What is Evolution? Lets define it

[Subduction Zone]

Then support your claim. In response to you question yes I will be honest and admit my mistake if you happen to support that claim.

Fine here you go:

For Darwin Day, 6 facts about the evolution debate

And I underestimated. 98% of all scientists accept evolution. It is even higher for those in the field.

Well natural selection doest "cause" mutations.

Sorry, I worded that poorly. Variation is a part of reproduction. Those mutations are apt to show up in any large enough population. Natural selection then preserves those mutations.

But the problem is not natural selection, the probkem is with the idea of " random mutations"

the problem is that given that 3 independent clades suffered from the same mutations, it is obvious that these mutations where not completely random.

Mutations are not all that random. There is a limit to how proteins can mutate. One can calculate the odds of specific mutations. Many people make the error of think of evolution as a linear process when in reality positive mutations can be drawn from the entire population. Nor does one mutation have to follow another. That is another incorrect assumption.

do you really think that this is how evolution is suppose to work?

That was a very simplified approach to show that your assumptions are incorrect. Besides that it is more accurate than anything that you have posted. You really should not use smilies while being a science denier.

.

Ok his claim are
1 Delaterious mutations are more frequent than positive (constructive mutations)

2 Most delaterious mutations are not lethal nor prevent the organism from reproducing. (These mutations are called slightly delaterious)

3 These slightly delaterious mutations will tend to pass to the next generation and acumulate as time passes.

4 Over thausands of generations these slightly delaterious mutations will add up and become lethal.

A good analogy would be a book, in most of the cases a spelling mistake won't really affect the text (one can still read and understand the text) but if you keep adding spelling mistakes there will be a point where the book will become impossible to read.

So which of these statements made by Sanford do you find controversial so that I can provide a proper source?

You do realize that he could not substantiate those claims. He never put his work through peer review. Here is an article that should help you to understand. I did say one claim per post and you are already over that:

STAN 4

Sure, feel free to select your favorite claim and we will focused on that single claim.

I already did for your first claim. There is no "controversy" when it comes to whether life as we know it is the product of evolution or not.

I did provide some examples, neutralism, mutationalism, natural genetic engineering etc. These are all alternatives to Darwinism that are taken seriously in the scientific community.

No, you hand waved some examples. And examples supported with a hand wave can be refuted with one.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sure
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/16120807/

For example this article talks about the .controversy between neutralism and Darwinism and the article supports neutralism over darwinism

This article shows that mutations are not conolcompl random.
Evolution Is Not Random (At Least, Not Totally)

This article talks about how eukaryotic cells evolved due to a symbiotic relationship (not due to darwinism evolution)
The Origin and Evolution of Cells - The Cell - NCBI Bookshelf

Do you honestly think that darwinism is the only option?

Your error appears to be misunderstanding what the theory of evolution is. With the discovery of genes the model has advanced quite a bit beyond what Darwin set as the foundation, but the basic are still correct. Those articles are only refinements on the theory of evolution. They do not refute it at all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

One more quick post and then I have to run and since I will be using a tablet I may not be able to support my claims as well for the next few hours. Sanford's one main mistake was to treat all mutations as point mutations and he ignored gene duplication altogether. Gene duplication is the first step in the mutation of a crucial gene. At times an entire gene is copied as a mutation. Then there are two copies of the same gene. One can undergo mutation and the other can continue doing the crucial job. That allows new related traits to appear without threatening the organism. And as the person that invented the "gene cannot" he had to be aware of this error of his. Scientists that know better and still publish nonsense because of a religious belief lose all credibility in the process.

 

[leroy]

I already did for your first claim. There is no "controversy" when it comes to whether life as we know it is the product of evolution or not.

Ok so let's do 1 claim at the time.

Fine here you go:

For Darwin Day, 6 facts about the evolution debate

And I underestimated. 98% of all scientists accept evolution. It is even higher for those in the field.

Quote from your source:

While 98% of scientists connected to the American Association for the Advancement of Science say they believe humans evolved over time

That is not your burden. What you are suppose to show is that 98% of scientists belive that darwinism is uncontroversially true.

You have to show that they grant that the diversity of life is mainly due to random change and natural selection.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok so let's do 1 claim at the time.


Quote from your source:


That is not your burden. What you are suppose to show is that 98% of scientists belive that darwinism is uncontroversially true.

You have to show that they grant that the diversity of life is mainly due to random change and natural selection.

Sorry, your use of the term "Darwinism" is an attempt at a strawman. The theory of evolution is a much better term and I supported that claim. Use of improper terms would be an example of not being honest.

 

[leroy]

Your error appears to be misunderstanding what the theory of evolution is. With the discovery of genes the model has advanced quite a bit beyond what Darwin set as the foundation, but the basic are still correct. Those articles are only refinements on the theory of evolution. They do not refute it at all.

Those articles if true, would be in opposition to what Darwin proposed.

For example if neutralists are correct then this would imply that natural selection is not a mayor force in determining the phenotype of an organism.......this is in direct contradiction to what Darwin claimed, where natural selection is suppose to be the mayor force .

 

[Skwim]

Your cladogram supports me. If one treats all "monkeys" as a monphyletic group that means that the "monkeys" started before the split between New World Monkeys and Old World Monkeys. That is why I used the qualifying term "cladisctically".

As would the lemurs/lorises and tarsiers.

