Is Darwinism proven/accepted by official Science?

[Bear Wild]

Go to post 335

Your evidence sited in post 335 support the theory of evolution. All reported are aspects of natural selection. I even gave an example of sexual selection which is not random and was originally proposed by Darwin in which has been substantiated but modern studies of birds. So random mutations occur but they are one part evolution theory just as epigenetics as well as complex genetic factors that are not random. All are a part of the theory of evolution and all support natural selection.

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR SUPERNATURAL SELECTION AT ALL.

 

[leroy]

Your evidence sited in post 335 support the theory of evolution

It all depends on what you mean by "theory of evolution"

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR SUPERNATURAL SELECTION AT ALL.

Which is fine because nobody is arguing for supernatural evolution


The sources that I provided simply show that some mutations are not random and that they could have played an important role in explaining the diversity and complexity of life (which is something that @shunyadragon rejects)

 

[shunyadragon]

The problem is that even if I have a religious agenda..... It is still a fact that you are unable to support your claims.

The literature I cited supported my claims. You do have an Intelligent Design agenda, and your selective one-sided citation of literature reflectsa this agenda. Your weakness is the selctive citation of evidence without considering the evidence as a whole, and how differences and disagreements between scientists are handled in all sciences including those related to evolution. Differences are resolved over time through research and discoveries. Nothing controversial here, unless you believe in Alien breeding causes evolution.

It is a fact that there has never been a falsifiable hyothesis to support Intelligent Design. It is unlikely that it could never by achieved, because one would have to propose a negative hypothesis that the sciences related to evolution could explain the evolution came about naturally.

It is still a fact that I could support my claims

The literature I cited refuted your claims.

It is still a fact that you can't refute my claims

Refuted by definitiona and your selective citation to justify your agenda.

And it is still a fact that you are using YEC tactics (semantic games, personal attacks, genetic fallacies, red harrings, lies etc)

No.

 

[shunyadragon]

It all depends on what you mean by "theory of evolution"

The sciences of evolution falsify hypothesis for evollution througn natural processes and measures. There is no other falsifiable hypothesis that fits the objective evidence.

The sources that I provided simply show that some mutations are not random and that they could have played an important role in explaining the diversity and complexity of life (which is something that @shunyadragon rejects)

No I do not reject it, never have. The only thing in evolution that is random is the timing of individual mutations. ALL natural processes involved with evolution are non-random.

One point we do disagree on is that the 'needs' of organisms cause mutation.

 

[Bear Wild]

It all depends on what you mean by "theory of evolution"


Which is fine because nobody is arguing for supernatural evolution


The sources that I provided simply show that some mutations are not random and that they could have played an important role in explaining the diversity and complexity of life (which is something that @shunyadragon rejects)

No it does not depend. The theory of evolution is a collective theory from multiple disciplines and like all scientific theories there are healthy disagreements about minor parts of the theory. Despite some differences there is agreement the theory is sound and the only explanation of how life diversified and developed on Earth.

So what is your objection to this?

 

[shunyadragon]

No it does not depend. The theory of evolution is a collective theory from multiple disciplines and like all scientific theories there are healthy disagreements about minor parts of the theory. Despite some differences there is agreement the theory is sound and the only explanation of how life diversified and developed on Earth.

So what is your objection to this?

. . . and naturally.

 

[leroy]

The literature I cited supported my claims. You do have an Intelligent Design agenda,]

This is text book example of the genetic fallacy.

My personal agenda has no bearing on whether if my arguments are good or not.

and your selective one-sided citation of literature
Your weakness is the selctive citation of evidence without considering the evidence

That's fine, but support your assertions, how did I missrrepresented any literature?

It is a fact that there has never been a falsifiable hyothesis to support Intelligent Design

.

That's an excellent topic for an other thread, in this thread nobody is arguing for intelligent design.

The literature I cited refuted your claims.

Ok support your assertions

QUOTE any of my claims, and then quote the exact sentences from your sources that refute my assertions

 

[leroy]

One point we do disagree on is that the 'needs' of organisms cause mutation.

And I provided sources supporting that claim

 

[leroy]

No it does not depend. The theory of evolution is a collective theory from multiple disciplines and like all scientific theories there are healthy disagreements about minor parts]

Sure and I am. Not arguing for "unhealthy disagreements"

Minor parts? Well that is a bit subjective but ok

of the theory. Despite some differences there is agreement the theory is sound and the only explanation of how life diversified and developed on Earth.

So what is your objection to this?

Just tell me what do you mean by "theory of evolution" and I'll be happy to tell you if I have any objections

 

[shunyadragon]

This is text book example of the genetic fallacy.

