Bleh.. this is an exercice in futility.. ORR gave prime examples based on something other than religion about why DNA gets passed around as it does.. you have been given reasons morality has developed without a god.. I am thinking this is not an exercice in science so much as an exercice in sociololgy and anthropology. Perhaps this is why your confusion reigns.. Sir Jack?
 
[b][i]There are no [/i][/b][link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_nature][u][color=#0000ff][b][i]laws[/i][/b][/color][/u][/link][b][i] in [/i][/b][link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_science][u][color=#0000ff][b][i]social science[/i][/b][/color][/u][/link][b][i] that parallel the laws in the [/i][/b][link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_science][u][color=#0000ff][b][i]natural science[/i][/b][/color][/u][/link][b][i]. A law in social science is a universal generalization about a [/i][/b][link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_%28set_theory%29][u][color=#0000ff][b][i]class[/i][/b][/color][/u][/link][b][i] of [/i][/b][link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact][u][color=#0000ff][b][i]facts[/i][/b][/color][/u][/link][i][b].[/b] A fact is an observed [/i][link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenon][u][color=#0000ff][i]phenomenon[/i][/color][/u][/link][i], and [/i][link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observation#The_role_of_Observation_in_the_Scientific_Method][u][color=#0000ff][i]observation[/i][/color][/u][/link][i] means it has been seen, heard or otherwise experienced by researcher. A theory is a systematic explanation for the observations that relate to a particular aspect of social life. [/i][link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concept][u][color=#0000ff][i]Concepts[/i][/color][/u][/link][i] are the basic building blocks of theory and are abstract elements representing classes of phenomena. [/i][link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom][u][color=#0000ff][i]Axioms[/i][/color][/u][/link][i] or [/i][link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postulate][u][color=#0000ff][i]postulates[/i][/color][/u][/link][i] are basic assertions assumed to be true. [/i][link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition][u][color=#0000ff][i]Propositions[/i][/color][/u][/link][i] are conclusions drawn about the relationships among concepts, based on analysis of axioms. [/i][link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis][u][color=#0000ff][i]Hypotheses[/i][/color][/u][/link][i] are specified expectations about [/i][link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical][u][color=#0000ff][i]empirical[/i][/color][/u][/link][i] [/i][link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality][u][color=#0000ff][i]reality[/i][/color][/u][/link][i] which are derived from propositions. Social research involves [/i][link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis_testing][u][color=#0000ff][i]testing[/i][/color][/u][/link][i] these hypotheses to see if they are true.[/i]
[i]Social research involves creating a theory, [/i][link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operationalization][u][color=#0000ff][i]operationalization[/i][/color][/u][/link][i] ([/i][link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement][u][color=#0000ff][i]measurement[/i][/color][/u][/link][i] of [/i][link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable][u][color=#0000ff][i]variables[/i][/color][/u][/link][i]) and [/i][link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observation][u][color=#0000ff][i]observation[/i][/color][/u][/link][i] (actual collection of [/i][link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data][u][color=#0000ff][i]data[/i][/color][/u][/link][i] to test hypothesized relationship).[/i]
[i][/i] 
[i][link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_research]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_research[/link][/i]
[i][/i] 
methinks thee may be looking for some sort of “natural law’ example here. .and there are none.
 
And randomness is in question.. as it should be.. there is NO evidence of randomness anywhere.. each ‘thing” is acted on by at least one other “thing” thereby eliminating randomness.