Where did the laws of nature come from?

[[serious]]

These papers are talking about the entire process itself and not specific examples. The complexity they are talking about is the emergence and evolvability of all multi celled life as compared to simpler single celled life.

Out of curiosity, would you consider slime molds single celled or multicelled?

Slime molds live primarily as single celled life, but form multicellular reproductive structures when food becomes scarce.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slime_mold

 

[KCfromNC]

So when you said
" this quote is specifically talking about the origins of complexity"
you were not referring to natural selections ability to evolve complexity considering the quote you are referring to states that natural selections ability to evolve complexity is questionable.

It seems obvious you're intent on trying to find some way to read something into my posts which isn't there. What do you hope to accomplish? Do you really think you can trick me into somehow believing that this paper in any way supported your claim? Come on, give me more credit than that.

 

[KCfromNC]

These papers are talking about the entire process itself

That's simply false. When people accuse you of quote mining, that includes misleading summaries of them.

 

[Astrophile]

The earth is very old and as far as the creation story is concerned I don't believe that is a literal explanation based on any science.

Very good. So how long ago do you think the Cambrian period began and ended?

I think the basic code of life was created but I don't know the details of how. The evidence points to complex life being around early and appearing suddenly without much trace of where it came from.

The complex life of the Cambrian period was not the same as modern complex life. There were no coniferous trees or flowering plants, no insects, no spiders or scorpions, no barnacles, crabs or lobsters, no bony fish, no amphibians, reptiles, birds or mammals.

Certainly there are no gradual transitions that Darwin talks about. Nor is there for much of life and what some use as examples is very subjective and open to personal interpretation.

These are very debatable assertions.

As far as common descent is concerned once again this is mostly based on observations and is a similar assumption that is used to link certain anatomical similarities for transitional evolution. We have seen this type of evidence being contradicted time and time again and the genomic evidence seems to contradict this through the many incongruence in the tree of life Darwin made. There may be some common descent in life going back to common types of creatures that were the head of other types of creatures and a lot of variation has stemmed from this through a combination of mostly non adaptive forces. But I dont believe there is a universal common ancestor and this is based on assumption of what we see which are the results of other forces as mentioned above.

Do you think that modern plants and animals (e.g. conifers and flowering plants, insects, arachnids, barnacles, crabs and lobsters, bony fish, land vertebrates) are descended from the plants and animals whose fossils we find in Cambrian rocks? If not, what Cambrian ancestors are modern living things descended from?

 

[stevevw]

It seems obvious you're intent on trying to find some way to read something into my posts which isn't there. What do you hope to accomplish? Do you really think you can trick me into somehow believing that this paper in any way supported your claim? Come on, give me more credit than that.

No I'm just trying to determine that at the very least someone is acknowledging what the papers are saying even if you may think they are wrong. You seemed to be acknowledging what the papers were saying by pointing out that the papers were referring to natural selection and complex life and not a more general ability for natural selection and evolution. It seems at this point no one wants to even acknowledge what the papers are saying let alone prove anything. That to me is a very defensive position which doesn't want to give an inch because the perceived admission would give some ground to discredit evolution. But all the admission would be doing is acknowledging what the papers are truly saying and not admitting to anything. At least then we could move onto the next stage of debating about what the paper says.

 

[[serious]]

No I'm just trying to determine that at the very least someone is acknowledging what the papers are saying even if you may think they are wrong. You seemed to be acknowledging what the papers were saying by pointing out that the papers were referring to natural selection and complex life and not a more general ability for natural selection and evolution. It seems at this point no one wants to even acknowledge what the papers are saying let alone prove anything. That to me is a very defensive position which doesn't want to give an inch because the perceived admission would give some ground to discredit evolution. But all the admission would be doing is acknowledging what the papers are truly saying and not admitting to anything. At least then we could move onto the next stage of debating about what the paper says.

I haven't been following this thread too closely, but I'm pretty sure your interpretation of the papers is what's being questioned. Tell you what, I'll take a look at those 3 papers you linked in reply to me earlier (I didn't earlier because I haven't really been engaged in the debate thus far). I'll try to sum up my takeaway from each, and you tell me if you think it's a good interpretation.

http://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl_1/8597.full
Many biologists view natural selection as the key driver of biodiveristy, but that is too simplistic a view as genetic drift and mutation are also very important. Key take away, random elements to evolution must also be carefully considered.

http://www.nature.com/nrg/journal/v8/n10/abs/nrg2192.html
Many scientists assume natural selection is chiefly responsible for complex gene interactions, but many features transcriptional networks can arise through genetic drift, mutation and recombination. Key take away, random elements to evolution must also be carefully considered.

http://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl_1/8597.full
This is the same link as the first one.

