Is Darwinism proven/accepted by official Science?

[shunyadragon]

Does that mean that you reject Darwinism?

Yes as you defined. I gave the contemporary definition for evolution and there is no reference to random nor non-random mutations.

Ok, then you have to deal with my peer review sources that I provided….. all of which conclude that non random mutations (as I define them) occur …. Why are these papers wrong? Do you have evidence against such conclusions?

The papers are not wrong, but your definition is, and your selective use of the references does not reflect the over all science of evolution. I NEVER said non-random mutations do not exist, but, yes, the natural processes are indifferent to whether a mutation is random nor non-random.

ok provide your references, quote my specific comments and explain why are my comments inconsistent with your references.

In post #205 you compared NGE and epigenetics, and Lamarkism, which is groosely false and I gave proper definitions of all of the above.

You can use any labels that you want, but it is a fact that mechanisms like epigenetics and NGE are more similar to what Lamark said than to what Darwin.

Lamark said that organisms can change its traits during the life time of the organism (bases in their needs) and that these traits are hereditable. Which is exactly what NGE and epigenetics" is"

For the record. What I am arguing is that under lamarkism the “need” for longer necks makes the animal more likely to have an hereditable variation in the traits, that produces longer necks (therefore non random with respect to fitness)……… your sources have to show that my statement is incorrect/

That is not what you stated concerning Lamarkism. I cited the phony statement above. It is from my definition, and not been accepted by mainstream science for a long long time. Absolutely no, 'need' does not determine the outcome of the evolution through natural processes. Many, many species need to change to survive, but do not survive.

Why should I address contemporary science if Am not arguing against contemporary science? ……definitions: If peer review sources are using the same definitions than I, then I guess it is fair to conclude that my definitions are valid … but I am open minded, please let me know which words should I use instead of “Darwinism” “random” and “mutations” to fit my definitions?

The peer reviewed articles did not use the definitions you gave for NGE and epigenetics, nor comparing them to Lamark.

Contemporary science has nothing to do with Darwinism, Lamark nor your phony comparison.

Why should I address contemporary science if Am not arguing against contemporary science?

. . . because that is where the meaningful discussion is concerning the science of evolution.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Again sufficient for what?

Sufficient to work and have the systems achieve local optimums and score well on the fitness test, obviously.

If GA's didn't actually work, companies like boeing wouldn't pay millions of dollars to have such systems developed to optimize subsystems of their aircrafts....

Are for example are random variations (+natural selection) sufficient for building an eye?

There's no reason to think it isn't.
As a geneticist once said (forget the name): there is nothing in our collective DNA that couldn't be accomplished by simply mutation + selection.

Do the GA show that?............source

GA's show that the basic principles of evolution (random mutation + selection) actually work.

 

[shunyadragon]

GA's show that the basic principles of evolution (random mutation + selection) actually work.

The present definition of evolution does not include 'random mutations' in the definition for good reasons. The only thing random is the timing occurrence of individual mutations. The nature of the mutations is determined by the organic chemistry of DNA. The mutations contribute to the diversity of the genetics over time that provide the raw materials for evolution. The natural processes involved with evolution are not random and the evolution process is indifferent as to whether mutations are random or non-random (?). Some mutations caused by metabolic processes are considered by some as non-random.

 

[leroy]

The papers are not wrong, but your definition is,

Really can you please tell me what is the difference between my definition for “non random” and the definition provided by any of the papers? (please quote both the paper and my words and explain why are the definitions different)


For example is there any meaningful difference between my definition and what this papers describes?

In this paper, we briefly review the source of this idea and then describe some experiments suggesting that cells may have mechanisms for choosing which mutations will occur.The origin of mutants

and your selective use of the references does not reflect the over all science of evolution. I NEVER said non-random mutations do not exist,

Based on what I defined as nonrandom, you do seem to reject that such mutations exist. …. Am I worng?

but, yes, the natural processes are indifferent to whether a mutation is random nor non-random.

Sure agree, once you have the mutation, NS doesn’t care if the mutation is random or non random

In post #205 you compared NGE and epigenetics, and Lamarkism, which is groosely false and I gave proper definitions of all of the above.

What I said is that epigenetics is more similar to what Lamark described that to what s}Darwin described…….(I didn’t say that epigenetics and lamarkism are the same)……. Many scientist label epigenetics as “neolamarkism”……… but quite frankly I don’t see your point……..

Absolutely no, 'need' does not determine the outcome of the evolution through natural processes.

well that is a contradiction from your part earlier (see quote above) you said that the sources that I shared are not wrong......... but the sources conclude exactly that "the needs determine the outcome of evolution"

Many, many species need to change to survive, but do not survive.

Sure, the claim is not that organisms always change their traits because they need to, the claims that sometimes they do as has been observed and reported in the sources that I shared

The peer reviewed articles did not use the definitions you gave for NGE and epigenetics, nor comparing them to Lamark.

