Where did the laws of nature come from?

[KCfromNC]

No, what the paper says is that nonadaptive forces may also be a part of the process. Adaptive forces is still part of the process however. In no way does it say that natural selection is a negliable force in evolutionary theory.

I never said that and have be clear about that several times. Its not whether natural selection doesn't play a role, its the quality and quantity of that role.

Natural selection (adaptive forces) are negligible and/or minimal when it comes to how life can change and develop. Therefore Darwin's theory of evolution has little influence on how life changes

I'll just leave this here.

 

[VirOptimus]

I'll just leave this here.

I know, its so funny! I hope he never changes.

 

[KCfromNC]

yeah me me me, it comes from this paper

I asked who in this thread made the claim. Nice try, though.

 

[KCfromNC]

I know, its so funny! I hope he never changes.

I'm sure it is just you reading it "out of context" that makes it look like he can't even remember his own sales pitch.

 

[stevevw]

Then you do belive ID to be correct?

Its like anything in science you have to check out whats said and see if it is supported on a case by case basis. Just because I happen to support something that ID has done doesn't mean I support everything they do. I havnt looked into that much to be honest so I cant say. I do believe in the basic idea though that there is design in life and thats where you have to look at the individual situations to see if they support design or not.

 

[VirOptimus]

Its like anything in science you have to check out whats said and see if it is supported on a case by case basis. Just because I happen to support something that ID has done doesn't mean I support everything they do. I havnt looked into that much to be honest so I cant say. I do believe in the basic idea though that there is design in life and thats where you have to look at the individual situations to see if they support design or not.

There is no scientific evidence for ID. Its just creationism i.e. religion and therefore un-scientific and has no place in a scientific debate.

 

[stevevw]

There is no scientific evidence for ID. Its just creationism i.e. religion and therefore un-scientific and has no place in a scientific debate.

Then how do you explain some of their papers in the main stream science journals being accepted as science. ID isnt creationism, creationism doesn't use any science and bases their beliefs on supernatural events such as the earth was created about 6,000 years ago by a creation form God. ID doesn't have any religious ceremonies, or use the supernatural to support their position. Everything has a scientific bases which can be tested and they also make predictions that can be falsified.

 

[stevevw]

I'll just leave this here.

Depends how you look at it, negligible and minimal doesn't mean not at all. But its also what we are talking about. When I am referring to how life changes and developed I am stating what the papers are saying about natural selection playing a negligible, role in the development of genomic architecture or gene complexity. The papers clearly state that this is the case so in that sense the papers support what I am saying.

Plus you are the ones who decided to focus on these words in particular and place so much importance on them How come you didn't focus on the many statements I have made before that saying that natural selection plays a role in evolution. Go back and check what I have said about the topic in the past instead of pulling out isolated quotes and taking them out of context. You do exactly what you accuse others of doing.

 

[stevevw]

I'm honestly not sure what you're even objecting to anymore. Do you have any specifics or are you just looking to throw around random vague accusations?

I was objecting to your hypocrisy on that particular occasion.

 

[VirOptimus]

Depends how you look at it, negligible and minimal doesn't mean not at all. But its also what we are talking about. When I am referring to how life changes and developed I am stating what the papers are saying about natural selection playing a negligible, role in the development of genomic architecture or gene complexity. The papers clearly state that this is the case so in that sense the papers support what I am saying.

Plus you are the ones who decided to focus on these words in particular and place so much importance on them How come you didn't focus on the many statements I have made before that saying that natural selection plays a role in evolution. Go back and check what I have said about the topic in the past instead of pulling out isolated quotes and taking them out of context. You do exactly what you accuse others of doing.

The papers do not support that. Its you who misrepresent/misunderstand.

 

[VirOptimus]

Then how do you explain some of their papers in the main stream science journals being accepted as science. ID isnt creationism, creationism doesn't use any science and bases their beliefs on supernatural events such as the earth was created about 6,000 years ago by a creation form God. ID doesn't have any religious ceremonies, or use the supernatural to support their position. Everything has a scientific bases which can be tested and they also make predictions that can be falsified.

No, ID is not science. There are no scientific evidence for ID.

ID is shown to be creationism in disguise (see the Dover trials).

If you are claiming otherwise, support it.

 

[stevevw]

They would be particular aspects.

OK so the question would be why does the paper say many aspects or numerous aspects of genomic architecture. Does that mean more than particular aspects. To me it implies a large part of the genome. Second what does the author mean when he states

Let's see what you think.

