Is Darwinism proven/accepted by official Science?

[leroy]

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




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

ok you are just playing semantics

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.

Again, some scientist (and layman) consider the question on whether if mutations are random or non-random relevant.

If you personally consider it irrelevant, then be my guest, if you are not interested on the mechanism that cause the diversity then that’s ok, you can go and participate in threads/comments that are about stuff that you consider relevant.

 

[leroy]

False, science has falsified(assuming you mean "shown to be true") the science of evolution beyond any reasonable doubt.

It all depends what you mean by evolution.

In sumerry

- Science has shown beyond reasonable doubt that eyes evolved from simpler organs

- Science has not shown beyond reasonable doubt that eyes evolved through random mutations + natural selection

Any disagreement?

 

[shunyadragon]

It all depends what you mean by evolution.

In sumerry

- Science has shown beyond reasonable doubt that eyes evolved from simpler organs [by natural selection

Evolution is defined in great detail in science and does not include the concept of 'random.'

- Science has not shown beyond reasonable doubt that eyes evolved through random mutations + natural selection.

Any disagreement?

Yes, the above statement is a personal perspective and nothing to do with what evolution is in scence.

Note the title of the thread. It refers to 'Offical Science,' and not your personal view and definitions that have nothing to do with 'Official Science.'

 

[leroy]

Evolution is defined in great detail in science and does not include the concept of 'random.'



Yes, the above statement is a personal perspective and nothing to do with what evolution is in scence.

Note the title of the thread. It refers to 'Offical Science,' and not your personal view and definitions that have nothing to do with 'Official Science.'

ok but you agree with this statement

Science has not shown beyond reasonable doubt that eyes evolved through random mutations + natural selection

Your only issue is that I shouldn’t use the Word “evolution” because I misinterpreted what evolution actually says………….is that correct?

 

[shunyadragon]

ok but you agree with this statement


Your only issue is that I shouldn’t use the Word “evolution” because I misinterpreted what evolution actually says………….is that correct?

No. I do not agree with all your statements.

 

[leroy]

No. I do not agree with all your statements.

I am talking about that specific statement?

“Science has not proved beyond reasonable doubt that for example eyes evolved mainly through random mutations + natural selection”

 

[shunyadragon]

I am talking about that specific statement?

“Science has not proved beyond reasonable doubt that for example eyes evolved mainly through random mutations + natural selection”

I do not agree with that particular statement, because it does not reflect anything remotely related to the 'Official Science.'

 

[tas8831]

Granted, I am not arguing for supernatural causes

And yet...

Fine Tuning argument / The best argument for the existence of God

 

[ecco]

Pardon the late intrusion...

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”

Why do you use the word "atheist"? Are you unaware that many biologists, geologists, paleontologists, physicists, etc. who support ToE are Christians?

Again, some scientist (and layman) consider the question on whether if mutations are random or non-random relevant.

Granted, I am not arguing for supernatural causes

Well, yes you are arguing for supernatural causes and your argument is rather transparent. You are fixated on "randomness" vs "non-randomness". Your underlying premise is that if something is not random, it must be caused. If something is caused, then there must be a causer. The causer, in your mind, is your Christian god.

 

[shunyadragon]

And yet...

Fine Tuning argument / The best argument for the existence of God

. . . and the worst.

 

[leroy]

leroy said: ↑
Granted, I am not arguing for supernatural causes in this thread

And yet...

Fine Tuning argument / The best argument for the existence of God

Ok maybe my original quote requires a small modification (in red letters above)

The fact that you are neat picking and looking for minor an irrelevant mistakes* stongly suggest that you are lost, you don’t know how to deal with the arguments presented in this thread, you are sending red herrings and mixing different threads.

 

[shunyadragon]

Ok maybe my original quote requires a small modification (in red letters above)

The fact that you are neat picking and looking for minor an irrelevant mistakes* stongly suggest that you are lost, you don’t know how to deal with the arguments presented in this thread, you are sending red herrings and mixing different threads.