No but the logic behind yours most definitely genetic fallacy,

My personal agenda has no bearing on whether if my arguments are good or not.

Oh yes it is! I have been watvhing you for along time, and your uses of references and argument is classically Intellignet design.

That's fine, but support your assertions, how did I missrrepresented any literature?

Done that in general and specific references, and no need to challenge your literacy any firther. Your selective use of selective phrases and references, (without accademic knowledge.) without considering the whole of genetic scientific reference.

You need to take a good college course on 'Population genetics.' Based on good science to provide a complete argument.. The following is a course outline. You can probably take it on line. Pay up and get educated.

Source: Population Genetics | Boundless Biology.




Genetic Variation
Genetic variation is a measure of the variation that exists in the genetic makeup of individuals within population.

LEARNING OBJECTIVES
Assess the ways in which genetic variance affects the evolution of populations

KEY TAKEAWAYS
Key Points
Genetic variation is an important force in evolution as it allows natural selection to increase or decrease frequency of alleles already in the population.

Genetic variation can be caused by mutation (which can create entirely new alleles in a population), random mating, random fertilization, and recombination between homologous chromosomes during meiosis (which reshuffles alleles within an organism’s offspring).

Genetic variation is advantageous to a population because it enables some individuals to adapt to the environment while maintaining the survival of the population.
Key Terms

genetic diversity: the level of biodiversity, refers to the total number of genetic characteristics in the genetic makeup of a species
crossing over: the exchange of genetic material between homologous chromosomes that results in recombinant chromosomes
phenotypic variation: variation (due to underlying heritable genetic variation); a fundamental prerequisite for evolution by natural selection
genetic variation: variation in alleles of genes that occurs both within and among populations

Genetic Variation
Genetic variation is a measure of the genetic differences that exist within a population. The genetic variation of an entire species is often called genetic diversity. Genetic variations are the differences in DNA segments or genes between individuals and each variation of a gene is called an allele.For example, a population with many different alleles at a single chromosome locus has a high amount of genetic variation. Genetic variation is essential for natural selection because natural selection can only increase or decrease frequency of alleles that already exist in the population.

Genetic variation is caused by:

mutation

random mating between organisms

random fertilization

crossing over (or recombination) between chromatids of homologous chromosomes during meiosis

The last three of these factors reshuffle alleles within a population, giving offspring combinations which differ from their parents and from others.

Evolution and Adaptation to the Environment

Variation allows some individuals within a population to adapt to the changing environment. Because natural selection acts directly only on phenotypes, more genetic variation within a population usually enables more phenotypic variation. Some new alleles increase an organism’s ability to survive and reproduce, which then ensures the survival of the allele in the population. Other new alleles may be immediately detrimental (such as a malformed oxygen-carrying protein) and organisms carrying these new mutations will die out. Neutral alleles are neither selected for nor against and usually remain in the population. Genetic variation is advantageous because it enables some individuals and, therefore, a population, to survive despite a changing environment.

Geographic Variation
Some species display geographic variation as well as variation within a population. Geographic variation, or the distinctions in the genetic makeup of different populations, often occurs when populations are geographically separated by environmental barriers or when they are under selection pressures from a different environment. One example of geographic variation are clines: graded changes in a character down a geographic axis.

Sources of Genetic Variation

Gene duplication, mutation, or other processes can produce new genes and alleles and increase genetic variation. New genetic variation can be created within generations in a population, so a population with rapid reproduction rates will probably have high genetic variation. However, existing genes can be arranged in new ways from chromosomal crossing over and recombination in sexual reproduction. Overall, the main sources of genetic variation are the formation of new alleles, the altering of gene number or position, rapid reproduction, and sexual reproduction.

Genetic Drift

Genetic drift is the change in allele frequencies of a population due to random chance events, such as natural disasters.




.

 

[shunyadragon]

And I provided sources supporting that claim

No you selected one-lners out of contect to support your ID argument, which is genetic falacy. The ;Falacy of Cherry Picking or Selective Citation.

Cherry picking - Wikipedia

Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position while ignoring a significant portion of related and similar cases or data that may contradict that position. It is a kind of fallacy of selective attention, the most common example of which is the confirmation bias.[1][2] Cherry picking may be committed intentionally or unintentionally. This fallacy is a major problem in public debate.[3]

The term is based on the perceived process of harvesting fruit, such as cherries. The picker would be expected to only select the ripest and healthiest fruits. An observer who only sees the selected fruit may thus wrongly conclude that most, or even all, of the tree's fruit is in a likewise good condition. This can also give a false impression of the quality of the fruit (since it is only a sample and is not a representative sample). A concept sometimes confused with cherry picking is the idea of gathering only the fruit that is easy to harvest, while ignoring other fruit that is higher up on the tree and thus more difficult to obtain (see low-hanging fruit).

