Is Darwinism proven/accepted by official Science?

[shunyadragon]

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

The existence of any article in scientific journals is not controversial in and of itself. nor does it prove anything.

 

[shunyadragon]

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.



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?

From another thread and I disagree.

It is only the occurance of individual cause and effect events, such as a genetic mutation where the outcome is timitied by Natural Laws and processes which are random...

Transposons is not a Natural Law nor a ntural process like those that determine the outcome organic and other chemical reaction. Transposons is a descriptive term for a type of non-random mutation where segments move around in a predictable pattern, and not the natural laws and processes that cause transposons. .

NGE - Natural Genetic Evolution is simply a variation of evolution proposed by Shapiro. It is neither random nor non-random, and Shapiro never proposed this.as the nature of NGE

Epigenetics is not the natural processes I refer to. Epigenetics represents the 'study of heritable phenotype changes that do not involve alterations in the DNA sequence.' It is the Natural Laws and natural processes that determine epignetics that I am referring to.

More specifically epigenetics in contemporary science:

Epigenetics

Epigenetics is an emerging field of science that studies heritable changes caused by the activation and deactivation of genes without any change in the underlying DNA sequence of the organism. The word epigenetics is of Greek origin and literally means over and above (epi) the genome.

Example of epigenetics is the gene, or sequece, of teeth in birds as in their ancestors the dinosaurs.. Birds including Chikens have the gene turned off epigenetically.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

why is it that fundamental Christians are always talking about Darwinism?
When Scientists never do?

 

[shunyadragon]

why is it that fundamental Christians are always talking about Darwinism?
When Scientists never do?

If anything Darwinism is simply the Theory of Evolution proposed by Charles Darwin, which is not the Science of Evolution of contemporary science.

 

[rational experiences]

If science knows that dinosaurs lived on Earth, then they also know that the atmospheric body to allow giant life and giant Nature to exist and pressure conditions different.

Then we have a pressure change and the presence of ICE, and that allowed the Earth gases to cool by the constant presence ICE on the ground body and also in the water.

Then science says, so we returned, we reincarnated, for those terms as words own definition of scientific wisdom that before its owned invention thesis for a formula/machine design told lots and lots of natural human aware stories first.

As history of when males as humans became the artificial Designer and inventor Creator as a self male theme....versus natural mass history. For you did verse natural mass by thinking about it, then against it for removal by your inventive conditions....machines.

Why science as a male and a cyclic returned condition, self thinker and self life o cell bodies, which he owned naturally, was partial to his awareness about how to infer MATHS against self...to minus.

For first you have to calculate forward, when forward never existed...for you looked back first. Which means you contemplated an answer to ANTI self right where you lived.

For a future is only gained for a human by a baby through the act of human sex.

Why science is a coercive subject only coerced by humans on behalf of humans.

Hence spiritually our teachings against it was the status consciousness.

Therefore reincarnation is a known returned life form, and removal of the known returned life form is mutation. Mutation is notified to be damage and damage to the life cell and information in Nature is due to extra conditions....seeing everything else remains natural.

So then we claim it prophecy and mathematical certainty of our own destructive warning capabilities...to warn self, suddenly in a moment the atmosphere mass instantly changes....and it is the too late scenario when it does.

Like the Jesus theme, when they thought End of Days, last day as if life was going to end, when it happened in the past. Why it scared the science community into stopping the Temple pyramid sciences and occult science was outlawed actually.

The subject was all the causes of changes to the spiritual life body and consciousness that turned into criminal and self destructive behaviours.

Therefore when archaeology proves that life was living on the other side of dinosaur existence as the humans who changed life on Earth, then actually all themes evolution only relates to the presence of ICE, the End of Year scenario that ICE is reborn and continues life on Earth for newly born human babies in a stable atmospheric spirit body, with animals the same.

How relativity in the sciences was taught as actual truth to the reason that a human life/totally removed historically returned.

For we did not evolve from any microbe, we came as a pre owned spiritual body in the life of a male Father human adult or in the life of a female Mother human adult, walked out of the eternal spirit straight into the Earth heavens/life as a reality of why diversity exists in one exact moment using the exact same natural light and water/oxygenated atmosphere as its own completion/end.

To give a worded detail means that each body of information discussed finished at its own end to own self manifested body.

 

[Bear Wild]

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.



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?

Yes epigenetics shows that the environment can have an influence on the genetic code. But this is limited. It involves methylation of the DNA to affect activity and histone modification. These modify the phenotypic expression and can be passed on but you still need changes in the genetic code for evolution to occur. The epigenetic factors are limited and do not explain the examples Lamarck proposed. As for jumping genes these are transmissions of DNA but in a way that has nothing to do with what Lamarck proposed. There can be a large insertion of DNA but not because there is an environmental need of the organism.

