Is Darwinism proven/accepted by official Science?

[shunyadragon]

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.

Your topic.

Featured Is Darwinism proven/accepted by official Science?

 

[rrobs]

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.

Way to take things out of context! It's the dog that looks at me like I'm God. I never intimated I was God. Do you understand similes? You know, when some says one thing is like another (the dog looks at me like I am God.) It doesn't mean one thing is the other. You must get awfully confused in your daily reading, because similes are encounted multiple times every day in writing or speaking.

Get real with your answers. Stop pretending like your an idiot. I don't think you are.

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?

You are really good at taking things out of context.

I said you have thin evidence about me, my personality, my knowledge, etc, and yet you make sweeping declarations about those things.

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?

Being in the second tier of matter, how are you going to have evolution (or anything at all) without them?

 

[Bear Wild]

Way to take things out of context! It's the dog that looks at me like I'm God. I never intimated I was God. Do you understand similes? You know, when some says one thing is like another (the dog looks at me like I am God.) It doesn't mean one thing is the other. You must get awfully confused in your daily reading, because similes are encounted multiple times every day in writing or speaking.

I will assume your dog does not talk to you in words so your statement implies that you believe the dog looked at you like your were god and this had nothing to do with what the dog thought. This sounds like a deep psychological need for you. It is a feeling of power you have over the dog that makes you day that or are you misinterpreting the dogs behavior of affection to be something it is not.

You are really good at taking things out of context.

I said you have thin evidence about me, my personality, my knowledge, etc, and yet you make sweeping declarations about those things.

You said I bypassed the scientific method. That was incorrect. My question was just an inquiry based on your statement and the scientific method has nothing to do with that. Please use terms in the correct context. I certainty do not know your personality other than what you have presented and I do not know your knowledge basis other than what you have presented in your posts but I can say what you present represents a limited understanding of evolution. Again it was a question of what you believe

Way to take things out of context! It's the dog that looks at me like I'm God. I never intimated I was God. Do you understand similes? You know, when some says one thing is like another (the dog looks at me like I am God.) It doesn't mean one thing is the other. You must get awfully confused in your daily reading, because similes are encounted multiple times every day in writing or speaking.

Get real with your answers. Stop pretending like your an idiot. I don't think you are.


You are really good at taking things out of context.

I said you have thin evidence about me, my personality, my knowledge, etc, and yet you make sweeping declarations about those things.


Being in the second tier of matter, how are you going to have evolution (or anything at all) without them?

Elementary are certainty involved as components to the more complex molecules that play an important role in evolution but I have never seen a study of quarks, leptons or any elementary particle research being used to explain evolution. If you know of a study or studies were research on leptons explains variation in a species or any aspect of evolution I would be most interested to read it. I like to keep an open mind and your knowledge of this subject as it pertains to evolution sound interesting.

 

[leroy]

[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. . . .

And that is the part (in red) that is highly controversial among scientists, some will agree, some will disagree and none claims to have a conclusive answer

 

[leroy]

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.



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

You can use any labels that you want, but it is a fact that mechanisms like epigenetics and NGE are more similar to what lamark said than to what Darwin.

Lamark said that organisms can change its traits during the life time of the organism (bases in their needs) and that these traits are hereditable. Which is exactly what NGE and epigenetics" is"

This is fundamentally different from what Darwin (or dawkins in your quote on claiming mount improbable) claim

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

sure
for example this paper provides an alternative to darwinism called natural genetic engineering, where the organism reassembles its genome (in a leggo like manner) to overcome selective pressures, this mechanism is not random, genomes are modified based on the needs of the organim.



However there is no peer review paper that concludes that Darwinism is true (beyond reasonable doubt) …….. in other words we simply don’t know how organism evolve, there are many candidate mechanisms, but none has been proven to be the “correct one”

You realise that the Shapiro paper is not arguing against evolution and considers the conclusions he makes in that paper to fit into evolution theory as a sub-process, right?

The cdesign proponentsists tried to claim his paper as support for their religious nonsense and did so, as always, by quote mining and misrepresenting it. Even after Shapiro explicitly rejected their nonsense.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

For example natural genetic engineering is a non random mechanism where the genome reassembles itself in a “leggo like” manner based on selective pressures and the needs of the organism. As a result of this mechanism new proteins and functions can arise in a glimpse.

So perhaps maybe this mechanism played a major role in evolution,

As already pointed out, the shapiro paper isn't arguing against evolution. instead it expands upon it.
So no, this is not an "alternative" to evolution.

 

[leroy]

. Lamarck proposed that the need for a characteristic would cause the organism to change to fit the need.

Which is exactly what mechanisms like epigenetics, jumping genes, NGE etc do.

There is no controversy on that these mechanisms exist, the only controversy is on whether if they played and important role or not.

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.

Sure if you use a broad definition of evolution then "everything" would be support for evolution.


The point is that random variation + natural selection is just one of many other possible mechanisms that could have played a role in the evolution of life, and there is controversy on which mechanisms played an important role and which played a mi ore role........ Agree?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I agree, I figured someone might catch my wording. I should have said, “makes it non-existent to some in their POV.”

You call yourself an atheist (a very nice one, BTW). If you would answer me honestly, has evolutionary theory had some bearing in helping you to reach that conclusion?

You didn't ask me, but if you did, my answer would be a resounding "no".

Then again, I didn't a religious upbringing, so I didn't require anything to "not believe", since I was never indoctrinated to "believe" in the first place.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The core of Darwin's idea was "random variation" (random with respect to the organisms needs) while these mechanisms are non random

The paper you are referring to does not, in any way, argue against the process of random variation followed by selection.

