Darwinists A Question About Natural Selection

Julius Skrrvin

I be winkin' through the scope
Joined
May 28, 2012
Messages
16,319
Reputation
3,285
Daps
30,742
Weather can select?

Yea, for example lets say that you expose a population of flies to really harsh winters over a couple generations. that will, along with other factors of course, cause some 'selective pressure'. if i wasnt on mobile id post some more. maybe later
 

rapbeats

Superstar
Joined
Jun 8, 2012
Messages
9,363
Reputation
1,890
Daps
12,849
Reppin
NULL
There is no who. What chooses is a set of natural laws that manifest in particular circumstances in different ways. There's ecological selection, where organisms are selected by natural laws pertaining to their survival of the external environment, and sexual selection, where organisms are selected by mates, which also a function of those natural laws.
natural law you say


Do Creationists Believe In Natural Law?
by John D. Morris, Ph.D.

Years ago, students were taught that the definition of science is "the search for truth." But things seldom stay the same. In recent years, some scientists have tried to equate science with naturalism—"the search for a naturalistic explanation for all things."

We've all heard the modern-day mantra, "evolution is science but creation is religion." If this is true, then certainly creation does not belong in a science classroom. Since creation necessarily implies supernatural involvement, then it falls outside the realm of naturalistic science.

When I was on the faculty of the University of Oklahoma, I forged a friendly relationship with one of my colleagues, a paleontologist and well-published advocate for evolution. Even though he claimed to hold a fairly orthodox belief in God, he insisted that science and religion were two completely different enterprises. "Even if the actual truth is that God created in six literal days just a few thousand years ago," he said to me one day, "even if the Biblical account is absolutely accurate, true history, the job of science is to come up with a believable account that includes no supernatural." Science cannot allow the possibility of supernatural input into the natural arena.

His tirade, of course, completely distorts creation thinking. Creationists insist that both the physical universe and living things within the universe function according to natural law. We do not wave the magic wand of supernaturalism every time we can't explain something. Natural law was instituted by the Creator as the way to maintain His incredibly complex creation. While the Creator has reserved the right to intervene supernaturally in this creation from time to time (especially the miracles mentioned in Scripture), these are exceptions to the rule of natural law. Creationists and evolutionists are in 100% agreement concerning the role of natural law in the universe's operation.

Where we differ is in its origin. The universe exists and science can observe its operation. But how did it get here? Neither creation nor evolution seem to be occurring today. Natural laws are conservative and operational, not creative and innovational. These one-time, non-observed, non-repeatable innovative events of the past must have been accomplished by God's creative power in ways quite different from the sustaining laws we can observe today.

The uniformitarian extrapolation of present processes to explain creation events leads naturalists to hopeless reliance on spontaneous generation of life from non-life, of beneficial mutations, etc., even matter from non-matter. Creationists admit they cannot explain the nature of God's creative laws, but we don't mis-state and mis-use the operational laws to make them creative. "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear" (Hebrews 11:3).

Scientists display their religion of naturalism when they illegitimately equate science with naturalism. Creation may not be any more observable than evolution, but it is more scientific.
 

rapbeats

Superstar
Joined
Jun 8, 2012
Messages
9,363
Reputation
1,890
Daps
12,849
Reppin
NULL
A physical law or scientific law is, according to the Oxford English dictionary, "a theoretical principle deduced from particular facts, applicable to a defined group or class of phenomena, and expressible by the statement that a particular phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions be present."[1] Physical laws are typically conclusions based on repeated scientific experiments and observations over many years and which have become accepted universally within the scientific community. The production of a summary description of our environment in the form of such laws is a fundamental aim of science. These terms are not used the same way by all authors.
The distinction between natural law in the political-legal sense and law of nature or physical law in the scientific sense is a modern one, both concepts being equally derived from physis, the Greek word (translated into Latin as natura) for nature.[2]
Contents [hide]
1 Description
2 Examples
3 Laws as definitions
4 Laws being consequences of mathematical symmetries
5 Laws as approximations
6 Physical laws derived from symmetry principles
7 History: religion, Greek philosophy, and the role of Roman law in the development of the concept of physical law
8 Other fields
9 See also
10 Notes
11 References
12 External links
[edit]Description