The additional mechanisms certainly play a role in phenotypic expression. No argument there.

In the current theory of evolution, everything that can be supported with evidence that supports evolution is inclusive. That is how science works. It may take time for newer ideas to be incorporated but when the evidence supports them there is no reason not to include them. So random mutations, genetic recombination, introduced genetic material. Regulation through methylation and histone regulation, and even animal behavior are all aspects that play a role. Anyone studying evolution would agree.

 

[Bear Wild]

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

Not so much controversy which can be an aspect but recognition that there is always room to question what is accepted and included. That is what makes science so effective. The controversy however is not about whether natural selection or genetic mutation play a role but only that how do we incorporate new findings showing additional ways of creating genetic variation into the theory of evolution.

 

[Bear Wild]

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

I understand that elementary particles make up the atoms that make up the molecules that influence evolution. I agree with you there. As for and intelligence needed, this is a flawed argument. Evolution is not just chance events, as the genetics grew in complexity the ability to make faster and more profound changes increased. There is no evidence that there was not enough time and no evidence for an intellegent designer.

 

[rational experiences]

I understand that elementary particles make up the atoms that make up the molecules that influence evolution. I agree with you there. As for and intelligence needed, this is a flawed argument. Evolution is not just chance events, as the genetics grew in complexity the ability to make faster and more profound changes increased. There is no evidence that there was not enough time and no evidence for an intellegent designer.

Science as consciousness has to be higher than what it studies as lower than conditions in the details, destruction.

Therefore the psyche/mind bio human always said I am the highest form in creation and I can discuss all states lower.

Yet if you decided to change what you study into another step, to remove what you claim is end/owned and formed, what you give a title named placement, I can see it, I can name it, it has to be present in a form presence, whether natural or not.

Natural, what you cannot see. Destroyed, what is lower than self, that you can see it.

So if you take a condition lower than self that you can see, decide to change it, then it becomes what you never realised. Which is normally when all life gets destroyed.

My Mother female human teaching consciousness of the self said there is only rationally 2 human beings on Planet Earth. An adult human male and an adult human female. Rationally. For you cannot discuss sexual intercourse and self presence in any rationality, for it is owned by human sex.

Therefore the male adult life mind said to the female adult mind I can destroy your human life and still exist by my own self, for I have taken and removed your spirit.

Which is a conscious self appraisal, males never as a human owed the female ovary, and consciousness, natural thinking/awareness exists first as a whole lot of information that a natural human scientist as a self totally ignores.

My Mother in her life attacked, owning baby life growth told me this awareness to tell my science equal life brother to my own life, you are a 100 per cent liar in actuality.

So after I was ground irradiated by all status occult male designed invention, owner of and operator of machines. If you did not build machines I could not have been harmed, liar self. Mother said okay liar who pretends he is God with his machine pressing buttons using radiation sounds that he says is radiation sound about G O D on the ground as P H I, and God he said sung creation into being.

As the occult scientist theme today...claiming I am copying G O D having created your life, as a male adult pressing buttons of a machine reading from a book that he wrote about Genesis, claiming, yes I surely invented your life animals and human female....as a liar.

Mother said, okay communicate your satellite and haarp studied machine communications to a space where no being is and then see if you created life by a machine. Not real is it. Now if it were real, then you would ask him, so then what, what comes as information after your belief of studying machine history, machine signals and machine ground life irradiation, as the REAL theme?

Answer is science is a liar, for when all themes were about bodies such as a Sun owned the UFO ejection. Not science or machine. Space is a natural huge body...not a machine. The Earth and its heavenly body, not any machine. Your first and original science theme about a mountain....not your machine and then your machine sacrificed and then afterwards destroyed...for that is the second cause.

Sacrifice is first, awareness given to the life psyche and conscious human, then destruction of life comes second.

For a real scientist life, sacrificed STephen Hawking, who you argued against told you that you wanted to burn the Earth heavenly gases as a string of artificial male want/advice/study and theme to claim you are copying natural. Yet natural is owner of burning gases already.

Which in real language means that you tried to burn life to death by increasing the gas burning mass.

Which in bio Genesis language means that science attacked natural Genetic material that should not own in any reference change or destruction and tried to do it again via all their medical research on biology.

For not any one body that science studied is ours, we are a natural life form, we are not his studies, his want to study, his reason to study, his choice to study, his want of his ego expression. We are just natural in a natural life, owning natural and unless he studies human biological damage to try to have it healed, then all he is doing is researching to have it all destroyed....rationally.

