote from a source he was trying to use to support his claim that "Natural selection (adaptive forces) are negligible". Even you can see that they are different.

What I saw was a post steveew posted which clearly stated that natural selection was not dominate and you saying that it was not his claim which it was there in black and white.

Citation needed.

Does natural selection change anything in the genome?

Citation needed.

I an certainly open to correction. Do you have something to show I am incorrect?

 

[RealityCheck01]

The point I was making was in reference to the out and out falsehood that KC posted against stevew.

There was no falsehood as anyone who reads the exchange or my posts about it can see.
stevew claimed Natural selection (adaptive forces) are negligible and/or minimal when it comes to how life can change and develop. (my emphasis added).
None of the papers he cited states that adaption is "negligible and/or minimal". They are one side of the debate about whether adaption is dominant or not.

1. Loudmouth pointed out this error.
2. KCfromNC pointed out this error.
3. You quoted a different assertion from stevew.
   #1348 was stevew changing his original "negligible and/or minimal" assertion to "not dominant".
4. I pointed out his original error in posts about each paper: #1362 #1363 #1365.

You should be able to understand that stevew made an error with his original "negligible and/or minimal assertion.

 

[RealityCheck01]

The evidence is showing that most of the ability for life to change is coming from non adaptive influences such as HGT or in development.

There is scientific evidence about known "non adaptive influences" in evolution, i.e. the factors of mutations, recombination and genetic drift.
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"?
Horizontal gene transfer is an important factor in evolution of many (not all) organisms, e.g. bacteria.

 

[Oncedeceived]

There is scientific evidence about known "non adaptive influences" in evolution, i.e. the factors of mutations, recombination and genetic drift.
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"?
Horizontal gene transfer is an important factor in evolution of many (not all) organisms, e.g. bacteria.

HGT nor natural selection can do anything until there is a genetic variation.

 

[RealityCheck01]

HGT nor natural selection can do anything until there is a genetic variation.

Correct. ETA - plenty of sources of genetic variation, e.g. mutations, transcription errors, etc.

 

[KCfromNC]

the out and out falsehood that KC posted against stevew.

Citation needed.