Where did the laws of nature come from?

[VirOptimus]

I may do so but why should I have to go to that extent. I dont see others continually contacting the authors of papers to verify what they say. A person can surely understand what the paper states in clear terms. Its not rocket science if you can comprehend English. If it states evolution needs a rethink then that is pretty self explanatory. When someone tries to rationalize that away to try and confuse things by saying no it is really meaning something else then that only questions their integrity. But in the meantime I would like to know what you think. Do you think the papers are referring to evolution generally or just a small section or part of evolution. Do you think as Loudmouth has stated that the papers are only referring to natural selections ability to evolve complexity that this complexity isn't about complex life in general. Or is it only referring to certain complex life.

Why? Because you are quite frankly wrong.

If the papers said what you say the say then it would be a scientific discovery of a magnitude that would be nobel prize worthy. It would be in all the news.

But they dont. Its you who either willingly misrepresent or dont understand. And no matter how much you are shown to be wrong you keep insisting you are right.

 

[stevevw]

Why? Because you are quite frankly wrong.

If the papers said what you say the say then it would be a scientific discovery of a magnitude that would be nobel prize worthy. It would be in all the news.

That is a fallacious argument based on a false conclusion. Your saying because it hasn't made headlines it must not be true. That isn't based on any solid evidence but an appeal to illogical conclusions. 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. 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.

But they dont. Its you who either willingly misrepresent or dont understand. And no matter how much you are shown to be wrong you keep insisting you are right.

The problem I havnt been shown that I am wrong. 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. I also said even if you only apply it to complexity only its still showing natural selections inability to evolve complex gene networks. So even your side is agreeing that the papers apply to natural selection having some sort of inability to evolve some or more of complex gene networks. So there is no issue with understanding because your side agree at least with some of what has been said in the papers.

But what about you. I asked for you to give your opinion on what you think the paper states. If you claim that I am wrong then you have to know what I am wrong about otherwise its an empty assertion. But you are still are avoiding to explain what the paper means then when it says that natural selection in negligible and insufficient for evolving complex gene networks.

As I have stated in the past this paper below sums up best what I am talking about. In fact it points out the very thing that is happening on this thread where this evidence is provoking reactions and people are defending the traditionalist paradigm with fervor making accusations of muddle and misrepresentation. perhaps haunted by the specter of intelligent design in this case supporters of evolution wish to show a united front to those hostile to science.

Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?
The number of biologists calling for change in how evolution is conceptualized is growing rapidly. Strong support comes from allied disciplines, particularly developmental biology, but also genomics, epigenetics, ecology and social science1, 2. We contend that evolutionary biology needs revision if it is to benefit fully from these other disciplines. The data supporting our position gets stronger every day.

Yet the mere mention of the EES (Extended evolution synthesis) often evokes an emotional, even hostile, reaction among evolutionary biologists. Too often, vital discussions descend into acrimony, with accusations of muddle or misrepresentation. Perhaps haunted by the spectra of intelligent design, evolutionary biologists wish to show a united front to those hostile to science. Some might fear that they will receive less funding and recognition if outsiders — such as physiologists or developmental biologists — flood into their field.

However, another factor is more important: many conventional evolutionary biologists study the processes that we claim are neglected, but they comprehend them very differently (see ‘No, all is well’). This is no storm in an academic tearoom, it is a struggle for the very soul of the discipline.

Here we articulate the logic of the EES in the hope of taking some heat out of this debate and encouraging open discussion of the fundamental causes of evolutionary change (see Supplementary Information).
http://www.nature.com/news/does-evolutionary-theory-need-a-rethink-1.16080

Here is another paper even critiquing one of the papers I posted by Michael Lynch which even states that the paper says what I have posted.
Non-adaptive evolution of genome complexity
Summary
Genome complexity is correlated with biological complexity. A recent paper by Michael Lynch proposes that evolution of complex genomic architecture was driven primarily by non-adaptive stochastic forces, rather than by adaptive evolution. (1) A general negative relationship between selection efficiency and genome complexity provides a strong support for this hypothesis.