Instead, it merely discusses additional mechanisms.
Said it before, will say it again: the paper does NOT argue against any of the established processes or subprocesses of evolution.

, so if any of these mechanisms happens to be the main contributor to evolution Darwin would be wrong

But it isn't.
You should actually read the paper.

 

[leroy]

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

The existance of that article proves that there is a controversy..... Otherwise the author would have not written such article...

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes, but the key point is that Darwin proposed that the traits appeared randomly (random with respect to the selective benefits)

And they do. Even if the shapiro paper is correct.

Contemporary evolution is “we don’t know” scientist don’t know how things evolve……some say “random variation + natural selection, some say non random variation + natural selection some say random variation + genetic drift etc.

It's like saying that if you don't know everything, then you know nothing.
Quite absurd. Not knowing everything, doesn't in any way mean that therefor you can't know some things.

It depends on how you define evolution and abiogenesis..............

The scientific definitions are pretty clear to working scientists.
It's only creationists and cdesign proponentsists that feel a need to obfuscate those definitions.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I don’t think atheist “hate God” it seems to me that atheist think (perhaps unconsciously) that smart people are atheist and theism is for stupid ignorant people………

I have no knowledge of any atheists who actually think that.

Newton is argueably one the biggest geniouses that ever lived and was a theist.
Many brilliant scientists today, are theists.

Perhaps we should blame TV shows for that, atheist characters are almost always smart.

Well... it is off course a statistical fact that atheists tend to be higher educated with higher average income. But that doesn't conclude to there not being any smart or succesfull theists... Or dumb unsuccesfull atheists, for that matter.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

USSR prosecution of religious folks (or anyone else with beliefs that weren't compatible with the dictator's will and hardcore communism), was entirely political and the result of extreme communism and a dictator that wanted everyone to worship him and the state.

To pretend as if "atheism" was the motivation there, is to seriously misrepresent history.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

You call yourself a scientist, and these are the types of questions you need to ask about evolutionary biology? Seriously?

 

[rational experiences]

Humans, on behalf of humans, for argument, study.

Yet I am a human, you are a human, 2 humans had sex to give birth to human babies.

You might look back at some skeleton you dug up and say, ugly human, yet you still claim human.

Ugly humans still get born today, just like they have before.

In reality, it is a human subject of group coercive reasoning for humans as to which group is imposed as stating the most intelligent information, yet rationally it is just a topic of discussion that does not achieve anything in particular. For it is just a discussion.

Medical science today can look at a life body and claim in their research that they can establish information to enable physical healing and assistance to life/living bio conditions, which is what I think is the highest claim in science.

If science can look at an animal, compare an animal to a human, then the subject is still thought by a human as a human. Always was just comparing and talking for the sake of human egotism.

Then you would arrive to a conclusion that some scientists argued against references that seem unreasonable......the talk of spirit.

Yet rationally if you discuss spirit, it is only talk, the difference being that a human can look at an animal and compare it as physical reasoning, yet science cannot look at a spirit and compare physical reasoning. Why science said to spirit science, since when is it science?

 

[rrobs]

I will assume your dog does not talk to you in words so your statement implies that you believe the dog looked at you like your were god and this had nothing to do with what the dog thought. This sounds like a deep psychological need for you. It is a feeling of power you have over the dog that makes you day that or are you misinterpreting the dogs behavior of affection to be something it is not.

What??? You may want to bone up on the art of communication, figures of speech to be more specific.

 

[shunyadragon]

And that is the part (in red) that is highly controversial among scientists, some will agree, some will disagree and none claims to have a conclusive answer

No, not controversial at. As I stated before the outcome of individual cause and effect events are 'random' withoin a limited range of possibilities. This describe the nature of 'random mutations.' Random mutations only contribute to the genestic diversity in a given population. The natural processes of evolution, natural selection, abiogenesis, and all other natural processes in our physical existence is not random. Therefore the core of evolution and natural selection is not random. NaturalLaws, and natural processes are deterministic and predictable, not random.

 

[shunyadragon]

You can use any labels that you want, but it is a fact that mechanisms like epigenetics and NGE are more similar to what lamark said than to what Darwin.

Similar?

Lamark said that organisms can change its traits during the life time of the organism (bases in their needs) and that these traits are hereditable. Which is exactly what NGE and epigenetics" is"

No it is not the same. I responded to epigenetics, and it nothing like Lamarkianism, but specific type of genetic mutation,

This is fundamentally different from what Darwin (or dawkins in your quote on claiming mount improbable) claim

Your line of reasoning and comparison is contradictory,

 

[rrobs]

Elementary are certainty involved as components to the more complex molecules that play an important role in evolution but I have never seen a study of quarks, leptons or any elementary particle research being used to explain evolution. If you know of a study or studies were research on leptons explains variation in a species or any aspect of evolution I would be most interested to read it. I like to keep an open mind and your knowledge of this subject as it pertains to evolution sound interesting.

I probably wasn't clear, but I meant to suggest that without quarks and leptons there would be nothing to evolve, so in that sense they are involved in evolution.

I was just trying point out that without some form of intelligence, there would have had to have been an unrealistic number of chance events in the overall formation of the cosmos, our solar system, our earth, the flora and fauna, and much more. I can't remember right off the top of my head the latest number given for the age of the universe ( around 12 billion?), but, whatever it is, I don't think there would have been nearly enough time to go from the singularity to me sitting here typing a message to you, or the dog looking at me like I'm God. To be clear, my dog thinks I'm God, not me. The fact that he is wrong is a good thing for everybody. No telling how much I'd screw up the cosmos!

Take care