Several general properties of physical laws have been identified (see Davies (1992) and Feynman (1965) as noted, although each of the characterizations are not necessarily original to them). Physical laws are:
True, at least within their regime of validity. By definition, there have never been repeatable contradicting observations.
Universal. They appear to apply everywhere in the universe. (Davies, 1992:82)
Simple. They are typically expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. (Davies)
Absolute. Nothing in the universe appears to affect them. (Davies, 1992:82)
Stable. Unchanged since first discovered (although they may have been shown to be approximations of more accurate laws—see "Laws as approximations" below),
Omnipotent. Everything in the universe apparently must comply with them (according to observations). (Davies, 1992:83)
Generally conservative of quantity. (Feynman, 1965:59)
Often expressions of existing homogeneities (symmetries) of space and time. (Feynman)
Typically theoretically reversible in time (if non-quantum), although time itself is irreversible. (Feynman)
Physical laws are distinguished from scientific theories by their simplicity. Scientific theories are generally more complex than laws; they have many component parts, and are more likely to be changed as the body of available experimental data and analysis develops. This is because a physical law is a summary observation of strictly empirical matters, whereas a theory is a model that accounts for the observation, explains it, relates it to other observations, and makes testable predictions based upon it. Simply stated, while a law notes that something happens, a theory explains why and how something happens.
[edit]Examples

Main article: List of laws in science
See also: scientific laws named after people
Some of the more famous laws of nature are found in Isaac Newton's theories of (now) classical mechanics, presented in his Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, and in Albert Einstein's theory of relativity. Other examples of laws of nature include Boyle's law of gases, conservation laws, the four laws of thermodynamics, etc.
[edit]Laws as definitions

Some "scientific laws" appear to be mathematical definitions (e.g., Newton's Second law F = dp⁄dt, or the uncertainty principle, or the principle of least action, or causality). While these "scientific laws" explain what our senses perceive, they are still empirical and, thus, they are not "mathematical" facts. (Reference to a "law" often suggests a "fact", although "facts" do not exist scientifically a priori.)
[edit]Laws being consequences of mathematical symmetries

Other laws reflect mathematical symmetries found in Nature (say, Pauli exclusion principle reflects identity of electrons, conservation laws reflect homogeneity of space, time, Lorentz transformations reflect rotational symmetry of space–time). Laws are constantly being checked experimentally to higher and higher degrees of precision. This is one of the main goals of science. The fact that laws have never been seen to be violated does not preclude testing them at increased accuracy or new kinds of conditions to confirm whether they continue to hold, or whether they break, and what can be discovered in the process. It is always possible for laws to be invalidated or proven to have limitations, by repeatable experimental evidence; should any be seen. However, fundamental changes to the laws are extremely unlikely, since this would imply a change to experimental facts they were derived from in the first place.
Well-established laws have indeed been invalidated in some special cases, but the new formulations created to explain the discrepancies can be said to generalize upon, rather than overthrow, the originals. That is, the invalidated laws have been found to be only close approximations (see below), to which other terms or factors must be added to cover previously unaccounted-for conditions, e.g., very large or very small scales of time or space, enormous speeds or masses, etc. Thus, rather than unchanging knowledge, physical laws are better viewed as a series of improving and more precise generalizations.
[edit]Laws as approximations

Some laws are only approximations of other more general laws, and are good approximations with a restricted domain of applicability. For example, Newtonian dynamics (which is based on Galilean transformations) is the low speed limit of special relativity (since the Galilean transformation is the low-speed approximation to the Lorentz transformation). Similarly, the Newtonian gravitation law is a low-mass approximation of general relativity, and Coulomb's law is an approximation to Quantum Electrodynamics at large distances (compared to the range of weak interactions). In such cases it is common to use the simpler, approximate versions of the laws, instead of the more accurate general laws.
[edit]Physical laws derived from symmetry principles

