Is Darwinism proven/accepted by official Science?

[Bear Wild]

Natural Genetic Engineering and epigenetics sound more like Lamarkism rather than Darwinism.

The core of Darwin's idea was "random variation" (random with respect to the organisms needs) while these mechanisms are non random, so if any of these mechanisms happens to be the main contributor to evolution Darwin would be wrong

I agree that epigenetics allows the environment to influence genetic expression but this showed there is just adds to the Darwin theory of evolution as would be expected as understanding of evolution increases. Darwin's fundamental premise is still valid but can now be modified. Lamarck's view did not support the long term evolutionary process. Just because giraffes want longer necks does not mean they will get them. Neither people had access to todays genetics.
Again it is the current theory that is important not finding faults with the original proposals.

 

[leroy]

I agree that epigenetics allows the environment to influence genetic expression but this showed there is just adds to the Darwin theory of evolution as would be expected as understanding of evolution increases. Darwin's fundamental premise is still valid but can now be modified. Lamarck's view did not support the long term evolutionary process. Just because giraffes want longer necks does not mean they will get them. Neither people had access to todays genetics.
Again it is the current theory that is important not finding faults with the original proposals.

The core of Darwinism is “random variation” the core of lamarkism is “guided, biased variation” epigenetics seems to me closer to Lamarkism than to Darwinism.

 

[shunyadragon]

There is Presumption of Innocence. I am not naming names, I speak in general.

I speak of the presumption of innocense in general and not from a religious agenda as you do, which is the most logical and coherent view.

 

[questfortruth]

the core of lamarkism is “guided, biased variation”

But nevertheless, all humankind came from a monkey? If yes, while the male line of Jesus is 1. God, 2. Adam, and not 1.God, 2. Single-cell, 3. Monkey, 4 Adam?

 

[leroy]

But nevertheless, all humankind came from a monkey? If yes, while the male line of Jesus is 1. God, 2. Adam, and not 1.God, 2. Single-cell, 3. Monkey, 4 Adam?

Yes, that we evolved from “monkeys” is largely uncontroversial among scientists.

For the purpose of this comment:

Monkey = non human primate

 

[questfortruth]

Yes, that we evolved from “monkeys” is largely uncontroversial among scientists.

For the purpose of this comment:

Monkey = non human primate

Folk, please educate me: if humans came from monkeys, the monkeys came directly from frogs?

 

[leroy]

Folk, please educate me: if humans came from monkeys, the monkeys came directly from frogs?

Folk, please educate me: if humans came from monkeys, the monkeys came directly from frogs?

No, not directly but monkeys came from “something” that would be classified as an amphibian according to how we classify animals today.

 

[Bear Wild]

So your mind may be open to the scriptures? Excellent! An open mind is good.

I once thought exactly like you but then my mind was opened and I saw the perfection of the scriptures vs the less than perfection of science. Don't get me wrong, science is fine. It's just not as fine as God. I've seen it from both sides.

BTW, what made you think I see myself as God? And from that one little post you know the extent of my understanding? That's pretty good. And from that one little post you know all about my feelings of importance? That's pretty good also. And to think you know how many organisms and the time frame I think are involved. Amazing, but I'm going to guess you bypassed the scientific method in order to come to that conclusion, since you did so with incredibly thin observation and evidence.

As a side note, do you happen to know why some elementary particles joined and became quarks while others become leptons? Something I've been studying, so I'd appreciate any input you may have.

Take care

I am always open minded. I once believed in scriptures then opened my mind to nature and became saved. Not to late for you.

You said your dog looked at you like you were god so my question was simply do you see yourself as god. I do not know what you think about your god fixation but you have transferred that feeling to your dog in your statement.
I have not bypassed the scientific method since the research supporting evolution uses the scientific method. Another misguided statement by you.

What thin observation are you talking about? Do you even know?

Leptons and quarks have little direct being on a conversation about evolution. You are aware of that are you not?

Scriptures are flawed, limited by human language open for multiple interpretations. Are you even aware of that?

 

[shunyadragon]

The core of Darwinism is “random variation” the core of lamarkism is “guided, biased variation” epigenetics seems to me closer to Lamarkism than to Darwinism.

