Is Darwinism proven/accepted by official Science?

[shunyadragon]

Random in this context simply means that mutations are equally likely to occur redardless if the organism would benefit from it.

Non random would simply mean the opposite, the mutation occurs because the organism needs it


Both random and non random mutations have been observed, the question and source of disagreement among scientist is on the role that each type of mutation played in the evolution of life.

You have not responded. This view of random and not random is false. Whether an organism needs something or not has nothing to do with randomness.

 

[shunyadragon]

The problem is that you expect others to accept your assertions without any sources, or evidence..... You should join the faltt earth society you will find many things in common with them

My responses have included sources that support my view.

 

[shunyadragon]

i
That is because they are not suppose to be controvertial

All these articles show is that there is disagreement on how organisms evolve (which is and has always been my point)




Fine, nobody is claiming that supernatural mechanisms where involved

Of course there is disagreement, but not in the basic mechanisms and processes in evolution.

 

[shunyadragon]

Sorry, but can you quote any sentence from the paper that is in disagreement with anything that I have said?.......

Many without count in particular your definition of random/non-random including needs of the organism.

 

[oldbadger]

Is Darwinism proven/accepted by official Science?

Huh? Why?
Is Creationism proven/accepted by official Science?

And what exactly is 'Official Science'?

The journals are enterprise for producing truth out of incoming manuscripts.
Darwinism is accepted by all top journals.
Thus, Darwinism is Scientifically proven.

Nope. Evolution was accepted before most of the journals existed. )

But Darwinism is wrong and absurd because humans can not be born by a monkey.
Thus, Science has its agenda, it is the weapon of atheism, nihilism, and naturalism.

Nope. 'Science' is just another word for 'knowledge'.
Some religions just feel a bit bashed about by facts, and want to shout back if they can.

Before the birth of Science in the 16-th century, there was Natural Theology, which has studied

Stop you there!
2000 years before Jesus folks from Tyre and Sidon were sailing to Cornwall to deal for Tin, to make........ Bronze!!!
You've heard of the Bronze Age? Well, that was one branch of ..... Science!
Science goes back to the discovery of fire, hardened spear points etc..... Stone knapping! There you are, Science goes way back to the Stone Age, before the Israelites went in to Egypt, even.

Physics, Mathematics, Chemistry, etc. The Scientific Revolution is the separation between
Faith and Reason, which led to the separation between Church and State.

Drive a car, do you? Or fly places occasionally? Or use a microwave cooker?
Whatever, whicever, you've joined Science.

Latter is obvious,
because if Christian hell is real, then there can not be indifference for state leaders in
the question of religions.

Jesus never did mention any Christian Hell.
If you have Faith, that's great, but don't try to subdue the us all with it anymore.

If you don't trust Science, don't use it....... or you'll be a hypocrite, NO?

 

[leroy]

Many without count in particular your definition of random/non-random including needs of the organism.

So it all boils down to “semantics” … so what word should I use instead of random in order to represent the definition more accurately?

 

[leroy]

Of course there is disagreement, but not in the basic mechanisms and processes in evolution.

Well you have to deal with the evidence and the sources that suggest otherwise

 

[shunyadragon]

Well you have to deal with the evidence and the sources that suggest otherwise

You have to live with the reality of bad English in your misuse of the words random and non-random to justify the Intelligent Design Agenda.

Again the 'needs' of the organisms has not causal influence on the nature of the diversity of genetics, and it cannot be defined as non-random.

 

[shunyadragon]

So it all boils down to “semantics” … so what word should I use instead of random in order to represent the definition more accurately?

We are beyond 'semantics.' because your selective combative use of random and non-random have no relationship to the reality of evolution, genetics, mutations, and as a matter of fact science.

 

[leroy]

Again the 'needs' of the organisms has not causal influence on the nature of the diversity of genetics,

Ok then deal with the evidence and sources that suggest otherwise.

and it cannot be defined as non-random.

Ok so what word should I use?


You will also have to correct a big deal of literature, (books, papers, articles, journals etc.) because, "my definition" of random is common, accepted and very frequent in scientific contexts

 

[shunyadragon]

Ok then deal with the evidence and sources that suggest otherwise.

Disagreements that will be worked out with further research and discoveries. That aside you are misuing selectively scientific references to justify an Intelligent Design agenda, and terrible nisuse of what is random and nonrandom, and the anthropomorphic 'needs' of organisms determining genetic mutations.

Ok so what word should I use?

Correct scientific use and definitions of the words in a scientific context.

You will also have to correct a big deal of literature, (books, papers, articles, journals etc.) because, "my definition" of random is common, accepted and very frequent in scientific contexts

It is your misuse of random vs non random and associating the needs' of the plants in science of evolution which is the problem.

The only thing that is random in mutations is the timing of that mutations occur. The mechanisms and processes are not random,

 

[leroy]

Disagreements that will be worked out with further research and discoveries. That aside you are misuing selectively scientific references to justify an Intelligent Design agenda, and terrible nisuse of what is random and nonrandom, and the anthropomorphic 'needs' of organisms determining genetic mutations.




Correct scientific use and definitions of the words in a scientific context.




It is your misuse of random vs non random and associating the needs' of the plants in science of evolution which is the problem.

The only thing that is random in mutations is the timing of that mutations occur. The mechanisms and processes are not random,

I am just the mensagger, I am just telling you what scientist say

Scientist define" random " the same way I do

Scientists have concluded that non random mutations occure (some mutations are directed to fit the needs of the organism

And there is disagreement on the roll that non random mutations had in explaining the diversity and complexity of life.



This is what scientist say, and I prove it with peer reviewed sources...

 

[gnostic]

This is what scientist say, and I prove it with peer reviewed sources...

Since when???

 

[leroy]

Since when???

Go to post 335

.....

 

[shunyadragon]

I am just the mensagger, I am just telling you what scientist say

No you are an anti-science ID advocate with a religious agenda.

 

[leroy]

No you are an anti-science ID advocate with a religious agenda.

You dont support your assertions

You ignore the evidence that contradict your view

All you have is semantics and personal attacks

Are you sure you are not a young earth creationist?..... You do have lots of things in common with them

 

[shunyadragon]

You dont support your assertions

You ignore the evidence that contradict your view

All you have is semantics and personal attacks

Are you sure you are not a young earth creationist?..... You do have lots of things in common with them

No you are an anti-science ID advocate with a religious agenda.

 

[leroy]

No you are an anti-science ID advocate with a religious agenda.

How is your comment different from

"ohh you belive in evolution because you hate God"?


You dont what to notice it, but you are really looking like a YEC or a flatearther

 

[shunyadragon]

How is your comment different from

"ohh you belive in evolution because you hate God"?


You dont what to notice it, but you are really looking like a YEC or a flatearther

I believe in God and evolution.

No you are an anti-science ID advocate with a religious agenda.

 

[leroy]

I believe in God and evolution.

No you are an anti-science ID advocate with a religious agenda.

The problem is that even if I have a religious agenda..... It is still a fact that you are unable to support your claims

It is still a fact that I could support my claims

It is still a fact that you can't refute my claims

And it is still a fact that you are using YEC tactics (semantic games, personal attacks, genetic fallacies, red harrings, lies etc)