Is Darwinism proven/accepted by official Science?

[leroy]

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.

Its hard for me to identify points of disagreement, we both seem agree that non random mutations occur and that provided some of the “raw material”

I honestly don’t know what am I supposed to refute form your comment.

 

[Valjean]

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

Please explain it to me, then. It's a creationist term, and I'm probably unaware of the details.

The basics of the ToE I understand, and it's way beyond anything Darwin ever understood.
Darwin "discovered" the principle of Natural Selection. Modern biology has greatly expanded on this.
So what is "Darwinism," and how is it relevant today?

Its hard for me to identify points of disagreement, we both seem agree that non random mutations occur and that provided some of the “raw material”

I honestly don’t know what am I supposed to refute form your comment.

What are "non-random mutations?" Aren't mutations, by definition, random?

 

[shunyadragon]

Its hard for me to identify points of disagreement, we both seem agree that non random mutations occur and that provided some of the “raw material”

I honestly don’t know what am I supposed to refute form your comment.

First, there is reason to believe this a meaningful argument since mutations themselves do determine the outcome of mutations or the outcomes of evolution since the driving force behind evolution is adaptation due to environmental change.. You have not answered what is the point of this argument.

What I 'personally believe' is irrelevant, since all I post in this thread and others is strictly science.

 

[leroy]

Please explain it to me, then. It's a creationist term, and I'm probably unaware of the details.

The basics of the ToE I understand, and it's way beyond anything Darwin ever understood.
Darwin "discovered" the principle of Natural Selection. Modern biology has greatly expanded on this.
So what is "Darwinism," and how is it relevant today?

With Darwinism I understand that organisms evolve mainly though random variation and natural selection. Given this definition the answer of the OP is no “Darwinism has not been established (nor proven beyond reasonable doubt) by science.

You won’t find a single paper that concludes that Darwinism is correct beyond reasonable doubt.

If you have a different definition for Darwinism then my comments don’t apply,

What are "non-random mutations?" Aren't mutations, by definition, random?

With non random mutation I mean mutations that are caused by the necessity of the organism…………if an organism would benefit from that specific mutation, such mutation is more likely to occure.

 

[leroy]

First, there is reason to believe this a meaningful argument since mutations themselves do determine the outcome of mutations or the outcomes of evolution since the driving force behind evolution is adaptation due to environmental change.. You have not answered what is the point of this argument.

The point if my argument is that non random mutations supplied a relevant portion of the “raw material”……which as far as I can see you don’t disagree…………so what is the point of this conversation?

 

[shunyadragon]

The point if my argument is that non random mutations supplied a relevant portion of the “raw material”……which as far as I can see you don’t disagree…………so what is the point of this conversation?

The reason nor source of the 'Ram Material' has no determining influence on the outcome of evolution.

Please respond to this point.

First, there is reason to believe this a meaningful argument since mutations themselves do determine the outcome of mutations or the outcomes of evolution since the driving force behind evolution is adaptation due to environmental change.. You have not answered what is the point of this argument.

 

[Valjean]

Its hard for me to identify points of disagreement, we both seem agree that non random mutations occur and that provided some of the “raw material”

I honestly don’t know what am I supposed to refute form your comment.

What are "non-random mutations?" Aren't mutations, by definition, non-random?

With Darwinism I understand that organisms evolve mainly though random variation and natural selection. Given this definition the answer of the OP is no “Darwinism has not been established (nor proven beyond reasonable doubt) by science.

You won’t find a single paper that concludes that Darwinism is correct beyond reasonable doubt.

I'm OK with your definition, but your idea that natural selection is unsupported, never observed, and that I won't find a single paper supporting it just leaves me gobsmacked. There are enough papers, articles, books, &c to fill the Library of Congress to overflowing -- and not just in biology. There's consilient evidence from many disciplines.

I challenge you to find a single, scientific paper that finds that "Darwinism" is not correct.

With non random mutation I mean mutations that are caused by the necessity of the organism…………if an organism would benefit from that specific mutation, such mutation is more likely to occure.

Like Lamarckism?
Evolution doesn't work like that.
How would need influence mutation? What mechanism would account for that?

 

[leroy]

Please respond to this point.

First, there is reason to believe this a meaningful argument since mutations themselves do determine the outcome of mutations or the outcomes of evolution since the driving force behind evolution is adaptation due to environmental change.. You have not answered what is the point of this argument.

agree

 

[leroy]

What are "non-random mutations?" Aren't mutations, by definition, non-random?


I'm OK with your definition, but your idea that natural selection is unsupported, never observed, and that I won't find a single paper supporting it just leaves me gobsmacked. There are enough papers, articles, books, &c to fill the Library of Congress to overflowing -- and not just in biology. There's consilient evidence from many disciplines.

strawman in red letters above.

My point is that you won’t find a single paper that concludes that “darwinism” as I defined it is true beyond reasonable doubt, (my issue is that relevant mutations might not be random ) which is not something new, many scientists support this view and have published their findings in peer reviewed articles, )

I challenge you to find a single, scientific paper that finds that "Darwinism" is not correct.

