Is Darwinism proven/accepted by official Science?

[metis]

Sure all I am saying is that some mutations are not random (with respect to fitness) and that these mutations could have played a major role in explaining the complexity and diversity of life…………..any disagreement from your part?

Depends [see below].

Mutation: any hereditable variation in the traits of the organism

Not necessarily as most genetic mutations, p within the sex cells tend to be carried as recessive genes. However, the merger of the chromosomes may not match 100%, thus other mutations could occur, and fairly common one is having an albino offspring.

Non Random: I mean it with respect to fitness, a mutation is more likely to occure if the organism would benefit from it.

Darwin hypothesized this, but there's simply no evidence for this. His example was that since a giraffe had to stretch its neck out for feeding on high branches, this would get into his blood and possibly cause a mutation for longer necks. There simply is no evidence to support this, however.

However, what can be a factor may be called "cultural selection" as a subset of "natural selection", namely that certain desirable traits by potential mates can be selected for, thus those who have that trait have a better chance to be selected for mating purposes.

 

[shunyadragon]

Feel free to read my post (perhaps just a random sample)……you will notice that I am not arguing for ID nor YEC in this thread………. All I have done is commenting on the fact that the idea that organism evolve mainly by random variation + natural selection (darwinism) has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt. (And many scientists challenged that view and have published in peer review journals) particularly I commented on the fact that some mutations are not random (with respect to fitness) and that some scientists have suggested that these mutations could have played a relevant role.

Scientists have not supported your view of Darwinism for a number of years, and no there is no effort to 'prove' it today. Your arguing against old science and beating a dead horse to death.

Again in today's science the natural forces are indifferent to whether mutations are random or non-random. It is a non-issue in science.

I am not saying “non random mutations” therefore God…….the problem is that I have supported my comments in a robust way, with scientific papers, and since @shunyadragon can´t refute those sources and he doesn’t have the humility to admit that he is wrong………so his only card is to claim that I have an agenda

Wriong about what? I never asserted that non-random mutations do not exist. In fact I gave an example,

 

[leroy]

Darwin hypothesized this, but there's simply no evidence for this. His example was that since a giraffe had to stretch its neck out for feeding on high branches, this would get into his blood and possibly cause a mutation for longer necks. There simply is no evidence to support this, however.

However, what can be a factor may be called "cultural selection" as a subset of "natural selection", namely that certain desirable traits by potential mates can be selected for, thus those who have that trait have a better chance to be selected for mating purposes.

go to post 335 (see below)
There I provide examples of multiple independent sources that confirm that non random mutations occur and that they could have played role in evolution…

Let me know if you disagree with anything


-----

Also answering to @Joe W who made a similar request

Just a few examples of peer reviewed papers disagreeing with the "random mutation + natural selection" model and/or papers that suggest other mechanisms that could have been important for evolution











So if we have peer reviewed articles that disagree with the "random mutation + natural selection model" and there is not a single article that concludes that organisms evolve mainly by random mutations and natural selection......... What stops you for accepting that there is disagreement in the scientific community on how organisms evolve and which mechanisms played an important role?......... What else do you need to see in order to conclude that there is disagreement?

 

[leroy]

Depends [see below].

s.

what am I suppose to see?

 

[Bear Wild]

In all honesty, do you really need to ask?

No but Leroy is dragging this random vs non-random out for so long that it would be nice if Leroy would finally get to the point. You and I know this is to place non-random mutations into a directed evolutionary pattern which then goes to design. The flawed argument of an intended direction seems to be coming when there is no direction other than to adapt to the environment. So I wait patiently for the real claim of the argument.

 

[Bear Wild]

Sure all I am saying is that some mutations are not random (with respect to fitness) and that these mutations could have played a major role in explaining the complexity and diversity of life…………..any disagreement from your part?

The problem with this continuing argument is that we know both are important. They both play a role in change in the phenotypic expression of life. No one has assigned how much change is attributed to each because they are both important in change.

Can you show evidence that Darwin's original elements of evolution are incorrect - the world is in a constant state of change, Life derives from a common ancestor, Life changes gradually and new species form inheritable features, natural selection, there is variation in any species, Reproductive advantage will pass on traits from the parents.

This is what Darwin proposed in a simple presentation. So please associate his name with what he proposed. He did not know about the genetics of DNA or mutations.

 

[leroy]

The problem with this continuing argument is that we know both are important. They both play a role in change in the phenotypic expression of life. No one has assigned how much change is attributed to each because they are both important in change.

No disagreement from my part

Can you show evidence that Darwin's original elements of evolution are incorrect - the world is in a constant state of change, Life derives from a common ancestor, Life changes gradually and new species form inheritable features, natural selection, there is variation in any species, Reproductive advantage will pass on traits from the parents.
.

How is that different from say "Lamarkism"?.... My point is that the element of random variations is a key element from the Darwinian model. And is the one thing that distinguish Darwin from people like Lamark.

My point is that random variation should be included in the list of "original elements" because is the one thing that distinguish Darwin from his competitors

 

[shunyadragon]

go to post 335 (see below)
There I provide examples of multiple independent sources that confirm that non random mutations occur and that they could have played role in evolution…

Let me know if you disagree with anything


-----

This was never the problem, but why are you beating the dead horse to death

 

[shunyadragon]

No disagreement from my part

Considering the following we are not in agreement.

How is that different from say "Lamarkism"?.... My point is that the element of random variations is a key element from the Darwinian model. And is the one thing that distinguish Darwin from people like Lamark.

No relationship to Lamarkism:

Definition of Lamarckism | Dictionary.com

'The Lamarckian theory that characteristics acquired by habit, use, or disuse may be passed on to future generations through inheritance."