Many fundamental physical laws are mathematical consequences of various symmetries of space, time, or other aspects of nature. Specifically, Noether's theorem connects some conservation laws to certain symmetries. For example, conservation of energy is a consequence of the shift symmetry of time (no moment of time is different from any other), while conservation of momentum is a consequence of the symmetry (homogeneity) of space (no place in space is special, or different than any other). The indistinguishability of all particles of each fundamental type (say, electrons, or photons) results in the Dirac and Bose quantum statistics which in turn result in the Pauli exclusion principle for fermions and in Bose-Einstein condensation for bosons. The rotational symmetry between time and space coordinate axes (when one is taken as imaginary, another as real) results in Lorentz transformations which in turn result in special relativity theory. Symmetry between inertial and gravitational mass results in general relativity.
The inverse square law of interactions mediated by massless bosons is the mathematical consequence of the 3-dimensionality of space.
One strategy in the search for the most fundamental laws of nature is to search for the most general mathematical symmetry group that can be applied to the fundamental interactions.

with all that said, it goes back to the previous post i made. and the OP's question. who/what made said laws? some scientists assume that these laws just appeared out of thin air so to speak.
 

The Real

Anti-Ignorance
Joined
May 8, 2012
Messages
6,353
Reputation
725
Daps
10,724
Reppin
NYC
natural law you say

Of course. As for creativity, it's matter of irregularity, not obedience to laws, but there's nothing necessarily divine about that. We already know that's part of nature and that there are no fixed laws in nature, period.
 

rapbeats

Superstar
Joined
Jun 8, 2012
Messages
9,363
Reputation
1,890
Daps
12,849
Reppin
NULL
says the young earth creationist.



nice try. :lolbron:

i didnt say i think we have a young earth or 6k earth. my answer is I DONT KNOW. but i sure as heck am not about to agree and says its 100 of thousands of years old, or will i say its billions of years old. cause there is no way for us to tell if thats true or not. we dont have anything to compare that too since we all admit humans have only been on earth for x thousands of years. not 100's of thousands of years or millions or billions of years.

to me thats an extreme number to jump to even using certain dating techniques. all the math we use to find out this stuff is based on PATTERNS. read above and you will see what i'm talking about. we do a lot of assuming in math/science when it comes to this stuff. sometimes we assume right. sometimes we are incorrect. the problem with being incorrect, is that we can actually be WAYYYY off. but we would have no way of knowing since humans didnt exist that many years ago. we assume the patterns that we can see must be the same even if you throw the equation out a bit further like millions of years further or billions. etc.

we use dating techniques of things we do know, how long does it take for lets say a tree to grow to its tallest height . how long does it take for particular types of rocks to be embedded underneath other types of rocks.. we can only figure things out in the range of how long human's have been here. and not a moment sooner. anything else beyond that is a nice guestimation at best and an assumption based on a small sample size of patterns that we can see. lets say the earth is 100k years old. for us to ever find out if our theories are true about that figure. we would have to wait until the human species have been on earth for 100k years. then that era of humans would study our theories and put them to the test. did the patterns they found for dating end up being truth. does this batch of rocks = x amt of years? if the answer is yes. then they were correct. if the answer is no. then they were wrong.
 

rapbeats

Superstar
Joined
Jun 8, 2012
Messages
9,363
Reputation
1,890
Daps
12,849
Reppin
NULL
Of course. As for creativity, it's matter of irregularity, not obedience to laws, but there's nothing necessarily divine about that. We already know that's part of nature and that there are no fixed laws in nature, period.

what do YOU mean by there are no FIXED laws?
 

The Real

Anti-Ignorance
Joined
May 8, 2012
Messages
6,353
Reputation
725
Daps
10,724
Reppin
NYC
what do YOU mean by there are no FIXED laws?

I mean that when we look into the distant past, we can see that what seem like fixed laws to us now actually evolved over time into seemingly concrete forms, the same way that animals do.
 

rapbeats

Superstar
Joined
Jun 8, 2012
Messages
9,363
Reputation
1,890
Daps
12,849
Reppin
NULL
I mean that when we look into the distant past, we can see that what seem like fixed laws to us now actually evolved over time into seemingly concrete forms, the same way that animals do.
break it down some more dear sir.
 
Top