That is a strong claim, but many papers while they don’t show that Darwinism is wrong they do provide alternative explanations (James Shapiro would be an example Natural genetic engineering - Wikipedia)

The point is that the door is open, we don’t know how organisms evolve, many mechanisms have been proposed. (Darwinism is just possibility form a poll of options) this is not supposed to be controversial, scientist know this , nobody claims to have the definitive answer.

Like Lamarckism?

yes moreless

Evolution doesn't work like that.

How does it work? Can you support that with scientific literature?

How would need influence mutation? What mechanism would account for that?

For example there is a mechanism proposed by James Shapiro called Natural Genetic Engineering.

Organism rearrange their DNA (like Lego blocks) to fit their needs.

What mechanism would account for that?

Somehow organisms can “reed” their environment and change their DNA accordingly….

 

[shunyadragon]

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

Yes evolution is accepted by all the major universities and scientific journals of the world. Your reasons of rejection are genuinely bizzaro!!!!

Thus, Darwinism is Scientifically proven. [/quore]

Again, again and again science does not prove anything.

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.

Science does not claim that humans are born of monkey's. How bizzaro!!!!

 

[shunyadragon]

agree

Still waiting for an explanation. On this point I do not agree.

 

[leroy]

Still waiting for an explanation. On this point I do not agree.

no idea on what are you expecting from me.

which point am I suppose to explain.? I already told you that I agree with your previous comment

 

[shunyadragon]

no idea on what are you expecting from me.

which point am I suppose to explain.? I already told you that I agree with your previous comment

Please respond to this point.

There is reason to believe this a meaningful argument since mutations themselves do not determine the outcome of mutations or the outcomes of evolution since the driving force behind evolution is adaptation due to environmental change.. You have not answered what is the point of this argument.

Do you agree this is a meaningless argument?

 

[leroy]

Please respond to this point.

There is reason to believe this a meaningful argument since mutations themselves do not determine the outcome of mutations or the outcomes of evolution since the driving force behind evolution is adaptation due to environmental change.. You have not answered what is the point of this argument.

Do you agree this is a meaningless argument?

Do you agree this is a meaningless argument?

That is a subjective statement, I (and many scientists) find it very interesting.

Weather if its meaningful or not depends on your personal opinion and personal interests. Someone that what’s to avoid bacterial resistance to antibiotics might what to understand what causes these mutations. If mutations are not random perhaps you can do something about it.

But sure if evolution (natural selection) starts once the mutation is already there, then it doesn’t matter if the mutation was originally random or not.

 

[shunyadragon]

That is a subjective statement, I (and many scientists) find it very interesting.

citations?

Weather if its meaningful or not depends on your personal opinion and personal interests.

It does not depend o 'personal opinion' it depends on science.

Someone that what’s to avoid bacterial resistance to antibiotics might what to understand what causes these mutations. If mutations are not random perhaps you can do something about it.

'Someone' would never be able know what causes mutations. All mutations simply contribute to the genetic diversity in the population,

But sure if evolution (natural selection) starts once the mutation is already there, then it doesn’t matter if the mutation was originally random or not.

True

 

[leroy]

citations?



It does not depend o 'personal opinion' it depends on science.



'Someone' would never be able know what causes mutations. All mutations simply contribute to the genetic diversity in the population,




True

True

So do we disagree on anything important?

 

[shunyadragon]

So do we disagree on anything important?

Yes, the reason for your argument. Why?

So do we disagree on anything important?

Huh? Does not make sense. No meaning for a thread that has nothing important.

 

[ecco]

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

ToE Theory of Evolution.
Dar·win·ism
/ˈdärwəˌnizəm/
Learn to pronounce

noun

1. the theory of the evolution of species by natural selection advanced by Charles Darwin.

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

See above.


Why do you feel it's necessary to redefine words?

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

Again! Science accumulates evidence. For ToE the evidence is overwhelming from different fields.

Science doesn't have to provide you with evidence that you feel is proven beyond your reasonable doubt.

Science has accumulated overwhelming evidence that the earth is a spheroid that revolves around the sun. Some people feel that has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Isn't it reasonable to doubt the earth is a spheroid? Isn't it reasonable to believe that the wind from the earth whipping around the sun at 37,000 miles an hour would blow you right off the surface?


ETA:

You won’t find a single paper that concludes that Darwinism is correct beyond reasonable doubt.

You are right. It's a completely meaningless observation, but a correct one. See above.

 

[leroy]

ToE Theory of Evolution.
Dar·win·ism
/ˈdärwəˌnizəm/
Learn to pronounce

noun

1. the theory of the evolution of species by natural selection advanced by Charles Darwin.

.

Ok and what does the theory advanced by Darwin claim? Please explain the theory and explain why is it different from my previous definition.

A

gain! Science accumulates evidence. For ToE the evidence is overwhelming from different fields.

It depends on what you mean by ToE.

And since you seem to be using Darwinism and ToE interchangeably I will assume that you are using these terms as synonymous (unless you clarify otherwise)

 

[Twilight Hue]

Please read the title more carefully:
Is Darwinism .... accepted by official Science?

I'm kinda wondering what unofficial science is.