Recently, Michael Lynch and his colleagues have published a series of papers that are firmly based on well-established population genetic theories to provide a new idea that can explain genome complexities of prokaryotes, unicellular and multicellular eukaryotes as a continuum that spans this divide. (1,4,5) A central theme of this idea is that many characteristics of complex genomic structures have originated via non-adaptive, stochastic processes.
http://yilab.gatech.edu/publications/Yi_BioEssays_2006.pdf

 

[VirOptimus]

That is a fallacious argument based on a false conclusion. Your saying because it hasn't made headlines it must not be true. That isn't based on any solid evidence but an appeal to illogical conclusions. 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. 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.

The problem I havnt been shown that I am wrong. 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. I also said even if you only apply it to complexity only its still showing natural selections inability to evolve complex gene networks. So even your side is agreeing that the papers apply to natural selection having some sort of inability to evolve some or more of complex gene networks. So there is no issue with understanding because your side agree at least with some of what has been said in the papers.

But what about you. I asked for you to give your opinion on what you think the paper states. If you claim that I am wrong then you have to know what I am wrong about otherwise its an empty assertion. But you are still are avoiding to explain what the paper means then when it says that natural selection in negligible and insufficient for evolving complex gene networks.

As I have stated in the past this paper below sums up best what I am talking about. In fact it points out the very thing that is happening on this thread where this evidence is provoking reactions and people are defending the traditionalist paradigm with fervor making accusations of muddle and misrepresentation. perhaps haunted by the specter of intelligent design in this case supporters of evolution wish to show a united front to those hostile to science.

Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?
The number of biologists calling for change in how evolution is conceptualized is growing rapidly. Strong support comes from allied disciplines, particularly developmental biology, but also genomics, epigenetics, ecology and social science1, 2. We contend that evolutionary biology needs revision if it is to benefit fully from these other disciplines. The data supporting our position gets stronger every day.

Yet the mere mention of the EES (Extended evolution synthesis) often evokes an emotional, even hostile, reaction among evolutionary biologists. Too often, vital discussions descend into acrimony, with accusations of muddle or misrepresentation. Perhaps haunted by the spectra of intelligent design, evolutionary biologists wish to show a united front to those hostile to science. Some might fear that they will receive less funding and recognition if outsiders — such as physiologists or developmental biologists — flood into their field.

However, another factor is more important: many conventional evolutionary biologists study the processes that we claim are neglected, but they comprehend them very differently (see ‘No, all is well’). This is no storm in an academic tearoom, it is a struggle for the very soul of the discipline.

Here we articulate the logic of the EES in the hope of taking some heat out of this debate and encouraging open discussion of the fundamental causes of evolutionary change (see Supplementary Information).
http://www.nature.com/news/does-evolutionary-theory-need-a-rethink-1.16080

Here is another paper even critiquing one of the papers I posted by Michael Lynch which even states that the paper says what I have posted.
Non-adaptive evolution of genome complexity
Summary
Genome complexity is correlated with biological complexity. A recent paper by Michael Lynch proposes that evolution of complex genomic architecture was driven primarily by non-adaptive stochastic forces, rather than by adaptive evolution. (1) A general negative relationship between selection efficiency and genome complexity provides a strong support for this hypothesis.

Recently, Michael Lynch and his colleagues have published a series of papers that are firmly based on well-established population genetic theories to provide a new idea that can explain genome complexities of prokaryotes, unicellular and multicellular eukaryotes as a continuum that spans this divide. (1,4,5) A central theme of this idea is that many characteristics of complex genomic structures have originated via non-adaptive, stochastic processes.
http://yilab.gatech.edu/publications/Yi_BioEssays_2006.pdf

I want you to say in one short sentence what you think the articles say.

 

[stevevw]

But you tried to use this as evidence to support you claim that natural selection was negligible. If your claim had anything to do specifically with gene networks the paper might be useful. But instead, it says not that natural selection is negligible, but that it is one of the 4 fundamental forces of evolution. And despite this you continue to say the paper claims the opposite

So what does this mean then,

many aspects of genomic, cellular, and developmental evolution can only be understood by invoking a negligible level of adaptive involvement

Isn't this saying that we can only understand the evolution of genomic, cellular and developmental evolution better by applying a negligible level of natural selection.