I fully agree that genetic drift and mutation are important aspects of evolution and must be carefully considered.

 

[RealityCheck01]

I thought I already has supplied the evidence.

You supplied evidence that debunked your "negligible and/or minima" assertion.

stevew's original invalid statement was Natural selection (adaptive forces) are negligible and/or minimal when it comes to how life can change and develop. and my post #1376 has the history of people pointing out the errors in it.

This is either that already debunked assertion stated differently or a new assertion:
19 July 2016 stevevw: 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 not a mechanism for all of life and "most of life" is too vague. If you were only talking about bacteria then you would have a case. I am not hopeful that you will be able to supply any evidence to support your assertion given the list of irrelevant papers and invalid statements you have already made about biology.

This post expands "in development" to what might be a fantasy of "(developmental bias) where development is guided along specific paths that are set" being an evolutionary mechanism. That really needs citations of the scientific literature. It could be a bad description of an aspect of evolutionary developmental biology (PZ Meyers area of expertise).

 

[RealityCheck01]

Yes but as I stated earlier which you seem to have conveniently ignored ....

I did not ignore it - you were wrong in your assertion, stevevw.
19 July 2016 stevevw: Three citations that do not state "Natural selection (adaptive forces) are negligible and/or minimal..." !
Like "not a giant" does not mean "is a dwarf", "not dominant" does not mean "is negligible and/or minimal".

What "not dominate" means is that adaptive processes do not dominate in the opinion of the authors of a paper (or 3). What sensible people realize is that dominance of evolutionary processes is a debated topic and the opinions on both sides exist - there are adaptionists who think that adaptive processes dominate and non-adaptionists who argue that adaptive processes do not dominate.

The really ironic thing is ignorance about "darwins theory" which has not existed for over a century ever since Mendel genetics was rediscovered and certainly not since the modern synthesis ! No one who has learned about biology thinks that evolutionary theory stopped with Darwin. Adaptionists do not think that natural selection is "all powerful" because they know of examples where it is not, e.g. bacteria. Likewise non-adaptionists do not think that natural selection is minimal or negligible because they know of examples where it is not, e.g. the many lineages of mammals.

 

[VirOptimus]

No I am not a YEC or a creationists, ID proponent or belong to any other particular religious group. I do agree with some of the ideas of ID that scientifically show the difficulties that mutations can create fitter and more complex life and that the evidence shows that there is a lot more to life that seems more designed that anything else. The scientific evidence they show is also supported by mainstream scientists. The earth is very old and as far as the creation story is concerned I dont believe that is a literal explanation based on any science.

I do believe that existences shows that there is design in it through what we see and the origins of something from nothing is just one major problem for science to explain. Any attempt to explain these things is hard to make any verifiable claims but I think the God h idea is just as good as any that have been put forward by some world views such as multiverses and hologram worlds. They all appeal to dimensions beyond out worlds which shows that any possible explanation has to step out side the ways we have measured cause and effect. I like the post that Archie the preacher has just made above and this would be my position as well.

I think the basic code of life was created but I dont know the details of how. The evidence points to complex life being around early and appearing suddenly without much trace of where it came from. Certainly there are no gradual transitions that Darwin talks about. Nor is there for much of life and what some use as examples is very subjective and open to personal interpretation. If there is any bias going on then it happens on all sides because much of the debate is based on observation and personal interpretations. Evolution is based on a lot of these assumptions ans speculations. Thats why its important to look at the evidence such as genomics as well because this can verify or cast doubt on what has been said.

AS far as common decent is concerned once again this is mostly based on observations and is a similar assumption that is used to link certain anatomical similarities for transitional evolution. We have seen this type of evidence being contradicted time and time again and the genomic evidence seems to contradict this through the many incongruence in the tree of life Darwin made. There may be some common decent in life going back to common types of creatures that were the head of other types of creatures and a lot of variation has stemmed from this through a combination of mostly non adaptive forces. But I dont believe there is a universal common ancestor and this is based on assumption of what we see which are the results of other forces as mentioned above.

I dont understand why you cant post your real beliefs and motivations. Below is a another post by from a another thread that clearly shows that the only reason you dont belive in the ToE is your religious belief.

I think the main proof for me is personal experience. I was once saved and was happy and life was good. Then I lost faith through drifting away from God over time. I then started to doubt and question everything. I wanted evidence that God was real otherwise I couldn't believe in something that I couldn't see. When I looked I started to get into evolution and became convinced that everything evolved. Though I still had this small flame of belief which I couldn't work out why. That small flame kept bugging me and it grew into a bigger flame. Despite all the logic and evidence I thought I had I still kept thinking there's more to it than what I see. It just doesn't make sense that everything made itself. It was to amazing to have come from nothing.