The core of the science of evolution is NOT random variation.
That is not the definition of Lamarckism. It is not accepted by any serious scientist.

https://www.google.com/search? q=lamarckism&oq=lamarkism&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0l7.2583j0j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Lamarckism, or Lamarckian inheritance, also known as "Neo-Lamarckism", is the notion that an organism can pass on to its offspring physical characteristics that the parent organism acquired through use or disuse during its lifetime.

 

[shunyadragon]

Folk, please educate me: if humans came from monkeys, the monkeys came directly from frogs?

Your intentional ignorance of science is Neolithic..

 

[leroy]

The cor of the science of evolution is NOT random variation.

Granted, random variation would be the core of Darwinism, not the core of the “science of evolution”

Lamarckism

, or Lamarckian inheritance, also known as "Neo-Lamarckism", is the notion that an organism can pass on to its offspring physical characteristics that the parent organism acquired through use or disuse during its lifetime.

How is that different from epigenetics or natural genetic engeneering?.........in both mechanisms the organism changes its DNA (and his phisical traits) during his life time and these DNA variations are hereditable…………these mechanisms are far more closer to lamarkism than to darwinism

 

[shunyadragon]

Granted, random variation would be the core of Darwinism, not the core of the “science of evolution”

The reason is simple; Darwin's proposal for evolution is over 150 years old, and the science of evolution has come along way since. Darwin did not know contemporary genetics and biochemistry. Darwin simply proposed the 'Theory of Evolution, and justly predicted that over time the questions he had would answered by science in the future.

Actually Darwin never described the variation in species as random. He simply proposed that natural selection under environmental change selected for the best variation for the survival of the species.

How is that different from epigenetics or natural genetic engeneering?.........in both mechanisms the organism changes its DNA (and his phisical traits) during his life time and these DNA variations are hereditable…………these mechanisms are far more closer to lamarkism than to darwinism

Not even close to Lamrkism, which is universally rejected today as previously defined.

What is called 'natural genetic engeneering or epigenetics' is just a variation of evolution. I do not agree with Shapiro's terminology of using engineering, and he does not offer an adequate explanation beyond the dominante view among 98%+ of all scientists in the sciences realated to evolution. Some of his views hedge on Intelligent Design by 'arguing from ignorance.'

Lamarckian inheritance, also known as "Neo-Lamarckism" has absolutely nothing to do with the above and is an old extinct theory, and as defined is no longer accepted by any sane scientists today.

See: Jean-Baptiste Lamarck - Wikipedia

 

[shunyadragon]

Richard Dawkins did OK providing an explanation of even Darwin's original proposal that the only randomness is in the individual occurance of the mutation and not the processes of evolution.

[cite=[URL='https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/926505-darwinism-is-not-a-theory-of-random-chance-it-is']Quote by Richard Dawkins: “Darwinism is not a theory of random chance. It ...”[/URL]]
“Darwinism is not a theory of random chance. It is a theory of random mutation plus non-random cumulative natural selection. . . . Natural selection . . . is a non-random force, pushing towards improvement. . . . Every generation has its Darwinian failures but every individual is descended only from previous generations' successful minorities. . . . [T]here can be no going downhill - species can't get worse as a prelude to getting better. . . . There may be more than one peak.”

― Richard Dawkins, Climbing Mount Improbable [/cite]

Darwin only described random as the occurance of individual mutation and not the processes of natural selection.

 

[Bear Wild]

The core of Darwinism is “random variation” the core of lamarkism is “guided, biased variation” epigenetics seems to me closer to Lamarkism than to Darwinism.

You are missing the important point. Epigenetics does show environmental influence over the phenotypic expression but it does not drive evolution as proposed by Lamarck. Darwin proposed that variation occurs and natural selection would influence the outcome. This is still true but not the complete story. But at the time that Darwin proposed this it was still the best explanation. Lamarck proposed that the need for a characteristic would cause the organism to change to fit the need. There is still no evidence for his proposal as he proposed it yet Darwin's explanation still has evidence. Since these proposals we have learned the mechanism for inheritance as found in the genetic code and we have learned the environment influences the DNA. Thus lets talk about modern evolution and leave Darwin and Lamarck to the fascinating history of how we learned about the evolutionary process.
In the end you still need changes in the DNA for evolution not just by random variation but through multiple ways. Behavior even influences genetic expression. No matter what new understanding we have of how genetic material changes we still have the support for evolution in the end.