This means that complexity may not be the result of selection.

That has nothing to do with your claim that selection is negligible, just that it isn't the only thing which drives evolution. Didn't I correct you on this multiple times already?

This means that transcriptional networks may not be the result of selection. That has nothing to do with your claim that selection is negligible, just that it isn't the only thing which drives evolution.

Any other papers you need help understanding?

So your admitting that the paper is saying complexity and transcription networks may not be the result of natural selection. So if if these things may not be the result of natural selection does that make natural selection a negligible force for complexity and transcription networks.

 

[stevevw]

I want you to say in one short sentence what you think the articles say.

That many aspects of complex gene networks are the results of non adaptive forces and not natural selection.

 

[KCfromNC]

That doesn't harmonize with the theoretical statements physicists make concerning alternate universes and dimensions where the laws of nature are described as differing drastically from our own.

Why does reality have to harmonize with things physicists make up?

 

[KCfromNC]

Why dont you write to the authors of the paper and ask them?

Because the authors will point him to the same thing we did - that they explicitly say that selection is one of the primary forces driving evolution.

Or was that a different paper? Considering how often we're asked to jump from quote-mine to quote-mine to try and fabricate support for this version of creationism I have trouble keeping track of what we're supposed to pay attention to and what we're supposed to ignore this time around.

 

[KCfromNC]

So what does this mean then,

many aspects of genomic, cellular, and developmental evolution can only be understood by invoking a negligible level of adaptive involvement

Isn't this saying that we can only understand the evolution of genomic, cellular and developmental evolution better by applying a negligible level of natural selection.

Why do you ask? Even if it meant what you said, that does nothing to support your claim that natural selection is negligible.

So your admitting that the paper is saying complexity and transcription networks may not be the result of natural selection.

Am I?

So if if these things may not be the result of natural selection does that make natural selection a negligible force for complexity and transcription networks.

If you're admitting that you were wrong to claim that natural selection is negligible in a general sense I won't get in your way. You could have saved yourself a lot of typing by coming clean a week or two ago, though.

 

[Radrook]

Why does reality have to harmonize with things physicists make up?

It doesn't.

 

[stevevw]

Why do you ask? Even if it meant what you said, that does nothing to support your claim that natural selection is negligible.

It just said it was negligible in the quote. How can you not read English. It said when it comes to
genomic, cellular, and developmental evolution they can only be understood by invoking a negligible level of adaptive involvement or (natural selection) my emphasis.

Same thing isn't it. Invoking a negligible level of natural section is saying that natural selection is negligible.

Am I?

Ah yeah when asked what these papers meant you replied

KCfromNC said
This means that complexity may not be the result of selection. That has nothing to do with your claim that selection is negligible, just that it isn't the only thing which drives evolution. Didn't I correct you on this multiple times already?

KCfromNC said
This means that transcriptional networks may not be the result of selection. That has nothing to do with your claim that selection is negligible, just that it isn't the only thing which drives evolution. Didn't I correct you on this multiple times already

If you're admitting that you were wrong to claim that natural selection is negligible in a general sense I won't get in your way. You could have saved yourself a lot of typing by coming clean a week or two ago, though.

I didn't agree with that 2 weeks ago and still dont. I just wanted to move on from it as we seem to be stuck on this point which is minor to me as you have acknowledged a fair amount that natural selection cannot be accounted for. Complexity, transcriptional networks, genomic, cellular, and developmental evolution is enough to say that it covers a fair amount of evolution.

The point is your never going to admit completely what the papers say because its to hard for you. So I guess some admission is good enough for now. I only intended to make that point but didn't realize the reaction I would get. Now its come to a point where its just going around in circles. So theres no point in persisting.

 

[KCfromNC]

It just said it was negligible in the quote. How can you not read English.

Kinda ironic coming from someone trying to support their claim that natural selection is negligible using paper which lists it first among four fundamental forces driving evolution.