1. A whole genome duplication occurs, but it makes no measureable impact on fitness. Since the entire genome has been duplicated, you get twice as many transcription factors as you had before. This is an increase in genetic network complexity, and it is non-adaptive. However, it makes no immediate changes in the organisms who carry the whole genome duplication.

2. Over time, mutations in the duplicated genes cause them to diverge. Those mutations also cause the duplicated genes to differ in function, resulting in changes in morphology. Natural selection acts on these changes in morphology, causing the species to physically change over time.

Now, which aspect seems to be a fair amount of what we call evolution, #1 or #2?

Well it would be number 2 where natural selection is suppose to come in and select the beneficial change that leads to variations in the population. But dont the papers question this by saying things like this.

There is no consistent tendency of evolution towards increased genomic complexity, and when complexity increases, this appears to be a non-adaptive consequence of evolution under weak purifying selection rather than an adaptation.

If the overall genome is gaining variations through mutations isn't that increasing the complexity of the genome because it is adding new networks to the genome that are needed to make those new genes which make those new variations and features. The above statemnet is saying that it is non adaptive forces are what is increasing gene complexity and not natural selection.

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.

So applying what is said to your point 2 wouldn't this mean that when those changes are being fixed in populations the opposite will happen and rather than find beneficial changes it will find more negative mutations through genetic drift.

Jacob (46) argues that “it is natural selection that gives direction to changes, orients chance, and slowly, progressively produces more complex structures, new organs, and new species.” The vast majority of biologists almost certainly agree with such statements. But where is the direct supportive evidence for the assumption that complexity is rooted in adaptive processes?

The above statement from the paper more or less says what you are claiming in your point 2 that natural selection gives direction, orients chance and slowly produces complex structures, new organs and species. I assume when you say in point 2 that mutations add changes in morphology which leads to physical changes you are referring to changes in organs and species as the above statemnet mentions.

But the author states where is the evidence for this. This is the basis for his paper and he is questioning what evolution claims for natural selection. The author goes onto say.

No existing observations support such a claim, and given the massive global dominance of unicellular species over multicellular eukaryotes, both in terms of species richness and numbers of individuals, if there is an advantage of organismal complexity, one can only marvel at the inability of natural selection to promote it. Multicellular species experience reduced population sizes, reduced recombination rates, and increased deleterious mutation rates, all of which diminish the efficiency of selection (13).

So is he talking about all of evolution or just some specific part. To me it is talking about all complex life and the ability for natural selection to evolve increasing complexity for that life. He is saying in fact that if anything natural selections a deterrent for increased gene networks and therefore increased variations, features and species of complex life. If this is wrong rather than just object to it please explain how it is wrong.

 

[KCfromNC]

Depends how you look at it, negligible and minimal doesn't mean not at all.

Who said anything about "not at all". You were denying you said it was negligible :

No, what the paper says is that nonadaptive forces may also be a part of the process. Adaptive forces is still part of the process however. In no way does it say that natural selection is a negliable force in evolutionary theory.

I never said that and have be clear about that several times.

.

When I am referring to how life changes and developed I am stating what the papers are saying about natural selection playing a negligible, role in the development of genomic architecture or gene complexity.

Natural selection (adaptive forces) are negligible and/or minimal when it comes to how life can change and develop. Therefore Darwin's theory of evolution has little influence on how life changes

Remind us all again where Darwin's theory of evolution talks about genomic architecture.

Keeping all these claims straight must take a lot of effort.

How come you didn't focus on the many statements I have made before that saying that natural selection plays a role in evolution

Uh, OK. You get a gold star for occasionally not denying mainstream science.

 

[KCfromNC]

I was objecting to your hypocrisy on that particular occasion.

Again, I have no idea what you're talking about. If you're going to throw around nonsense like this, at least have the courtesy to try and back them up with something. Otherwise it just looks like you're trying to distract from the fact you can't actually address what's being discussed.

 

[KCfromNC]

Then how do you explain some of their papers in the main stream science journals being accepted as science.

Are these papers by people who support ID writing on unrelated topics or are they papers specifically about the scientific case for creationism?

 

[KCfromNC]

OK so the question would be why does the paper say many aspects or numerous aspects of genomic architecture. Does that mean more than particular aspects.

If it did you'd think the author would be smart enough to actually write that.

So is he talking about all of evolution or just some specific part.

Just specific parts. That's why you have to work so hard to quote-mine from papers such as this instead of just finding a wealth of literature which supports your claim that natural selection is negligible.

