I'm kinda wondering what unofficial science is.
Voodoo, Intelligent Design, Mythology, Tarot Cards, Fundamentalist Creationism and so on.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I'm kinda wondering what unofficial science is.
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,
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.
False, random selection is not a part of the definition of evolution nor Darwinism as previously cited.
You will not find any scientific research papers on evolution that doubt that there is overwhelming acceptance of evolution as the only explanation for the history of life
No where in scientific journals nor texts do the propose that 'mutations that are caused by the necessity of the organism. There is no evidence that the ocurrance of a mutation id dependent on 'benefit.
The problem is it is your personal definition, and not recognized by anyone in 'official science.'Ok that is why I defined what I mean with Darwinism since my very first post in this thread…………..if using the term Darwinism makes you feel uncomfortable then please let me know which term should I use,
Darwin did claimed that variation is random, in fact that is the most important difference between Darwin and Lamarck.
Honestly if “random” is not an important part of Darwinism then what is the difference between Darwin and Lamark? From your definitions for evolution and Darwinism it seems to me that Lamarkism would also fit within your vague and generic definitions.
Using the definition that I provided for Darwinism you do find papers that conclude that Darwinism is probably wrong
Except for the journals that I have provided that shows how genetic variation is not random
what does the theory advanced by Darwin claim?
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
just explain what you mean by ToE and/or darwinism.Regarding specifically what? Darwin advanced many ideas. If you want all of them, read his books.
Theory of Evolution. That should be clear to you by now.
In some respects they are. In some respects, they are not. "Darwinism" probably should be restricted to what is written in his books. ToE is an ongoing, ever-changing base of knowledge.
just explain what you mean by ToE and/or darwinism.
no disagreement from my part.... given those definitions I agree with both evolution a d darwinism.I believe @ecco will agree with this:
Please note that the modern definition of evolution does not include the word 'theory.' It is most often correctly described as the 'science of evolution' or just evolution.
Evolution - Wikipedia
Evolution -
Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. These characteristics are the expressions of genes that are passed on from parent to offspring during reproduction.
Darwinism - Wikipedia
Darwinism -
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.
no disagreement from my part.... given those definitions I agree with both evolution a d darwinism.
but I would add that these definitions are too genetic, even a lamarkist or a YEC would agree with evolution
on my opinion definitions in the context of a debate should make emphasis in the points of disagreement
just explain what you mean by ToE and/or darwinism.
given those definitions I agree with both evolution a d darwinism.