Do you have anything of substance or are you just going to keep insisting that only you understand the hidden messages you're finding in papers which plainly say the opposite?

 

[stevevw]

Kinda ironic coming from someone trying to support their claim that natural selection is negligible using paper which lists it first among four fundamental forces driving evolution.

Do you have anything of substance or are you just going to keep insisting that only you understand the hidden messages you're finding in papers which plainly say the opposite?

No one said that natural selection isn't involved in evolution. WE are talking about its ability to evolve complex gene networks and you have admitted its inability to evolve complex genes and transcriptional networks.

so what did the paper mean when it said genomic, cellular, and developmental evolution can only be understood by invoking a negligible level of adaptive involvement or (natural selection) my emphasis.

You are the one who is not understanding what the paper is saying about natural selection. It refers to natural selection several times as not being able or sufficient to evolve gene networks and that non adaptive forces are more responsible for how organisms gain complex gene structures.

You are not reading the papers and just fixating onto this one statemnet out of context. You are doing what you accuse me of doing. If you take the entire paper into consideration you will see that it clearly states that natural selection or adaptive evolution is insufficient, negligible, unable, to evolve complex gene networks and that is what we are talking about not some other ability.

So natural selections ability may be significant and it may play a role in evolution but its not for evolving complex gene or transcriptional networks or genomic, cellular or developmental evolution.

So in saying all this you need to tell me what these statements are saying from the same paper.


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.

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

 

[HitchSlap]

so what did the paper mean when it said genomic, cellular, and developmental evolution can only be understood by invoking a negligible level of adaptive involvement or (natural selection) my emphasis.

Who cares? What matters is what the authors actually meant, in context. Not what a creationist twists to fit their personal narrative.

 

[KCfromNC]

No one said that natural selection isn't involved in evolution. WE are talking about its ability to evolve complex gene networks and

At least you are now. Like I said before, it is good you've finally come around to realize that your blanked claim that natural selection was negligible was wrong. You could have saved the life of lots of innocent light purple electrons if you had just come clean a few weeks ago rather than doubling down trying to defend that obvious mistake, but oh well.

you have admitted its inability to evolve complex genes and transcriptional networks.

I have? I think your confusing my ability to actually understand what scientific papers are claiming with me accepting those claims. But please continue to publicly misunderstand what I've written. It makes me oh so much more likely to think you're able to understand other people's writings.

You are the one who is not understanding what the paper is saying about natural selection.

No, I've consistently said that despite your quote-mining, it correctly identifies it as one of the four main forces driving evolution.

 

[stevevw]

Who cares? What matters is what the authors actually meant, in context. Not what a creationist twists to fit their personal narrative.

Who said anything about creationists, we are having a scientific debate about scientific papers. Your the one taking things over to that level. So what did the authors mean seeming you are so eager to give your opinion.

 

[stevevw]

At least you are now. Like I said before, it is good you've finally come around to realize that your blanked claim that natural selection was negligible was wrong. You could have saved the life of lots of innocent light purple electrons if you had just come clean a few weeks ago rather than doubling down trying to defend that obvious mistake, but oh well.

I have always stated that natural selection plays a role in evolution. I have just questioned what role and the level of ability for evolving the proteins and gene networks that are required for life. I have stated this from the beginning and I have stated this for a long time of this site.

I have? I think your confusing my ability to actually understand what scientific papers are claiming with me accepting those claims. But please continue to publicly misunderstand what I've written. It makes me oh so much more likely to think you're able to understand other people's writings.

Do I detect a little back tracking now. You know what the papers are saying and it is clear. Theres no secret meaning behind what they say and its not rocket science. Its written in plain everyday English. It states whats its talking about and I have posted that and thats is what you agreed with.

No, I've consistently said that despite your quote-mining, it correctly identifies it as one of the four main forces driving evolution.

And you keep avoiding to answer this question which is in the same paper in the same section right under the piece you are referring to. So why does it say that genomic, cellular, and developmental evolution can only be understood by invoking a negligible level of adaptive involvement or (natural selection) my emphasis.