 

[RickG]

OK so the question would be why does the paper say many aspects or numerous aspects of genomic architecture. Does that mean more than particular aspects. To me it implies a large part of the genome. Second what does the author mean when he states

Is there design in nature? Yes! Is it intelligent? Absolutely not, it is inanimate. The way things are designed geometrically is due the chemical attractions and bonds of specific elements and compounds under a numerous variety of environmental conditions. In other words crystalline structures with countless variations. Additionally we can see how these structures are formed, understand the process, and make predictions of future structures. Nothing intelligent is connected with it.

 

[Loudmouth]

OK so the question would be why does the paper say many aspects or numerous aspects of genomic architecture. Does that mean more than particular aspects.

Many people serve in the military.

Does this mean that the number of people not in the military is negligible or non-existent?

Well it would be number 2 where natural selection is suppose to come in and select the beneficial change that leads to variations in the population. But dont the papers question this by saying things like this.

There is no consistent tendency of evolution towards increased genomic complexity, and when complexity increases, this appears to be a non-adaptive consequence of evolution under weak purifying selection rather than an adaptation.

No, they don't question it at all. They are talking about the initial increase in genomic complexity due to gene duplication which may not have produced any change in fitness. They are not talking about the subsequent evolution of the duplicated genes.

If the overall genome is gaining variations through mutations isn't that increasing the complexity of the genome because it is adding new networks to the genome that are needed to make those new genes which make those new variations and features.

That is not what they are saying. The increase in complexity they are talking about is the initial duplication of a single gene, single set of genes, or even a whole genome.

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.

Again, they are talking about gene duplication which produces new modules.

So applying what is said to your point 2 wouldn't this mean that when those changes are being fixed in populations the opposite will happen and rather than find beneficial changes it will find more negative mutations through genetic drift.

No, that is not what it means. What they are saying is that the initial gene duplications may even be slightly deleterious and be selected against in many occasions. They are not talking about the subsequent beneficial mutations that occur in the duplicated genes.

Jacob (46) argues that “it is natural selection that gives direction to changes, orients chance, and slowly, progressively produces more complex structures, new organs, and new species.” The vast majority of biologists almost certainly agree with such statements. But where is the direct supportive evidence for the assumption that complexity is rooted in adaptive processes?

And now you have moved to organismal biology instead of genetics. The two are not directly comparable.

You can have an increase in genetic complexity without an increase in organismal complexity. You can have an increase in organismal complexity without an increase in genetic complexity. The two are independent of one another.

No existing observations support such a claim, and given the massive global dominance of unicellular species over multicellular eukaryotes, both in terms of species richness and numbers of individuals, if there is an advantage of organismal complexity, one can only marvel at the inability of natural selection to promote it. Multicellular species experience reduced population sizes, reduced recombination rates, and increased deleterious mutation rates, all of which diminish the efficiency of selection (13).

That is like saying "if wings are so beneficial to birds, then why don't humans have wings"? There is no universally beneficial feature, and that includes complexity. Just because complexity is not beneficial in one lineage does not mean it is not beneficial in all lineages.

So is he talking about all of evolution or just some specific part. To me it is talking about all complex life and the ability for natural selection to evolve increasing complexity for that life. He is saying in fact that if anything natural selections a deterrent for increased gene networks and therefore increased variations, features and species of complex life. If this is wrong rather than just object to it please explain how it is wrong.

I would say that natural selection may very well select against initial increases in complexity in many lineages. In those lineages where genetic complexity does increase but makes a very small impact on fitness, there can be mutations and subsequent evolution of those duplicated genes that can give rise to organismal complexity. I really don't see how this makes natural selection neglible or non-existent. Do you?

 

[stevevw]

Who said anything about "not at all". You were denying you said it was negligible :

What are you talking about. Saying natural selection was negligible was my main point why would I deny it.

Remind us all again where Darwin's theory of evolution talks about genomic architecture.

No the genomic architecture is what makes up the genome. The genome is what produces the proteins that make the features and creatures. Without it there is no Darwin's theory. Its like saying what has the cars engine got to do with the car. The car would be an empty shell sitting on the side of the road without the engine to operate it. Thats how important the genome architecture is to Darwin's theory. The trouble is he didn't know this when he made the theory so he based things on observation and assumption. Now that we are sequencing the DNA we are finding out what drives the process Darwin was talking about and genomic architecture, transcriptional and cellular networks and developmental pathways are of the engine room of what makes the features Darwin was talking about.

Uh, OK. You get a gold star for occasionally not denying mainstream science.

Do I detect some sarcasm there.

 

[stevevw]

Many people serve in the military.

Many people serving in the military is different to what you stated referring to what the papers meant by saying negligible and insufficient referred to a particular part of life that applied to natural selection. Its the difference between many people serving in the military and a particular part or person serving in the military.