Then I let God back in and everything fell into place. I became unhappy when I drifted away from God. I was chasing material things and the worlds idea of happiness and peace. When I found God again I found true happiness and peace. So for me its my personal experience of having found God, then drifting away like the prodigal son and then coming back. I had done it twice so I had this good comparison I had experienced to know. Its like I got a second opinion to make sure and now I know for sure.

 

[KCfromNC]

No I'm just trying to determine that at the very least someone is acknowledging what the papers are saying even if you may think they are wrong.

Try again. As others have correctly determined, my claim is not that the papers are wrong. It is that you're attempting to use them to prove things they don't even talk about.

 

[stevevw]

You supplied evidence that debunked your "negligible and/or minima" assertion.

So how is this evidence debunking what I said about Minimal and /or negligible. This is the original post that KCfrom NC asked to support what I said about minimal and/or negligible. Jul 17, 2016 #1344.
How is insufficient, Inability, not necessary, unproven and does the opposite not supporting what I said. It actually goes further and states it is insufficient, isn't even able to do it and even promotes the opposite let alone have a negligible or minimal effect.

if there is an advantage of organismal complexity, one can only marvel at the inability of natural selection to promote it.
Thus, contrary to popular belief, natural selection may not only be an insufficient mechanism for the origin of genetic modularity, but population-genetic environments that maximize the efficiency of natural selection may actually promote the opposite situation, alleles under unified transcriptional control.
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl_1/8597.full

The evolution of genetic networks by non-adaptive processes
Although numerous investigators assume that the global features of genetic networks are moulded by natural selection, there has been no formal demonstration of the adaptive origin of any genetic network. 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

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.
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl_1/8597.full
Now the words highlighted in the above points from these papers state that when it comes to promoting higher levels of complexity or "gene networks" in living organisms natural selection is insufficient, has inability, may not be necessary and actually promotes the opposite of functional complexity as in the quote from the paper that states "natural selection may actually promote the opposite situation".

If you look at the quote from the paper entitled The evolution of genetic networks by non-adaptive processes you will see it is saying that " although there are numerous investigators who assume that the features of genetic networks are moulded by natural selection there has been no formal demonstration of the adaptive origin of any genetic network. It goes onto say this raises questions of whether natural selection is necessary or even sufficient for the origin of many aspects of gene-network topologies.

So it states that there is an assumption based on no evidence that natural selection can create gene networks and that is exactly what I and other shave been saying. These papers clearly state and support what I said that natural selection is minimal and/or negligible. These paper not only support what I said they go further and state that natural selection may not even be sufficient or capable to evolve gene networks. I posted this two pages back but you have ignored it and I have posted these papers saying the same things over and over again.

This is either that already debunked assertion stated differently or a new assertion:
19 July 2016 stevevw: 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"?

I stated that HGT and development bias were just two of a number of non adaptive forces which I have mentioned many times. I then went on to post additional support of the other non adaptive forces besides HGT and development bias which you are ignoring. You seem to be choosing certain quotes I have said and then focusing on them and twisting them into something I haven't said or didn't mean. Here is the post where I replied with the other non adaptive forces.As far as KCfromNC debunking what I said. He chose to focus on one thing I said that natural selection was minimal and/or negligible and used one quote from those papers. But right under his rebuttal was another quote which did support what I said which I had already stated many times which was ignored. Jul 18, 2016 #1353.

Horizontal gene transfer is not a mechanism for all of life and "most of life" is too vague. If you were only talking about bacteria then you would have a case. I am not hopeful that you will be able to supply any evidence to support your assertion given the list of irrelevant papers and invalid statements you have already made about biology.

If you look at what I said I said that HGT is just one of a number of non adaptive forces. So why you are just focusing on that alone I dont know. Maybe you want to deflect attention away from the other non adaptive influences.
Friday at 10:51 PM #1409.
Second HGT happens in more complex life besides bacteria.
Horizontal gene transfer between bacteria and animals
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3068243/
Jumping Genes versus Epigenetics: The Real Drivers of Evolution
http://jonlieffmd.com/blog/jumping-genes-versus-epigenetics-the-real-drivers-of-evolution

This post expands "in development" to what might be a fantasy of "(developmental bias) where development is guided along specific paths that are set" being an evolutionary mechanism. That really needs citations of the scientific literature. It could be a bad description of an aspect of evolutionary developmental biology (PZ Meyers area of expertise).

So rather than relying on wikipedia for support how about using peer reviewed scientific support.

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 others3. For example, among one group of centipedes, each of the more than 1,000 species has an odd number of leg-bearing segments, because of the mechanisms of segment development3.

