Is Darwinism proven/accepted by official Science?

[leroy]

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.

Go to post 335 there I provide sources that show that non random mutations* occur and that they played a relevant role in evolution

Click the arrow in the quote to reed post 335

A

With mutation i simply mean "any hereditable variation in the traits"

 

[shunyadragon]

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

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]

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.

You forgot to answer the question

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

 

[shunyadragon]

You forgot to answer the question

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

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.

 

[Audie]

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

Before the birth of Science in the 16-th century, there was Natural Theology, which has studied
Physics, Mathematics, Chemistry, etc. The Scientific Revolution is the separation between
Faith and Reason, which led to the separation between Church and State. Latter is obvious,
because if Christian hell is real, then there can not be indifference for state leaders in
the question of religions.

Only in a fantasy world does anything in science get proven,
or does there exist "official" science.

Anyone who does not know this is in over his head trying
to win an argument with educated people.

 

[Astrophile]

The Darwin has wrote not one book, but the second too. In the second book, he has written that humans came from monkeys.

Darwin actually wrote 16 books, among them The Voyage of the Beagle, The Structure and Distribution of Coral Reefs, Geological Observations on Volcanic Islands, and A Monograph on the Sub-Class Cirripedia.

n 1871, another important work of Darwin appeared - "The Origin of Human and Sexual Selection", where Darwin argued in favor of the natural origin of human from animals (ape-like ancestors). So: 1) it's because of Darwin the girls think of angelic guys as of losers, and 2) Darwin said we were given birth by a monkey?

The title of the book is The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex. As G.G. Simpson (1902-1984) explained long ago, we are not descended from any living species of ape or monkey but share common ancestors with the other primates. However, if we could meet our common ancestors with chimpanzees and gorillas, we should call them apes, and if we could meet our common ancestors with baboons, we should probably call them monkeys, or some other form of primate.

In that sense, what you say is true. However, our most recent common ancestor with chimpanzees and gorillas lived about 10-12 million years ago, and our most recent common ancestor with Old World monkeys probably lived about 25 million years ago; this is a long way from saying that we were given birth by a monkey.

 

[tas8831]

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?

In part. the fact that you clearly did not read most of the source material from your list (or maybe you did not read any of it, it is hard to tell). Out of curiosity, which creationist website did you copy these quotes from?

I have already dealt with the Cairns paper, but here is another - only the 2nd of your list I have checked:

"But changes in genetic material that occur at the molecular level are not entirely random"

Here is their conclusion:

"So in the end, most mutation is not random, at least for the DNA sequences we analyzed here," Garvin said. Rather, it is a combination of two opposing forces — the mis-pairing during DNA replication and the need to preserve a protein's function, Garvin said."

IOW, hotspots that facilitate increased mutation rates, and selection to get rid of mutations that would act against function.

Plus, of course, they were only looking at specific DNA regions (those containing repeats and were close genes). So they did not even consider intergenic regions.
But that is besides the point - the point is, you (or much more likely, your creationist source) just snipped quotes from their context to tell a fake story for people like you to gobble up.

 

[leroy]

In part. the fact that you clearly did not read most of the source material from your list (or maybe you did not read any of it, it is hard to tell). Out of curiosity, which creationist website did you copy these quotes from?

I have already dealt with the Cairns paper, but here is another - only the 2nd of your list I have checked:

"But changes in genetic material that occur at the molecular level are not entirely random"

Here is their conclusion:

"So in the end, most mutation is not random, at least for the DNA sequences we analyzed here," Garvin said. Rather, it is a combination of two opposing forces — the mis-pairing during DNA replication and the need to preserve a protein's function, Garvin said."

IOW, hotspots that facilitate increased mutation rates, and selection to get rid of mutations that would act against function.

Plus, of course, they were only looking at specific DNA regions (those containing repeats and were close genes). So they did not even consider intergenic regions.
But that is besides the point - the point is, you (or much more likely, your creationist source) just snipped quotes from their context to tell a fake story for people like you to gobble up.

so....

"So in the end, most mutation is not random, at least for the DNA sequences we analyzed here," Garvin said. Rather, it is a combination of two opposing forces — the mis-pairing during DNA replication and the need to preserve a protein's function, Garvin said.""

so what exactly is that quote suppose to prove? what claim made by me is refuted by that quote?


or is it an other example of sending random quotes just to sound smart?

 

[rational experiences]

Is a human in science the creator of any created living or once living now deceased life form.