It seems your quote mining by ignoring the section of that paragraph and not acknowledging what it means and refers to.

 

[stevevw]

Kinda ironic coming from someone trying to support their claim that natural selection is negligible using paper which lists it first among four fundamental forces driving evolution.

Do you have anything of substance or are you just going to keep insisting that only you understand the hidden messages you're finding in papers which plainly say the opposite?

Yes that little section just underneath the portion you keep referring to that I have asked you to comment on several times now. So what does it mean when it states that genomic, cellular, and developmental evolution can only be understood by invoking a negligible level of adaptive involvement or (natural selection) my emphasis.

 

[HitchSlap]

Who said anything about creationists, we are having a scientific debate about scientific papers. Your the one taking things over to that level. So what did the authors mean seeming you are so eager to give your opinion.

I haven't read the studies, but dollars to donuts, I guarantee their own conclusions are not what you're purporting them to be. I don't trust creationist interpretations of scientific papers, they've never gotten it right. Not once.

 

[RealityCheck01]

I understand the papers well and have posted personal extended summaries of them many times....

The evidence in this thread says that you have not understood the English or science in the papers - even going to the extent of quote mining (lying about) one.
The answer to this simple question:
8 August 2016 stevevw: Do you understand that quote mining is definitely misleading and close to lying, e.g. removing "all four major forces play a substantial role in genomic evolution" from what you quoted from Lynch?
seems to be that you are happy to quote mine (lie about) that section in Lynch's paper by cutting the first sentence: Second, all four major forces play a substantial role in genomic evolution.
And now we have a new claim !
11 August 2016 stevevw: Cite and quote the many statements where where Lynch explicitly writes natural selection is "minor or insufficient".
There is

...
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. Under this view, the reductions in Ng that likely accompanied both the origin of eukaryotes and the emergence of the animal and land-plant lineages may have played pivotal roles in the origin of modular gene architectures on which further developmental complexity was built.

19 July 2016 stevevw: Three citations that do not state "Natural selection (adaptive forces) are negligible and/or minimal..." !
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"?
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".
28 July 2016 stevevw: The record of the "negligible and/or minimal" assertion.
29 July 2016 stevevw: "many aspects of genomic, cellular, and developmental evolution" is not all or even most of evolution !
29 July 2016 stevevw: Quote mining to hide the context of a quote is bad scholarship. Lynch states that "all four major forces play a substantial role in genomic evolution".
29 July 2016 stevevw: Cutting references from a quote is not good scholarship.
5 August 2016 stevevw: A Lynch citation to a quote starting "all four major forces play a substantial role in genomic evolution" explicitly debunks a "minor role or not much role at all" claim.

 

[HitchSlap]

The evidence in this thread says that you have not understood the English or science in the papers - even going to the extent of quote mining (lying about) one.
The answer to this simple question:
8 August 2016 stevevw: Do you understand that quote mining is definitely misleading and close to lying, e.g. removing "all four major forces play a substantial role in genomic evolution" from what you quoted from Lynch?
seems to be that you are happy to quote mine (lie about) that section in Lynch's paper by cutting the first sentence: Second, all four major forces play a substantial role in genomic evolution.
And now we have a new claim !
11 August 2016 stevevw: Cite and quote the many statements where where Lynch explicitly writes natural selection is "minor or insufficient".
There is


19 July 2016 stevevw: Three citations that do not state "Natural selection (adaptive forces) are negligible and/or minimal..." !
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"?
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".
28 July 2016 stevevw: The record of the "negligible and/or minimal" assertion.
29 July 2016 stevevw: "many aspects of genomic, cellular, and developmental evolution" is not all or even most of evolution !
29 July 2016 stevevw: Quote mining to hide the context of a quote is bad scholarship. Lynch states that "all four major forces play a substantial role in genomic evolution".
29 July 2016 stevevw: Cutting references from a quote is not good scholarship.
5 August 2016 stevevw: A Lynch citation to a quote starting "all four major forces play a substantial role in genomic evolution" explicitly debunks a "minor role or not much role at all" claim.

Nailed it!