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

The success of the modern synthesis has resulted in forces of evolutionary change other than natural selection being marginalized. However, recent work has attempted to show the importance of non-selective influences in shaping organic form. One such force is developmental bias, in which phenotypes are differentially produced.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18460098

 

[Loudmouth]

These papers are talking about the entire process itself . . .

That is false. They are talking about specific examples.

The complexity they are talking about is the emergence and evolvability of all multi celled life as compared to simpler single celled life.

The genetic complexity they are talking about is not the whole of evolution.

 

[Loudmouth]

The evolution of genetic networks by non-adaptive processes
Although numerous investigators assume that the global features of genetic networks are moulded by natural selection, there has been no formal demonstration of the adaptive origin of any genetic network.

The increased complexity of genetic networks are not the whole of evolution. Until you can get this simple fact right, there is no need to go farther.

 

[RealityCheck01]

So how is this evidence debunking what I said about Minimal and /or negligible.....

19 July 2016 stevevw: Three citations that do not state "Natural selection (adaptive forces) are negligible and/or minimal..." !
And since you obviously have not read my posts I have posted them again.
There are a couple of other relevant posts
21 July 2016 stevevw: The hint of cherry picking sources to suit your case even when they do not support you.
21 July 2016 stevevw: Like "not a giant" does not mean "is a dwarf".

P.S.
19 July 2016 stevevw: 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"?

 

[RealityCheck01]

Read what I wrote on 18 July 2016:

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]

Read what I wrote on 18 July 2016:

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.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Read what I wrote on 18 July 2016:

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:

The next paragraph is

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

 

[RealityCheck01]

Second HGT happens in more complex life besides bacteria.

Second: A lesson in English - an example of X out of a set of (X, Y, Z) does not exclude Y or Z!
Bacteria are an example where HGT should be a dominant evolutionary mechanism that creates new species of bacteria, e.g. antibiotic resistant bacteria. Their example does not exclude more complex examples.

Rather then screeds of unsupported text why not back up your assertion with relevant scientific literature? For example you mention cichlid fishes in Lake Malawi and their similar shapes to those in Lake Tanganyika.
26 July 2016 stevevw: Cite the scientific defintion of "development bias" in modern evolutionary theory.
26 July 2016 stevevw: Cite the scientific literature that states that cichlid in Lake Malawi and Tanganyika have similar shapes because of "development bias".

Whoops - it is actually that you need to learn how to use quotes since that text is copied from a Nature opinion comment article. This is a quote, stevevw: Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

The story that SET 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 others3. For example, among one group of centipedes, each of the more than 1,000 species has an odd number of leg-bearing segments, because of the mechanisms of segment development3.

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.

There is nothing in that comment about adaptive processes being your "negligible and/or minimal". It is adaptive processes (selection) being restricted by processes of development.
More comments:
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? Yes, urgently

Without an extended evolutionary framework, the theory neglects key processes, say Kevin Laland and colleagues.

Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? No, all is well

Theory accommodates evidence through relentless synthesis, say Gregory A. Wray, Hopi E. Hoekstra and colleagues.

Still leaves the amount of errors made by you and many irrelevant papers that you have cited which makes assertions from you dubious.

 

[RealityCheck01]

For someone thinking that adaptive processes are "negligible and/or minimal" citing cichlid fishes is not good since they are examples of adaptive processes, for example Evolution of opercle shape in cichlid fishes from Lake Tanganyika - adaptive trait interactions in extant and extinct species flocks

The species flocks of cichlid fishes from the East African Great Lakes collectively represent an unparalleled example of adaptive radiation in vertebrates3,4,5,6.

 

[KCfromNC]

So how is this evidence debunking what I said about Minimal and /or negligible. This is the original post that KCfrom NC asked to support what I said about minimal and/or negligible. Jul 17, 2016 #1344.
How is insufficient, Inability, not necessary, unproven and does the opposite not supporting what I said.

In the ways pointed out specifically in posts you've ignored.

It actually goes further and states it is insufficient, isn't even able to do it and even promotes the opposite let alone have a negligible or minimal effect.

What does each it refer to in this sentence? The problem is that you're finding quotes about particular instances where natural selection isn't the best explanation and pretending that means that natural selection never does anything in any case whatsoever.

As far as KCfromNC debunking what I said. He chose to focus on one thing I said that natural selection was minimal and/or negligible and used one quote from those papers.

Yeah, my bad for actually responding to what you wrote. But what do you mean by "one quote from those papers"? I responded to a number of quote-mines from several papers.

But right under his rebuttal was another quote which did support what I said which I had already stated many times which was ignored. Jul 18, 2016 #1353.

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...ature-come-from.7928975/page-68#post-69888620

Yeah, it is my fault I didn't respond to a post which hadn't been written yet. Your point?