This thread you have defined as dealing with 'Official Science.' Your failure to deal with 'Official Science' is more than 'minor irrelevant mistakes.

By the way any argument that supports fine-tuning directly or indirectly is an argument for ID, supernatural causes, and therefore existence of God.

 

[leroy]

Pardon the late intrusion...




Why do you use the word "atheist"? Are you unaware that many biologists, geologists, paleontologists, physicists, etc. who support ToE are Christians?




Well, yes you are arguing for supernatural causes and your argument is rather transparent. You are fixated on "randomness" vs "non-randomness". Your underlying premise is that if something is not random, it must be caused. If something is caused, then there must be a causer. The causer, in your mind, is your Christian god.

Well aside from your obvious rejection towards anything that remotely smallest like ID, ……….. Do you agree with my basic point? “we don’t know how organisms evolve”………….we know for example (with high degree of certanity) that eyes evolved from simpler organs, but we don’t know nor understand the mechanisms responsible for such evolution.

 

[shunyadragon]

Well aside from your obvious rejection towards anything that remotely smallest like ID, ……….. Do you agree with my basic point? “we don’t know how organisms evolve”………….we know for example (with high degree of certanity) that eyes evolved from simpler organs, but we don’t know nor understand the mechanisms responsible for such evolution.

No I do not agree with your basic point. The phrase ''We know how organism evolve" is a loaded statements. The scientists involved with evolution have falsified the'science of evolution' and the processes involved beyond any doubt. Problems, disagreements and controversy among scientist absolutely do not question the over all process of how organisms evolve.

The article you offered does not remotely question the natural processes of how organisms evolve.

Actually you are chenging the subject, but nonetheless . . .

Do your homework and get an education.

We know to a high degree of certainty how eyes evolved from light sensitive cells in single celled organisms. There are numerous books, PBS TV programs and research articles that go into grear detail into the evolution of the eye.

For example:

The Evolution of the Eye from Algae and Jellyfish to Humans: How Vision Adapts to Environment
Arthur James Hudson
Edwin Mellen Press, 2010 - Anatomy, Comparative - 173 pages

Ir has ben demonstrated by any doubt that changes in the environment is the driving force behind evolution.

.

 

[ecco]

Well aside from your obvious rejection towards anything that remotely smallest like ID, ………..

Did you mean "that remotely smells" like ID?

I hope it is obvious. I reject any and all superstitious nonsense and have since I was ten.

Do you agree with my basic point? “we don’t know how organisms evolve”………….we know for example (with high degree of certanity) that eyes evolved from simpler organs, but we don’t know nor understand the mechanisms responsible for such evolution.

I am not up on the latest knowledge of scientists when it comes to eyes. However, I seriously doubt that the mechanism involved is not understood. If I'm not mistaken, the mechanism was discussed during the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial.

But, let's say, for the sake of discussion "we don’t know nor understand the mechanisms responsible for such evolution". What's your point?

I'm sure science does not completely understand the mechanisms responsible for continental plates moving. That doesn't mean that plat tectonics is not responsible for mountains.

The same can be said for magnetic fields. What actually causes magnets to repel each other from a distance?

Gravity? Understood? Nah.

Quantum entanglement? Laughable if it were not proven.

So, again, What's your point?

 

[leroy]

No I do not agree with your basic point. The phrase ''We know how organism evolve" is a loaded statements. The scientists involved with evolution have falsified the'science of evolution' and the processes involved beyond any doubt. Problems, disagreements and controversy among scientist absolutely do not question the over all process of how organisms evolve.

The article you offered does not remotely question the natural processes of how organisms evolve.

Actually you are chenging the subject, but nonetheless . . .

Do your homework and get an education.

We know to a high degree of certainty how eyes evolved from light sensitive cells in single celled organisms. There are numerous books, PBS TV programs and research articles that go into grear detail into the evolution of the eye.

For example:

The Evolution of the Eye from Algae and Jellyfish to Humans: How Vision Adapts to Environment
Arthur James Hudson
Edwin Mellen Press, 2010 - Anatomy, Comparative - 173 pages

Ir has ben demonstrated by any doubt that changes in the environment is the driving force behind evolution.

