Where did the laws of nature come from?

[stevevw]

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.

So being a believer you dont think God installed any laws or order behind things and knew that these things were part of his design. You think he threw a bunch of chemicals and elements onto the earth and said well lets just see what happens. God hasn't a clue of the outcomes for how life develops or comes about. If God was behind the laws and order of the universe dont you think he also is behind the way life forms on earth.

He doesn't have to create a whole being to create. he can create the mechanisms for it to happen though. Or do you thing he isn't responsible at all. Even when you talks about the what things are designed geometrically speaks of design otherwise why use the word. Saying it is due to chemical attractions and bonds of specific elements sounds like it has some method to the madness and something that may have been installed in the basic laws of life. How did those laws of attraction come about. Its the laws behind those things that give everything its direction and order.

 

[stevevw]

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


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.

The point is he did, have you been following the posts. Its not quote mining because he repeats it and its plain clear English. I have already added the rest of the sections for these quotes before to put them in context. Its now a case of specific words because you seem to dispute that the words many and numerous are not used in his papers that are applying to natural selections ability to evolve genomic , cellular and developmental evolution. It is clear what they apply to because it states it.

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

Numerous aspects of genomic architecture, gene structure, and developmental pathways are difficult to explain without invoking the nonadaptive forces

 

[stevevw]

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

There is no organization that makes a scientific case for creationism. How do you prove Eve was made out of Adams rib scientifically. How do you prove that the animals and humans were made in a day. I think you are getting your organization and what they stand for mixed up. ID doesn't do scientific tests on things like 7 day creation that creationists believe. They test things like proteins ability to evolve new functions. They are qualified professionals in the field they study such as biology. And yes they are ID supporters who have papers in main stream scientific journals. You may not agree with them but the adjudicators of the journals they have been submitted to who are scientists themselves have decided that it is scientific work which meets the criteria for being published.

 

[stevevw]

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.

The Dover trials were years ago and that has been disputed. Anyway since when do you have so much faith in your judicial system. It seems to me like ours here that it has mad many wrong decisions. The judge overstepped his mark in what he could rule on and therefore it was irrelevant to rule on ID. It was about whether ID could be taught in schools. Plus as you know with science 12 years is a long time and a lot has changed. back then ID was beginning now it has many papers and scientists.

 

[VirOptimus]

The Dover trials were years ago and that has been disputed. Anyway since when do you have so much faith in your judicial system. It seems to me like ours here that it has mad many wrong decisions. The judge overstepped his mark in what he could rule on and therefore it was irrelevant to rule on ID. It was about whether ID could be taught in schools. Plus as you know with science 12 years is a long time and a lot has changed. back then ID was beginning now it has many papers and scientists.

So you cant support your assertion, just as I suspected.

 

[VirOptimus]

-snip- 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.-snip-

Your whole post is mostly faulty but his is a point that needs to be adressed.

"Common sense" is not something you can use as an argument in science (or academia at all). Every assertion must be becked up with scientific evidence, otherwise its just an empty assertion that can be dismissed.

If you really are a university student you should know this.

And you really are misrepresenting the articels. Now, person after person who do know biology, who have more scientific knowledge then you tell you this. Why cant you accept it?

You have no background in science, no higher learning in biology. This should make you think twice about what you write.

 

[RickG]

So being a believer you dont think God installed any laws or order behind things and knew that these things were part of his design.

I never said any such thing. Please don't make thing up.

You think he threw a bunch of chemicals and elements onto the earth and said well lets just see what happens. God hasn't a clue of the outcomes for how life develops or comes about. If God was behind the laws and order of the universe dont you think he also is behind the way life forms on earth.

I never said anything about God in the post you quoted. Again, please stop making things up.

He doesn't have to create a whole being to create. he can create the mechanisms for it to happen though. Or do you thing he isn't responsible at all. Even when you talks about the what things are designed geometrically speaks of design otherwise why use the word. Saying it is due to chemical attractions and bonds of specific elements sounds like it has some method to the madness and something that may have been installed in the basic laws of life. How did those laws of attraction come about. Its the laws behind those things that give everything its direction and order.

Or maybe God is a product of the big bang.

 

[KCfromNC]

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

That's a very good question. Perhaps you could explain why you did.

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.

If you say so. To me it this just reads like more backpedaling, given that you forgot to mention anything about any of these technical details until after we informed you that your source flatly contradicted you. It was only then that the digging for minutia started.

Do I detect some sarcasm there.

No, it is good you don't take your creationism to the extreme and think the world is 600 years old. There's still hope.

 

[KCfromNC]

The point is he did, have you been following the posts. Its not quote mining because he repeats it and its plain clear English.