An intelligent human answer is no.

That answer realised in his human past when the same human destroyer mentality in human science conditions was expressed before.

Consciously a human man owns sperm a very small encoded body that interacts with an ovary to create life.

As the only self owned real self expressed I am a creator partially in natural human life.

The condition scientist had been in our past reviewed and outlawed as unnatural ideas that man was a God the creator of all things. Only Idealised as a living human by the living human.

That preaching teaching science today is the claimed ideal science via religious idealism is false science.

Science is the human falsified preaching. As it's claim is God.

Medical religious history existed secondary after occult science harmed life and had in fact outlawed human science practices.

And today looking back seemed unrealistic yet in review it was needed.

 

[rational experiences]

Father said your brother in science had to force scientific idealism to focus on the monkey body closest life form to humans.

Living monkey. To stop dead theorising.

Saying human parents deceased bodies now bacterial only. Human conscious aware is scientific advised about natural life. History self human only as a human first. Consciousness itself advised naturally.

Claim parents body are bacterial in nature of science status with sperm plus ovary created human body presence.

Reason why topic in science is human consciousness first versus occult theism. What evil thinking causes as falsification of natural advice.

Man writes a movie theme to scare self. Preached to self via fear as a tactic is prevention.

Movie planet of the apes.

Where talking scientific apes quantified irrational human behaviours.

As who gave you permission to discuss other life as humans do. You are not a monkey nor an ape.

Moses event science pyramid life mutation is the modern day science argument. Did science prove that man mutated time shifted his own bio life closest to the next life form a monkey.

By genetic removal of his bio chemistry by radiation causes.

To state science was evil.

As evolution is cooling ridding mass radiation as gases burning X mass back to a space voiding to equate natural day light.

Seeing all gases plus holy water existed naturally. X mass gas burning the variable.

Claim ice cooled that gas status. Less mass burning.

Machine parts snap frozen instant in stone was the machine history man in satanism taking god the mass of stone place. Machine embedded as a fake earth God.

No ice formed due to the heat of our human life sent into gods Hell as it's plate collapsed bowels opened. Earth history versus science machine.

No body evidence. Machine human artefacts however remained as the evidence.

That history is an active machine advice owning ice. Yet the ice was melted. Ice we said one saviour. Satanists theory about the saviour wanting it for machine interaction reactions and not life continuance.

Is part of human scientific memory proven by modern man rebuilding the technology pyramid.

In modern life we survived the radiation burning. Yet ice melt proves that once wooly elephants became naked.

Yet other heavily coated animals remained coated. So ice remained also.

The teaching it rained for forty days.

Science says where is the evidence. Answer the sink holes that no longer held water as they opened the ground in a smaller sacrifice that filled up with water. By the flood.

Reaction however did not involve the flooding. Reason equating named the event Moses and not Jesus.

The flood factored title Moses.

Science thinking about Adam as nuclear event and Jesus said Jesus as a theist of science not Moses was the first. Emptied out mass owning no water in sink holes. Tomb of entombed gases all gone. God destroyed.

Which is a scientific thesis about planet earths spirit gases.

By man the scientist.

Reason..... the nature garden existed.

The argument in science Jesus should have been the title first cause.

Science arguing science Jesus never owned the long flooding event.

A science argument only.

 

[tas8831]

Really?

so....

"So in the end, most mutation is not random, at least for the DNA sequences we analyzed here," Garvin said. Rather, it is a combination of two opposing forces — the mis-pairing during DNA replication and the need to preserve a protein's function, Garvin said.""

so what exactly is that quote suppose to prove?

It proves that natural processes are sufficient - no need to imply that a 'designer' is involved, or a deity didit, etc.

what claim made by me is refuted by that quote?

What claim did you imply that you made with the quote that you copy-pasted from your creationist source?

"But changes in genetic material that occur at the molecular level are not entirely random"

???? What impact did you think that had on your general position? Did you think that supports Shapiro's claims? Or IDC in general?

or is it an other example of sending random quotes just to sound smart?

Why do you project your antic onto me? I provided that quote because it contradicts what I believe to be your rationale for presenting this:

"But changes in genetic material that occur at the molecular level are not entirely random"

in the first place. This is why I like to see creationists define what they mean when they use words like "random" and "nonrandom" and "information".

 

[leroy]

Really?
It proves that natural processes are sufficient - no need to imply that a 'designer' is involved, or a deity didit, etc.