.

We´ve been over this before multiple times, you know what I will say, and I know how you will respond.

1 my claim is that we don’t know if the mutations involved where mainly random or not

2 you will answer that it doesn’t matter evolution doesn’t care* if mutations are random or not.

3 I will respond that “it doesn’t matter to you” but I (and many others) find it relevant and important

 

[leroy]

D

But, let's say, for the sake of discussion "we don’t know nor understand the mechanisms responsible for such evolution". What's your point?

?

My point ? I am just answering to the OP, Darwinism has not been proven by official science* (Assuming that we use the definition that I proposed)

My definition being:

Darwinism: the idea that organisms evolved mainly by random mutations and Natural Selection


My suggestion is that evolution is at pair with say “Dark Energy” we know with high degree of certainty that the universe is expanding; we don’t understand yet the mechanisms responsible for this expansion.

This is analogous to “we know that organisms evolved from simpler life forms, we don’t understand yet the mechanisms involved in such process.”

 

[ecco]

So, someone makes a nonsensical post...

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

And you say it has not been proven...

My point ? I am just answering to the OP, Darwinism has not been proven by official science* (Assuming that we use the definition that I proposed)

My definition being:

Darwinism: the idea that organisms evolved mainly by random mutations and Natural Selection

The problem is that both of you have been around long enough to know that science is not in the business of offering proof. Science is in the business of accumulating evidence.

​

The overwhelming evidence, from many different branches of science, supports ToE.


So, all that both of you are doing is tilting at nonexistent windmills. Again. Still.

 

[shunyadragon]

We´ve been over this before multiple times, you know what I will say, and I know how you will respond.

1 my claim is that we don’t know if the mutations involved where mainly random or not

2 you will answer that it doesn’t matter evolution doesn’t care* if mutations are random or not.

3 I will respond that “it doesn’t matter to you” but I (and many others) find it relevant and important

It does matter in science to the selective processes of genetic mutations. Both random and non-random simply contribute to the diversity in the genetic DNA. They have no function in the outcome of genetic selection in evolution. Evolution is the driving force in evolution, and not whether mutations are random nor non-random.

You have failed to show that non-random mutations have any different in terms of the influence on the outcome the resulting genetic mutations in natural selection.

Please respond to the following again . . .

Note the statement of the title: "The Evolution of the Eye from Algae and Jellyfish to Humans: How Vision Adapts to Environment

No I do not agree with your basic point. The phrase ''We know how organism evolve" is a loaded statements. The scientists involved with evolution have falsified the'science of evolution' and the processes involved beyond any doubt. Problems, disagreements and controversy among scientist absolutely do not question the over all process of how organisms evolve.

The article you offered does not remotely question the natural processes of how organisms evolve.

Actually you are chenging the subject, but nonetheless . . .

Do your homework and get an education.

We know to a high degree of certainty how eyes evolved from light sensitive cells in single celled organisms. There are numerous books, PBS TV programs and research articles that go into grear detail into the evolution of the eye.

For example:

The Evolution of the Eye from Algae and Jellyfish to Humans: How Vision Adapts to Environment
Arthur James Hudson
Edwin Mellen Press, 2010 - Anatomy, Comparative - 173 pages

Ir has ben demonstrated by any doubt that changes in the environment is the driving force behind evolution.

 

[leroy]

So, someone makes a nonsensical post...

​

And you say it has not been proven...

​

The problem is that both of you have been around long enough to know that science is not in the business of offering proof. Science is in the business of accumulating evidence.

​

The overwhelming evidence, from many different branches of science, supports ToE.


So, all that both of you are doing is tilting at nonexistent windmills. Again. Still.

The overwhelming evidence, from many different branches of science, supports ToE.

It all depends on what you mean by ToE. (but the OP is referign to Darwinism)

I already told you what I understand by Darwinism, if you have a different definition feel free to share it

science is not in the business of offering proof

Unless I clarify otherwise with “prove” I mean “prove beyond reusable doubt.”