The paper list natural selection first among several primary forces driving evolution. You're cherry-picking individual parts of the paper in an attempt to prove your claim that natural selection is negligible in how life changes an develops. Call it whatever you want, but that's not an approach which is particularly convincing.

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

Numerous aspects of genomic architecture, gene structure, and developmental pathways are difficult to explain without invoking the nonadaptive forces

As another poster said, many US citizens are members of the military and our armed forces are among the most numerous in the world. Does that mean the numbers of non-military US citizens citizens are negligible? Because that's the case you're trying to make here. And it doesn't work. None of this supports your claim that natural selection is negligible in how life changes and develops.

 

[KCfromNC]

There is no organization that makes a scientific case for creationism. How do you prove Eve was made out of Adams rib scientifically. How do you prove that the animals and humans were made in a day. I think you are getting your organization and what they stand for mixed up. ID doesn't do scientific tests on things like 7 day creation that creationists believe. They test things like proteins ability to evolve new functions. They are qualified professionals in the field they study such as biology. And yes they are ID supporters who have papers in main stream scientific journals. You may not agree with them but the adjudicators of the journals they have been submitted to who are scientists themselves have decided that it is scientific work which meets the criteria for being published.

I'm still not seeing references for these alleged scientific ID papers. Seems like just posting them would be a lot easier than making up all these lame excuses. Are you by and chance working up a portfolio to be a speech writer for Donald Trump?

These ID papers are scientific. They are the most scientific papers you'd ever see. No one else could even imagine being as scientific as them. You're going to love them, just wait.

 

[Ophiolite]

Plus as you know with science 12 years is a long time and a lot has changed. back then ID was beginning now it has many papers and scientists.

Several members, including myself, are waiting for you to provide citations to these ID supporting papers. When will you do so?

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

It isn't different. It is exactly the same.

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.

Just as there are many people who are in the military. Doesn't mean that the number of people who are not in the military are non-existent or neglible.

Common sense would tell you that are fair chunk of how life develops and evolves within the genome is included.

Sorry, but putting "common sense" in front of a bad argument does not make it into a good argument.

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 one says that natural selection is responsible for all changes.

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.

Where do they say anywhere in that quote that natural selection plays no role or a negligible role in evolution?

We can go into exhaustive posts on the other issues they bring up, but it would only draw us away from the points at hand.

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.

Non adaptive forces are more responsible FOR WHAT? That is the part you keep leaving off. Science requires specificity, and you are using very vague language.

As I have already discussed, what the authors are saying is that non-adaptive forces are responsible for the initial increase in genetic complexity. After that, natural selection is a major force in molding the evolution of those new complex genetic networks.

Let's use microRNAs (miRNAs) as an example. They are a new and hotly discussed topic in genetics right now. These are short RNA sequences that bind to messenger RNA and inhibit the production of proteins from those messenger RNAs. They are a post-transcriptional genetic network, as it were. So how has this genetic network increased in complexity? It has done so through two mechanisms: de novo production of new miRNAs and miRNA duplication. In fact, there is a nice paper on miRNA evolution found here:

http://www.nature.com/nrg/journal/v12/n12/full/nrg3079.html

So what do they say about the evolution of these genetic networks?

"After an miRNA gene has emerged and acquired a regulatory function, can it evolve further? Comparative genomics analyses of small RNA data sets from a large array of species have revealed a number of ways in which an existing miRNA gene can be further diversified (Fig. 3). As the sequence of the mature miRNA molecule that is loaded in the miRISC complex is the primary determinant of the target repertoire for a given miRNA gene, mechanisms that lead to changes in the mature miRNA sequence are of central importance when considering evolution of established miRNAs."

Natural selection of random mutations is of central importance in the evolution of these genetic networks.

We are talking about a two step process. First, you have the establishment of the miRNA, and this may be a neutral mutation when it first occurs because the duplicated miRNA will have the same sequence as its duplicated partner. However, when you have mutations in one of the duplicated miRNAs then you suddenly have a situation where you can do two things at once. If those mutations are beneficial, then they will be selected for.

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.

And if those changes are beneficial, they will be selected for. That is natural selection.

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.

That is not what it says. Natural selection does work well with complex life as seen by the evolution of complex eukaryotes. Again, you are using imprecise language.

They are again talking about the first initial steps towards complexity, not the entire evolution of complex life.

I didn't say non existent. But the paper certainly says negligible.

There is that vague language again.

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.

Name one supporter of evolution who makes that claim.

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.

The problem is that you are wailing away at a strawman. No scientists are saying the things you are ascribing to them.

 

[stevevw]

Your whole post is mostly faulty but his is a point that needs to be adressed.