Cherry picking has a negative connotation as the practice neglects, overlooks or directly suppresses evidence that could lead to a complete picture.

Cherry picking can be found in many logical fallacies. For example, the "fallacy of anecdotal evidence" tends to overlook large amounts of data in favor of that known personally, "selective use of evidence" rejects material unfavorable to an argument, while a false dichotomy picks only two options when more are available. Cherry picking can refer to the selection of data or data sets so a study or survey will give desired, predictable results which may be misleading or even completely contrary to reality




As I referenced before you need a good education in 'Population Genetics. Take the sourse reference and come back.

 

[Bear Wild]

Sure and I am. Not arguing for "unhealthy disagreements"

Minor parts? Well that is a bit subjective but ok




Just tell me what do you mean by "theory of evolution" and I'll be happy to tell you if I have any objections

It is the theory of the processes of natural forces that created the diversity of life on this planet often defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next but also includes epigenetic influences. The change in the inherited traits of a population from generation to generation by natural processes.

 

[leroy]

It is the theory of the processes of natural forces that created the diversity of life on this planet often defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next but also includes epigenetic influences. The change in the inherited traits of a population from generation to generation by natural processes.

In that case, and given that definition, I have no objection to the theory of evolution

 

[shunyadragon]

In that case, and given that definition, I have no objection to the theory of evolution

The Definition does not include Intelligent Design.

 

[shunyadragon]

1. You understand me, but you have a negative attitude. By the same token they accept the existence of God of Gaps, but they hate Him.
2. The prayers at school/labs drive the demons and UFO away from books, apparatus, experiments. Otherwise, they can corrupt them:
we need School/lab prayers to solve the Q-problem:
Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability or how Science has run into the Q-problem by Dmitri Martila

3. All theistic religions have at least one truth in common: "God's name is God, and He does exist"; the second common knowledge is: God loves the world.

Again . . . What is the Q problem. Are you referring to Qanon?

 

[leroy]

The Definition does not include Intelligent Design.

Which is fine, because nobody in this thread is arguing for intelligent design

 

[leroy]

No you selected one-lners out of contect to support your ID argument, which is genetic falacy. The ;Falacy of Cherry Picking or Selective Citation.

Cherry picking - Wikipedia

Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position while ignoring a significant portion of related and similar cases or data that may contradict that position. It is a kind of fallacy of selective attention, the most common example of which is the confirmation bias.[1][2] Cherry picking may be committed intentionally or unintentionally. This fallacy is a major problem in public debate.[3]

The term is based on the perceived process of harvesting fruit, such as cherries. The picker would be expected to only select the ripest and healthiest fruits. An observer who only sees the selected fruit may thus wrongly conclude that most, or even all, of the tree's fruit is in a likewise good condition. This can also give a false impression of the quality of the fruit (since it is only a sample and is not a representative sample). A concept sometimes confused with cherry picking is the idea of gathering only the fruit that is easy to harvest, while ignoring other fruit that is higher up on the tree and thus more difficult to obtain (see low-hanging fruit).

Cherry picking has a negative connotation as the practice neglects, overlooks or directly suppresses evidence that could lead to a complete picture.

Cherry picking can be found in many logical fallacies. For example, the "fallacy of anecdotal evidence" tends to overlook large amounts of data in favor of that known personally, "selective use of evidence" rejects material unfavorable to an argument, while a false dichotomy picks only two options when more are available. Cherry picking can refer to the selection of data or data sets so a study or survey will give desired, predictable results which may be misleading or even completely contrary to reality




As I referenced before you need a good education in 'Population Genetics. Take the sourse reference and come back.

Thats fine, but you have to do is support your accusations, cite any article that I cherry picked and explain how did I misrepresent it.

 

[shunyadragon]

Thats fine, but you have to do is support your accusations, cite any article that I cherry picked and explain how did I misrepresent it.

You justifed slectively Shapiro's 'natural genetic engineering' to Support Inteeligent Design. In reality Shapiro's position is minority position in science. 'Cherry Picking.'

 

[shunyadragon]

Which is fine, because nobody in this thread is arguing for intelligent design

You are!!!!

 

[leroy]

As I referenced before you need a good education in 'Population Genetics. Take the sourse reference and come back.

My knowledge in population genetics is irrelevant, given that all I am doing is sharing the articles written by other authors….. The relevant question is whether if the authors of the papers have enough knowledge or not.

If anything you should argue that the authors of the papers are wrong, and explain why,