.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Those articles if true, would be in opposition to what Darwin proposed.

For example if neutralists are correct then this would imply that natural selection is not a mayor force in determining the phenotype of an organism.......this is in direct contradiction to what Darwin claimed, where natural selection is suppose to be the mayor force .

Not really. Darwin knew nothing of genetics. He did not make nor could not give a precise mechanism. Natural selection is still part of the process in the examples that you gave. Science has of course advanced since Darwin's time. We now have a clearer picture of how evolution works. There was no refutation in those articles. Only clarification.

 

[leroy]

Sorry, your use of the term "Darwinism" is an attempt at a strawman. The theory of evolution is a much better term and I supported that claim. Use of improper terms would be an example of not being honest.

That is an other "atheist thing" only fanatic atheist from forums and YouTube think that the .term "darwinism" is inapropiate.


You can use all the semantic games that you want but you still have to prove that 98% of scientists believe that the diversity of life is mainly due to random change and natural selection. And that such statement is not controversial.

Wether if you want to call it darwinism or not is irelevant.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As would the lemurs/lorises and tarsiers.

View attachment 24146

.

Nope, look at the split between Old World and New World Monkeys. The only way to make monkeys monophyletic is to call apes monkeys too. That appears to be a rather outdated cladogram. At best it is inaccurate.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is an other "atheist thing" only fanatic atheist from forums and YouTube think that the .term "darwinism" is inapropiate.


You can use all the semantic games that you want but you still have to prove that 98% of scientists believe that the diversity of life is mainly due to random change and natural selection. And that such statement is not controversial.

Wether if you want to call it darwinism or not is irelevant.

now please, no name calling just because you keep repeating ignorant errors. And you are failing at being honest again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I also more than made my case. If you can admit it when you have been shown to be wrong you will never learn.

 

[leroy]

Not really. Darwin knew nothing of genetics. He did not make nor could not give a precise mechanism. Natural selection is still part of the process in the examples that you gave. Science has of course advanced since Darwin's time. We now have a clearer picture of how evolution works. There was no refutation in those articles. Only clarification.

But ether.

Natural selection is a mayor force (darwinism)

Or

Natural Selection is minor and not so relevant (neutralists)

These alternatives are mutually exclusive and conflict with each other. These are compiting hypothesis and neutralism is a true alternative to darwinism.

What you are doing is simply defining darwinism evolution to mean " anything and everything that fits the data" apparently it doesn't matter natural selection or random changes played a mayor rolle or not , you will still call it darwinism evolution

 

[Subduction Zone]

Let's go back to this more accurate cladogram. The problem is with the term "monkeys". That is not a monophyletic group. The only way to make them one is to include apes. Tarsiers on the other hand are monophyletic, as are lemurs. That is why cladistically, which deals with monophyletic.groups, man is a monkey, or more properly an anthropoid:

 

[Subduction Zone]

But ether.

Natural selection is a mayor force (darwinism)

Or

Natural Selection is minor and not so relevant (neutralists)

These alternatives are mutually exclusive and conflict with each other. These are compiting hypothesis and neutralism is a true alternative to darwinism.

What you are doing is simply defining darwinism evolution to mean " anything and everything that fits the data" apparently it doesn't matter natural selection or random changes played a mayor rolle or not , you will still call it darwinism evolution

Wrong again. Darwinism is not "natural selection". And no, you are the one trying to redefine that which you do not understand. Only ignorant creationists are fixated on the word "Darwinism".

 

[leroy]

I also more than made my case. If you can admit it when you have been shown to be wrong you will never learn.

I grant that 98% of scientists believe that modern species came from their ansestor by a process descent with modification.

What I don't grant is that 98% of scientists would say that it is uncontroversially true that all the diversity of life is a product of random inheritable change and natural selection.

You haven't provide a source in support of that asertion

 

[Subduction Zone]

I grant that 98% of scientists believe that modern species came from their ansestor by a process descent with modification.

What I don't grant is that 98% of scientists would say that it is uncontroversially true that all the diversity of life is a product of random inheritable change and natural selection.

You haven't provide a source in support of that asertion

Like it or not that is evolution. If you don't understand the definition of terms that is not my problem.

But at least you remembered variation this time around.

 

[leroy]

Wrong again. Darwinism is not "natural selection". And no, you are the one trying to redefine that which you do not understand. Only ignorant creationists are fixated on the word "Darwinism".

You can use any lable that you want.

The fact is that the mechanism of random (unguided) variation and natural selection is just one of many possible mechanisms that are currently being discussed amoung scientists.

Do you grant this fact ? Yes or no?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You can use any lable that you want.

The fact is that the mechanism of random (unguided) variation and natural selection is just one of many possible mechanisms that are currently being discussed amoung scientists.

Do you grant this fact ? Yes or no?

It is only part of evolution. But you are trying to refute evolution, and you can't do that with people that are explaining how life evolved. In Darwin's time we knew much much less about biology so some of the details of the theory were bound to be wrong. That does not mean that Darwin was wrong in arguing that life evolved.

Tell me, why did you start with failed and dishonest scientists?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Only creationists are bound and determined to join evolution to Darwin. He went a long way in explaining it, but he was far from the last word.

No one calls gravity "Newtonianism". And since Newton has been show to be wrong in some of the details no one denies gravity. It is a weak debating tactic to tie a scientific fact to a man and then try to claim the fact is false because the man was wrong in some of the details.