 

[Bear Wild]

Granted, random variation would be the core of Darwinism, not the core of the “science of evolution”





How is that different from epigenetics or natural genetic engeneering?.........in both mechanisms the organism changes its DNA (and his phisical traits) during his life time and these DNA variations are hereditable…………these mechanisms are far more closer to lamarkism than to darwinism

Here is a discussion on the subject of epigenetics and Lamarkism. Hope it helps to understand.
https://haiggroup.oeb.harvard.edu/files/haig/files/07weismann.pdf?m=1443028141

 

[questfortruth]

Your intentional ignorance of science is Neolithic..

By killing God's people in USSR (cf., Stalin) the atheists loved God? "Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters." Matt.12:10.

Folk, please educate me: if humans came from monkeys, the monkeys came directly from frogs?

No, not directly but monkeys came from “something” that would be classified as an amphibian according to how we classify animals today.

QUOTE from Ответы Mail.ru: Профессора кислых щей, просветите меня: если люди произошли от обезьян, то обезьяны произошли напрямую от лягушек? Must I be sorry for knowing the Russian, the language of "dictators", scientists and poets?

In short, "Evolution" was like this:
A bacterium gave birth to a worm, a worm gave birth to a fish, a fish gave birth to a lizard, a lizard gave birth to a mouse, a mouse gave birth to a monkey, a monkey gave birth to a man.

Comment: "I do not believe that people came from monkeys. It turns out that some of the monkeys did not turn into people?"

My reply:
I know that we are from God. My question "did monkeys come from frogs or crocodiles?" is meant to be funny. You have to learn to laugh again. If you have lost your mind, then you need to laugh at yourself and at science. Comedian Mr.Been taught us to laugh at ourselves.

People in my Religion do not need education if it teaches us besides the partial truths, the "scientific" lies as well:

“But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah. Matt. 23:8-10 NIV.

Pink Floyd - Another Brick In The Wall

 

[shunyadragon]

QUOTE from Ответы Mail.ru: Профессора кислых щей, просветите меня: если люди произошли от обезьян, то обезьяны произошли напрямую от лягушек? Must I be sorry for knowing the Russian, the language of "dictators", scientists and poets?

In short, "Evolution" was like this:
A bacterium gave birth to a worm, a worm gave birth to a fish, a fish gave birth to a lizard, a lizard gave birth to a mouse, a mouse gave birth to a monkey, a monkey gave birth to a man.

Comment: "I do not believe that people came from monkeys. It turns out that some of the monkeys did not turn into people?"

My reply:
I know that we are from God. My question "did monkeys come from frogs or crocodiles?" is meant to be funny. You have to learn to laugh again. If you have lost your mind, then you need to laugh at yourself and at science. Comedian Mr.Been taught us to laugh at ourselves.

People in my Religion do not need education if it teaches us besides the partial truths, the "scientific" lies as well:

“But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah. Matt. 23:8-10 NIV.

Pink Floyd - Another Brick In The Wall

You set the mood by citing an incompetent Russian article that does not remotely reflect the science of evolution.

, , , and ah, do you consider Pink Floyd an 'expert?'

 

[questfortruth]

, , , and ah, do you consider Pink Floyd an 'expert?'

Jesus Christ is Revolutionist, isn't He?

 

[shunyadragon]

Jesus Christ is Revolutionist, isn't He?

Differnt subject. Though yes, Jesus, Buddha Krishna, Abraham, and other Manivestations of God were Revolutionaries.

 

[questfortruth]

Differnt subject. Though yes, Jesus,

No, the subject is the same. Because all that exists comes from God. And the Spirit of all, that comes from God is God. Thus, God is the hidden subject of all there is: it is always the Son.