Well this source (Environmental Epigenetics and a Unified Theory of the Molecular Aspects of Evolution: A Neo-Lamarckian Concept that Facilitates Neo-Darwinian Evolution) seems to be comparing lamarkism with epigenetics………….is the author of this peer reviewd article wrong? Is he also part of the ID conspiracy ?




.

. . because that is where the meaningful discussion is concerning the science of evolution.

Well we both agree on that darwinism (as I defined) is wrong or at least unsupported by science and conclusive, the only one who seems to be supporting Darwinism is .. @TagliatelliMonster .. he even claims to have evidence from genetic algorithms, but to this point he has not shared his sources.,

 

[shunyadragon]

Really can you please tell me what is the difference between my definition for “non random” and the definition provided by any of the papers? (please quote both the paper and my words and explain why are the definitions different)


For example is there any meaningful difference between my definition and what this papers describes?

non-random definition - Google Search
adjective: non-random

1. determined by or resulting from factors other than chance.

Based on what I defined as nonrandom, you do seem to reject that such mutations exist. …. Am I wrong

Non random mutations exist based on the definition I gave above.

 

[leroy]

GA's show that the basic principles of evolution (random mutation + selection) actually work.

Sure, but your burden is to show that they can explain all (or most) of the evolutionary changes, proving that they work is not enough. As my sources show there are many examples of stuff that is better explained by non random mutations,,,,, so under what basis do you reject those sources?

As a geneticist once said (forget the name): there is nothing in our collective DNA that couldn't be accomplished by simply mutation + selection.

That is a very radical claim; I bet that you didn’t find it in a peer reviewed article. No serious process of peer review would have allowed such a claim to pass the filters.

 

[leroy]

non-random definition - Google Search
adjective: non-random

1. determined by or resulting from factors other than chance.

Non random mutations exist based on the definition I gave above.

Ok,. But we are using the definitions that I (and the authors of the sources) have provided……………all words have many definitions; an argument doesn’t fail just because I didn’t use your own favorite definition.

 

[leroy]

The present definition of evolution does not include 'random mutations' in the definition for good reasons. The only thing random is the timing occurrence of individual mutations. The nature of the mutations is determined by the organic chemistry of DNA. The mutations contribute to the diversity of the genetics over time that provide the raw materials for evolution. The natural processes involved with evolution are not random and the evolution process is indifferent as to whether mutations are random or non-random (?). Some mutations caused by metabolic processes are considered by some as non-random.

But the sources that I provided talk about non random mutations meaning non random with respect to fitness.

1 So you either accept the conclusions of peer reviewed papers

2 provide a good reason for rejecting such conclusions

3 Do what YEC and flattearthers do…………deny any evidence that contradicts your view without any justification.

I have a strong feeling that you will pick “3”

 

[shunyadragon]

But the sources that I provided talk about non random mutations meaning non random with respect to fitness.

1 So you either accept the conclusions of peer reviewed papers

2 provide a good reason for rejecting such conclusions

3 Do what YEC and flattearthers do…………deny any evidence that contradicts your view without any justification.

I have a strong feeling that you will pick “3”

Back to very basic English language. The bold is NOT a definition of non-random. It is the descriptive use of non-random. I gave a definition. Let's get the English right and than we can continue.

 

[leroy]

Back to very basic English language. The bold is NOT a definition of non-random. It is the descriptive use of non-random. I gave a definition. Let's get the English right and than we can continue.

Ok but the descriptive use of the word “non-random” in the article is consistent with my definition, so you keep the same 3 alternatives


1 So you either accept the conclusions of peer reviewed papers

2 provide a good reason for rejecting such conclusions

3 Do what YEC and flattearthers do…………deny any evidence that contradicts your view without any justification.

 

[shunyadragon]

Ok but the descriptive use of the word “non-random” in the article is consistent with my definition, so you keep the same 3 alternatives

I do not play games when you use ENRON bookkeeping to justify your agenda with selective reference with absolutely no back ground in the science involved. No problem that non-random mutations. It is a matter of fact the processes of evolution are indifferent to whether a mutation is random or not.

I will not play games with your dishonest unethical selective use of references to justify your agenda, without any knowledge of the sciences involved.

 

[leroy]

I do not play games when you use ENRON bookkeeping to justify your agenda with selective reference with absolutely no back ground in the science involved. No problem that non-random mutations. It is a matter of fact the processes of evolution are indifferent to whether a mutation is random or not.

I will not play games with your dishonest unethical selective use of references to justify your agenda, without any knowledge of the sciences involved.

I see, you whent for option 3 just like i predicted a few days ago

3 Do what YEC and flattearthers do…………deny any evidence that contradicts your view without any justification.

I have a strong feeling that you will pick “3”

 

[shunyadragon]

I see, you whent for option 3 just like i predicted a few days ago

Your options are loaded with ID IEDs. I did not answer, because you still fail to address the sciences of evolution in the contemporary world as a whole.