"Common sense" is not something you can use as an argument in science (or academia at all). Every assertion must be becked up with scientific evidence, otherwise its just an empty assertion that can be dismissed.

If you really are a university student you should know this.

Um funny how people question everything like your credentials, sources, the authors of sources when someone disagrees with some of the things evolution claims. I wasn't talking about using common sense to scientifically prove something. I was saying that common sense tells you that the paper is referring to a large part of the genome when it refers to many or numerous aspects of the genome. Unless you think numerous and many mean a specific part or a small part of the genome.

And you really are misrepresenting the articels. Now, person after person who do know biology, who have more scientific knowledge then you tell you this. Why cant you accept it?

I am posing questions to be asked. Nothing wrong with that. Some have agreed in some ways with what the papers have said and others have also misunderstood them by blatantly rejecting them altogether.

You have no background in science, no higher learning in biology. This should make you think twice about what you write.

I study psychology so I do have a back ground in science.

 

[Loudmouth]

I study psychology so I do have a back ground in science.

Just as a warning . . . if you said that to a room full of biologists or physicists, the Earth may reverse it's rotation due to the rolling of everyone's eyeballs.

Chalk it up to ego or competition between professional bodies, but biologists and physicists do not consider psychology to be that scientific. Of course, physicists look down on biologists in much the same why, while mathematicians look down on all of them. Such is the pecking order in the physical sciences.

 

[KCfromNC]

Um funny how people question everything like your credentials, sources, the authors of sources when someone disagrees with some of the things evolution claims.

You're the one who brought up the fact that your teachers liked you...

I study psychology so I do have a back ground in science.

And this. Stop bringing things like this up if you're going to get upset when people comment on them.

 

[Ophiolite]

I study psychology so I do have a back ground in science.

Don't worry. I won't tell anyone else. It will be our little secret.

 

[stevevw]

Just as a warning . . . if you said that to a room full of biologists or physicists, the Earth may reverse it's rotation due to the rolling of everyone's eyeballs.

Chalk it up to ego or competition between professional bodies, but biologists and physicists do not consider psychology to be that scientific. Of course, physicists look down on biologists in much the same why, while mathematicians look down on all of them. Such is the pecking order in the physical sciences.

Well it certainly covers scientific areas including some biology. But the funny thing is I am being scrutinized for my credentials yet I wonder if half the people doing that have any of the same levels of qualifications they demands of others.

 

[KCfromNC]

Well it certainly covers scientific areas including some biology. But the funny thing is I am being scrutinized for my credentials yet I wonder if half the people doing that have any of the same levels of qualifications they demands of others.

The difference could be that one of those groups isn't insisting that they've found some hidden meaning in a single scientific paper which will overturn 150+ years of biology.

 

[RickG]

Well it certainly covers scientific areas including some biology. But the funny thing is I am being scrutinized for my credentials yet I wonder if half the people doing that have any of the same levels of qualifications they demands of others.

I'm curious stevevw, in this thread you seem to me to be disqualifying evolution on the basis of a single minor aspect of the greater theory. What I am curious about is your overall position of evolution. Do you reject it, or just parts of it? And for what ist worth, I would appreciate just a simple one or two sentence answer or even just a yes or no.

 

[stevevw]

The difference could be that one of those groups isn't insisting that they've found some hidden meaning in a single scientific paper which will overturn 150+ years of biology.

The problem with that is it isn't me who is making the claims but the papers and not just one paper. I dont think its as extreme as you make out though that it will overturn 150 years of biology. Remember that Darwin formed his theory without knowing about genetics so that in itself is going to have a fairly big impact on the difference between what he could assume by observation and what is verified by actually looking inside the organisms and measuring the mechanisms that are suppose to guide evolution.

Its similar to Newtons observations about gravity and then years later Einstein was able to look inside the processes of space and time to see all the other factors that influenced what was called gravity to form a new theory of relativity. So in that sense he overturned Newtons theory. It should be expected in science and not made out as if someone is trying to change things for the sake of change. Look at all the papers I posted. they all use language which indicates a change in the way people understand the theory of evolution.

Now, 50 years after the consolidation of the Modern Synthesis, evolutionary biology undoubtedly faces a new major challenge and, at the same time, the prospect of a new conceptual breakthrough
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2651812/

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


Collectively, the developments in evolutionary genomics and systems biology outlined here seem to suggest that, although at present only isolated elements of a new, ‘postmodern’ synthesis of evolutionary biology are starting to be formulated, such a synthesis is indeed feasible. Moreover, it is likely to assume definitive shape long before Darwin's 250th anniversary.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2651812/