Which is fine because none in this thread is claiming that organisms evolve by non natrual mechanisms. (perhaps you are confusing me with an other user?)


The only claim that is being made is that there are non random genetic variations (or noon random mutations), and that these nonrandom mutations play an important role in evolution.

What claim did you imply that you made with the quote that you copy-pasted from your creationist source?

no idea, what quote are you talkign about? which creationist source?

in the first place. This is why I like to see creationists define what they mean when they use words like "random" and "nonrandom" and "information".

Random has been defined multiple times,

Do you want me to define it again?

 

[shunyadragon]

Which is fine because none in this thread is claiming that organisms evolve by non natrual mechanisms. (perhaps you are confusing me with an other user?)


The only claim that is being made is that there are non random genetic variations (or noon random mutations), and that these nonrandom mutations play an important role in evolution.





no idea, what quote are you talkign about? which creationist source?




Random has been defined multiple times,

Do you want me to define it again?

The above may be your claim, but 'SO WHAT?'. What is meaningful about your claim, beyond the claim itself?

Still waiting for meaningful context. . .

 

[leroy]

The above may be your claim, but 'SO WHAT?'. What is meaningful about your claim, beyond the claim itself?

Still waiting for meaningful context. . .

I am just answering to the OP


if we define darwinism as the claim that organisms evolve mainly through random variation and natural selection, then the answer to the OP is NO

Darwinism has not been proven by science


as simple as that

 

[shunyadragon]

I am just answering to the OP


if we define darwinism as the claim that organisms evolve mainly through random variation and natural selection, then the answer to the OP is NO

Darwinism has not been proven by science


as simple as that

I have been over this several times before. This is not the current definition for evolution, which does not consider 'random' as part of its definition.

Even the current definition of 'Darwinism does not include 'random'.

Darwinism - Wikipedia

"Darwinism is a theory of biological evolution developed by the English naturalist Charles Darwin and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce."

Also, addressed previously: Science does not 'prove' anything.

I also addressed the issue concerning randomness as having no causal tole in evolution. Random and non-random mutations only result in the genetic diversity in any given population of organisms, The cause of evolution is through natural processes and changes in the environment, ie; natural selection as per the definition.

 

[McBell]

I am just answering to the OP


if we define darwinism as the claim that organisms evolve mainly through random variation and natural selection, then the answer to the OP is NO

Darwinism has not been proven by science


as simple as that

And?
I mean, honestly, so what?

You do know that The Theory of Evolution has come a long long ways since Darwinism, right?

 

[leroy]

I have been over this several times before. This is not the current definition for evolution, which does not consider 'random' as part of its definition.

Even the current definition of 'Darwinism does not include 'random'.

Darwinism - Wikipedia

"Darwinism is a theory of biological evolution developed by the English naturalist Charles Darwin and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce.

fine, that is why I was (and have always been) so clear on what I i mean with darwinism

Also, addressed previously: Science does not 'prove' anything.

in the context of the OP prove "seems" to be refering to prove beyond reasonable doubt.

I also addressed the issue concerning randomness as having no causal tole in evolution. Random and non-random mutations only result in the genetic diversity in any given population of organisms, The cause of evolution is through natural processes and changes in the environment, ie; natural selection as per the definition.

aja so what_?

 

[leroy]

And?
I mean, honestly, so what?

You do know that The Theory of Evolution has come a long long ways since Darwinism, right?

So what?

So noting, I am answering to the OP

The implication is that we don’t know how organisms evolve; atheist can’t say that they “solved the problem” but rather they have to say “we don’t know”

 

[shunyadragon]

fine, that is why I was (and have always been) so clear on what I i mean with darwinism.

What you mean by Darwinism (?) has no meaning in science. Personal preference definitions do not communicate to anyone beyond yourself.

in the context of the OP prove "seems" to be referring to prove beyond reasonable doubt.

Demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt does not remotely indicate 'proof.'

aja so what_?

This reflects the science: I also addressed the issue concerning randomness as having no causal tole in evolution. Random and non-random mutations only result in the genetic diversity in any given population of organisms, The cause of evolution is through natural processes and changes in the environment, ie; natural selection as per the definition.

 

[shunyadragon]

So what?

So noting, I am answering to the OP

The implication is that we don’t know how organisms evolve; atheist can’t say that they “solved the problem” but rather they have to say “we don’t know”

False, science has falsified the science of evolution beyond any reasonable doubt.