Does this mean that the number of people not in the military is negligible or non-existent?

The papers talk about a lot of what makes up genome networks and how life if formed ie genomic architecture, transcriptional networks, gene and cellular networks. And it states there are many and numerous aspects of those things that natural selection is insufficient and negligible for. Common sense would tell you that are fair chunk of how life develops and evolves within the genome is included. Besides even if its some parts it still contradicts what many say about natural selection as they claim it is responsible for everything that happens and dismiss the non adaptive forces as minor outcomes of Darwin's evolution and not significant rather than causes and this is my main point.

No, they don't question it at all. They are talking about the initial increase in genomic complexity due to gene duplication which may not have produced any change in fitness. They are not talking about the subsequent evolution of the duplicated genes.

That is not what they are saying. The increase in complexity they are talking about is the initial duplication of a single gene, single set of genes, or even a whole genome.[/quote]
Then why do the papers say this

An alternative vision of evolution is beginning to crystallize, in which the processes by which organisms grow and develop are recognized as causes of evolution.

We believe that the EES will shed new light on how evolution works. We hold that organisms are constructed in development, not simply ‘programmed’ to develop by genes.

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.
http://www.nature.com/news/does-evolutionary-theory-need-a-rethink-1.16080

Isn't this all talking about the ongoing process of evolution as well.
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.
Again, they are talking about gene duplication which produces new modules.

Yes and the ability of natural selection is questioned for doing this. Molecularity is to do with accommodating selection to work efficiently. The opposite of unified transcriptional control means it is working against producing the transcription of precise functional structures needed because it allows many other possibilities that undermine that process in the first place. Its not a case of weeding out any negative mutations later. Allowing the possibility of even slightly harmful and deleterious mutations will undermine the integrity of those structures.

No, that is not what it means. What they are saying is that the initial gene duplication's may even be slightly deleterious and be selected against in many occasions. They are not talking about the subsequent beneficial mutations that occur in the duplicated genes.

I thought they were talking about the process itself rather than its beginning. The way adaptive processes work mean that the process is blind. It has to allow for the many possible deleterious mutations and any deleterious mutation is a threat to the integrity of the already established complex gene structures. Any deleterious mutation could and would destroy that integrity by subjection it to a process that has to accommodate those harmful intrusions in the first place. That is what the paper is talking about non adaptive forces being more responsible because they work on processes that have a bias and set paths through the development process which suggests that they dont have to take on the risk of these harmful mutations through adaptive processes but use processes that guide pathways that are programed to produce the correct pathways needed.



And now you have moved to organismal biology instead of genetics. The two are not directly comparable.

You can have an increase in genetic complexity without an increase in organismal complexity. You can have an increase in organismal complexity without an increase in genetic complexity. The two are independent of one another.[/quote] So the author is also questioning natural sections ability when it comes to organism complexity and the production of organs and species. Though they may be separate they are not totally separate. You cannot get new organs or the variations in features without a change in the genome, morphology and hence phenotypes.

That is like saying "if wings are so beneficial to birds, then why don't humans have wings"? There is no universally beneficial feature, and that includes complexity. Just because complexity is not beneficial in one lineage does not mean it is not beneficial in all lineages.

You have missed his point. he is saying that single celled life was the beginning of all life and is so successful and still is compared to multi celled life. Multi celled life is suppose to have been produced through evolution and natural selection. Yet the step from the two had introduced a whole lot of less fit and optimal organisms because they suffer from many problems like increased deleterious mutations, reduced recombination rates and population sizes which all diminish the ability of natural selection. In other words natural selection doesn't work well with complex life and actually causes less fit life.

[/quote]I would say that natural selection may very well select against initial increases in complexity in many lineages. In those lineages where genetic complexity does increase but makes a very small impact on fitness, there can be mutations and subsequent evolution of those duplicated genes that can give rise to organismal complexity. I really don't see how this makes natural selection negligible or non-existent. Do you?[/QUOTE] I didn't say non existent. But the paper certainly says negligible. If you look at the other papers especially the nature one they go into the non adaptive forces and evolution itself as an ongoing process. So between them they are talking about the initial establishment of complex life and the continues evolution of populations towards increased complexity and therefore the variations of features and creatures.

Even so many supporters of evolution claim natural selection to be able to evolve every aspect of life and make out its like a god that can selection anything and everything to produce everything we see. You only have to read some article on evolution that speaks about how everything from our emotional responses to the beginnings of even how single celled life formed and evolved into multi celled life and everything since then. I am mostly pointing out that natural selection isn't as great as some make out and there iis more and more support for this all the time.