My point is that random variation should be included in the list of "original elements" because is the one thing that distinguish Darwin from his competitors

Again what you call Darwinism is no longer the contemporary view of science and no longer a competitor, and you are beating a dead horse to death. As far as science is concerned there is only one science in the game, as previously defined, the contemproary 'Science of Evolution.'

 

[metis]

go to post 335 (see below)
There I provide examples of multiple independent sources that confirm that non random mutations occur and that they could have played role in evolution…

Let me know if you disagree with anything


-----

Since I'm a retired anthropologist who both studied and taught about human evolution, I go with the science in terms of what has been established. When one writes non-random mutations, one has to clarify what they mean by that as I've mentioned. Hypotheses is what we start off with in our studies, but it's a huge mistake to take someone's hypothesis and elevate it so that it's more than just a hypothesis.

Also, one might consider subscribing to "Scientific American" to get updates on what the research is showing in this area and many others.

To your reference to a previous post of yours, see my next post.

 

[metis]

So if we have peer reviewed articles that disagree with the "random mutation + natural selection model" and there is not a single article that concludes that organisms evolve mainly by random mutations and natural selection.

You have misrepresented what the articles say as the evidence for non-random mutations doesn't negate what we know about random mutations that also clearly exist. IOW, it's a "two-for".

 

[metis]

what am I suppose to see?

The next two statements of mine that you quoted.

 

[leroy]

Wriong about what? I never asserted that non-random mutations do not exist. In fact I gave an example,

The way I (and the sources) define “non random” you do deny that non random mutations occure.

#424 -shunyadragon

One point we do disagree on is that the 'needs' of organisms cause mutation.

What I (and the sources) are claiming is that some mutations are nonrandom with respect to fitness, meaning that the occurance of the mutations depends on whether if there is selective preassure or not, .....or in other words..... that an organism is more likely to get the mutation if he would benefit from it. ...........And you seem to disagree with that view……

But you can always correct me so….

1 Do you accept that non random mutations occur (yes or no)

2 do you accept that likely these mutations played an important role in evolution? (yes or no)

Prediction: you wont answer any of these 2 questions with a clear and unambiguous yes or no

 

[leroy]

Considering the following we are not in agreement.




No relationship to Lamarkism:

Definition of Lamarckism | Dictionary.com

'The Lamarckian theory that characteristics acquired by habit, use, or disuse may be passed on to future generations through inheritance."

So in Lamarkism the traits (raw material) are inherited on the basis of habit (non random with respect to fitness) and in Darwinism the traits are inherited randomly (with respect to fitness)

In lamarkism a giraffe gets a longer neck because he would benefit from it…… in darwinism a giraffe gets a longer neck because he was lucky…..my point is that “random variation” is requisite for darwinism and is the one thing that distinguishes it from lamarkism.

Again what you call Darwinism is no longer the contemporary view of science and no longer a competitor, and you are beating a dead horse to death. As far as science is concerned there is only one science in the game, as previously defined, the contemproary 'Science of Evolution.'

So why where you (and @TagliatelliMonster ) defending what I call darwinism with so much passion and favor? But ok, can we agree on that the fact that “what I call darwinism” is not true or at least that has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt by science?

Please answer the stuff in red letters with a simple and direct yes or no

 

[leroy]

Again in today's science the natural forces are indifferent to whether mutations are random or non-random. It is a non-issue in science.

,

Nobody is claiming that it is an “issue” it is just an interesting fact of science…. Non random mutations occur and there are good reasons to assume that they provided a relevant portion of the “raw material” for natural selection to work with. Agree?

 

[leroy]

Since I'm a retired anthropologist who both studied and taught about human evolution, I go with the science in terms of what has been established. When one writes non-random mutations, one has to clarify what they mean by that as I've mentioned. Hypotheses is what we start off with in our studies, but it's a huge mistake to take someone's hypothesis and elevate it so that it's more than just a hypothesis.

Also, one might consider subscribing to "Scientific American" to get updates on what the research is showing in this area and many others.

To your reference to a previous post of yours, see my next post.

Feel free to read my previous posts, I have defined non-random multiple times……..with non random I simply mean “nonrandom” with respect to fitness” in other words the organism is more likely to get the mutation if he would benefit from it, ….

but it's a huge mistake to take someone's hypothesis and elevate it so that it's more than just a hypothesis.

Granted, these are just hypothesis on how organism could have evolved, my intent was not to present them as facts, my intent was simply to show that there is disagreement in the scientific community on how organism evolve, and alternative models to Darwinism (random variation + natural selection) have been proposed and have been published in journals (implying that these are serous hypothesis)

 

[leroy]

You have misrepresented what the articles say as the evidence for non-random mutations doesn't negate what we know about random mutations that also clearly exist. IOW, it's a "two-for".

I haven’t negate random mutations ether……………If you feel that I misinterpret anything from the papers, then feel free to quote my specific comment from this thread and then explain why you think I am misinterpreting the paper.

 

[leroy]

The next two statements of mine that you quoted.

These where not statements, they are just definitions, I simply explained what I mead with various terms, because as you pointed out….. It is always important to explain what you mean.

 

[shunyadragon]

Nobody is claiming that it is an “issue” it is just an interesting fact of science…. Non random mutations occur and there are good reasons to assume that they provided a relevant portion of the “raw material” for natural selection to work with. Agree?

You need to go on and explain why you are plowing a non-issue into the ground.

This line of reasoning began by not only calling it an "issue," but with a big time controversy and diminished to not an "issue" and now extinguished to nothing.

 

[shunyadragon]

These where not statements, they are just definitions, I simply explained what I mead with various terms, because as you pointed out….. It is always important to explain what you mean.

No they were also statements, and early on bad definitions and misuse such as for Lamarkism, and Darwinism.