I do not play games when you use ENRON bookkeeping to justify your agenda with selective reference with absolutely no back ground in the science involved. No problem that non-random mutations. It is a matter of fact the processes of evolution are indifferent to whether a mutation is random or not.

I will not play games with your dishonest unethical selective use of references to justify your agenda, without any knowledge of the sciences involved.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well we both agree on that darwinism (as I defined) is wrong or at least unsupported by science and conclusive, the only one who seems to be supporting Darwinism is .. @TagliatelliMonster .. he even claims to have evidence from genetic algorithms, but to this point he has not shared his sources.,

What I actually said was that GA's work and they only use random mutations.
If non-random mutations were a necessary ingredient, I'ld expect GA's that only use random ones, to NOT work - or not work well, at least.

But they do work. Very well. So well, that in many cases they do a FAR better job then any human engineer. Which is why companies like boeing happily pay hundreds of thousands, even millions, of dollars for such software.

And since GA's are modeled according to the principles of the process of biological evolution, why would it be any different in biology? It's ultimately the same process, after all.


Note that at no point did I exclude the potential or possibility of non-random mutation.
Only that there doesn't seem to be a need for them. The process works without them.

 

[leroy]

Your options are loaded with ID IEDs. I did not answer, because you still fail to address the sciences of evolution in the contemporary world as a whole.

I do not play games when you use ENRON bookkeeping to justify your agenda with selective reference with absolutely no back ground in the science involved. No problem that non-random mutations. It is a matter of fact the processes of evolution are indifferent to whether a mutation is random or not.

I will not play games with your dishonest unethical selective use of references to justify your agenda, without any knowledge of the sciences involved.

Why would I address the “science of evolution” if I don’t have any disagreement?............. the only point of disagreement between you and I (relevant to this thread-) seems to be that I affirm that non random mutations occur (using my definition of non random) and you reject that such mutations occur……

Up to this point I provided multiple sources confirming my view, and you haven’t presented any argument against. ………..

Why can’t we have a conversation/debate on that particular point of disagreement?




----

 

[leroy]

What I actually said was that GA's work and they only use random mutations.
If non-random mutations were a necessary ingredient, I'ld expect GA's that only use random ones, to NOT work - or not work well, at least.

But they do work. Very well. So well, that in many cases they do a FAR better job then any human engineer. Which is why companies like boeing happily pay hundreds of thousands, even millions, of dollars for such software.

And since GA's are modeled according to the principles of the process of biological evolution, why would it be any different in biology? It's ultimately the same process, after all.


Note that at no point did I exclude the potential or possibility of non-random mutation.
Only that there doesn't seem to be a need for them. The process works without them.

I have the feeling that you are misinterpreting or over exaggerating the data, this is why I keep asking you for sources.

Not to mention that non random mutations have been obserev, so what mysterious force prevent them from occurring and becoming fixed every once in a while?

 

[shunyadragon]

Why would I address the “science of evolution” if I don’t have any disagreement?............. the only point of disagreement between you and I (relevant to this thread-) seems to be that I affirm that non random mutations occur (using my definition of non random) and you reject that such mutations occur……

Up to this point I provided multiple sources confirming my view, and you haven’t presented any argument against. ………..

Why can’t we have a conversation/debate on that particular point of disagreement?

. . . because if we have no disagreement on the sciences of evolution there is no need to continue the discussion.

I have already addressed my points of disagreement.

 

[gnostic]

Sure, but your burden is to show that they can explain all (or most) of the evolutionary changes, proving that they work is not enough. As my sources show there are many examples of stuff that is better explained by non random mutations,,,,, so under what basis do you reject those sources?

What sources?

I didn't see you provide any source, leroy.

To have some sources, you would have to list some, first. All I am seeing is your say-so, and from experiences here, you aren't all that reliable.

 

[shunyadragon]

I have the feeling that you are misinterpreting or over exaggerating the data, this is why I keep asking you for sources.

Not to mention that non random mutations have been obserev, so what mysterious force prevent them from occurring and becoming fixed every once in a while?

The present definition of evolution does not include 'random mutations' in the definition for good reasons. The only thing random is the timing occurrence of individual mutations. The nature of the mutations is determined by the organic chemistry of DNA. The mutations contribute to the diversity of the genetics over time that provide the raw materials for evolution. The natural processes involved with evolution are not random and the evolution process is indifferent as to whether mutations are random or non-random (?). Some mutations caused by metabolic processes are considered by some as non-random.

No mysterious force involved with non-random natural processes. Yes non-random mutations occur through the natural metabolic processes of organisms.

 

[leroy]

No mysterious force involved with non-random natural processes. Yes non-random mutations occur through the natural metabolic processes of organisms.

But using the definition that i gave, you do deny that non random mutations occur right?