 

[leroy]

You realise that the Shapiro paper is not arguing against evolution

Granted, it argues against Darwinism (a specific hypothesis on how organisms evolve) not agaisn evolution as a whole.



And quite frankly it seems that all your comments from the last 2-3 days are based on that misunderstanding on your part.

The current status of the scientific community is that “we don’t know how things evolve” of all the possible mechanisms that have been proposed, we don’t know which played a major role and which played a minor role …… And you won’t find disagreement from my part……….so do you agree with the scientific consensus or not?

 

[McBell]

Granted, it argues against Darwinism (a specific hypothesis on how organisms evolve) not agaisn evolution as a whole.



And quite frankly it seems that all your comments from the last 2-3 days are based on that misunderstanding on your part.

The current status of the scientific community is that “we don’t know how things evolve” of all the possible mechanisms that have been proposed, we don’t know which played a major role and which played a minor role …… And you won’t find disagreement from my part……….so do you agree with the scientific consensus or not?

You really need to work on your back peddling skills.

 

[gnostic]

Since that is something that Darwin did not posit, since that is not something that evolutionists posit, the most charitable thing I can say is that you have been misinformed.

And terribly so.

 

[shunyadragon]

The current status of the scientific community is that “we don’t know how things evolve” of all the possible mechanisms that have been proposed, we don’t know which played a major role and which played a minor role …… And you won’t find disagreement from my part……….so do you agree with the scientific consensus or not?

Terrible misrepresentation of the scientific view of evolution. You are manipulated the verb 'to know' to justify your agenda. Science has determined evolution is the only explation for the history of life by scientific methods, Evolution as a whole has been demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt.

You also misrepresented epigenesis, NGE, and jumping genes?. Need to respond and correct your misrepresentations.

 

[leroy]

No, not controversial at. As I stated before the outcome of individual cause and effect events are 'random' withoin a limited range of possibilities. .

Ok if it is not controversial, can you quote a single paper than concludes beyond reasonable doubt that organisms evolve mainly by a mechanism of random variation and natural selection?

 

[leroy]

Similar?



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

Epigenetics is a mechanism where organism change their traits during their life time, and these changes are hereditable……….whether if you what to label it a Neo-Lamarckism or not is irrelevant , the fact is that this mechanism is fundamentally different from what Darwin suggested

 

[leroy]

Terrible misrepresentation of the scientific view of evolution. You are manipulated the verb 'to know' to justify your agenda. Science has determined evolution is the only explation for the history of life by scientific methods, Evolution as a whole has been demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt.

And you won’t find disagreement form my part. …my point is an has always been, we don’t know yet* which mechanisms where responsible for evolution, which mechanisms played an important role, which mechanisms played a minor role etc.

You also misrepresented epigenesis, NGE, and jumping genes?. Need to respond and correct your misrepresentations.

Sure, just make sure not to make a straw man

 

[leroy]

The existence of any article in scientific journals is not controversial in and of itself. nor does it prove anything.

The article describes the controversy…..

 

[leroy]

Not so much controversy which can be an aspect but recognition that there is always room to question what is accepted and included. That is what makes science so effective. The controversy however is not about whether natural selection or genetic mutation play a role but only that how do we incorporate new findings showing additional ways of creating genetic variation into the theory of evolution.

Can you show a peer review article that arrives at the same conclusions than you? Specifically can you quote an article that concludes beyond reasonable doubt that organism evolve mainly my random mutations and natural selection?........if you cant find such article, then under what basis do you say its uncontroversial?

As I said before, even extreme darwinists like Richard dawkins and eugine scott would agree that there is a controversy, Dawkins even has a complete chapter in the blind watch maker describing the controversy .

Really the only ones who deny the controversy are fanatics form youtube and forums.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

No, it was something pointed out by a friend
(fellow atheist) some many many decades ago.

OK. I appreciate your reply (however cryptic it may be).

I'm curious now. Is the reason you are an atheist, have to do with how much suffering and badness there are? The Epicurus' puzzler?
Or Something else?

It's fine if you'd prefer not to answer.....I'll just have to live with my curiosity!

Your cousin, Hockeycowboy

 

[shunyadragon]

Ok if it is not controversial, can you quote a single paper than concludes beyond reasonable doubt that organisms evolve mainly by a mechanism of random variation and natural selection?

You have failed to acknowledge your misuse of the verb 'to know' concerning evolution. By your measure all science does not 'know' anything.

Millions of peer reviewed research articles, where the evolution of life is documented.