• 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:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is Darwinism proven/accepted by official Science?

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
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

I gave you a reference for epigenetics from, and you failed to read it. NO, the above is NOT the definition of epigenetics.from the scientific society What is epigenetics?. It is a primer, easy to read.

No it cannot be remotely compared to any form of Lamarcism.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
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.

Nothing in any science is defined as 'we do not know yet.*'. Please refer to any journal that makes this specific statemtn as the limits of science.



Sure, just make sure not to make a straw man

You are making the strawman by definition, and a misrepresentation of science.

https://www.google.com/search?q=str...2.69i57j0l7.5974j0j9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

A straw man (sometimes written as strawman) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, meanwhile the proper idea of argument under discussion was not addressed or properly refuted. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".

Your making a strawman by using terminology that has nothing to with how the knowledge of science is understood by scientist. The terminology you choose to use does not address nor properly refute science.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
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.
Can you show the article that I asked for?


Stop making strawman arguments, I am not denying that evolution has been documented, what I am asking for is for a paper than concludes that organisms evolve mainly by a mechanism of random variation and natural selection.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
You are making the strawman by definition, and a misrepresentation of science.

https://www.google.com/search?q=str...2.69i57j0l7.5974j0j9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

A straw man (sometimes written as strawman) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, meanwhile the proper idea of argument under discussion was not addressed or properly refuted. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".

Your making a strawman by using terminology that has nothing to with how the knowledge of science is understood by scientist. The terminology you choose to use does not address nor properly refute science.

Which is fine, since my intent is not to refute science.

What terminology am I wrongly applying and what words should I use instead?
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
No controversy, just another version of evolution and disagreement, which is nothing new in the history of science..
And what is the difference between “controversy” and “disagreement”?…………. If I change the word controversy for the word “disagreement” in my previous comments, would you agree with such comments?
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Can you show the article that I asked for?

Millions of peer reviewed research articles ove the past 100 years or more.. . .

Theory of Evolution

Theory of Evolution
The theory of evolution is a shortened form of the term “theory of evolution by natural selection,” which was proposed by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace in the nineteenth century.

Ideas aimed at explaining how organisms change, or evolve, over time date back to Anaximander of Miletus, a Greek philosopher who lived in the 500s B.C.E. Noting that human babies are born helpless, Anaximander speculated that humans must have descended from some other type of creature whose young could survive without any help. He concluded that those ancestors must be fish, since fish hatch from eggs and immediately begin living with no help from their parents. From this reasoning, he proposed that all life began in the sea.

Anaximander was correct; humans can indeed trace our ancestry back to fish. His idea, however, was not a theory in the scientific meaning of the word, because it could not be subjected to testing that might support it or prove it wrong. In science, the word “theory” indicates a very high level of certainty. Scientists talk about evolution as a theory, for instance, just as they talk about Einstein’s explanation of gravity as a theory.

A theory is an idea about how something in nature works that has gone through rigorous testing through observations and experiments designed to prove the idea right or wrong. When it comes to the evolution of life, various philosophers and scientists, including an eighteenth-century English doctor named Erasmus Darwin, proposed different aspects of what later would become evolutionary theory. But evolution did not reach the status of being a scientific theory until Darwin’s grandson, the more famous Charles Darwin, published his famous book On the Origin of Species. Darwin and a scientific contemporary of his, Alfred Russel Wallace, proposed that evolution occurs because of a phenomenon called natural selection.

In the theory of natural selection, organisms produce more offspring that are able to survive in their environment. Those that are better physically equipped to survive, grow to maturity, and reproduce. Those that are lacking in such fitness, on the other hand, either do not reach an age when they can reproduce or produce fewer offspring than their counterparts. Natural selection is sometimes summed up as “survival of the fittest” because the “fittest” organisms—those most suited to their environment—are the ones that reproduce most successfully, and are most likely to pass on their traits to the next generation.

This means that if an environment changes, the traits that enhance survival in that environment will also gradually change, or evolve. Natural selection was such a powerful idea in explaining the evolution of life that it became established as a scientific theory. Biologists have since observed numerous examples of natural selection influencing evolution. Today, it is known to be just one of several mechanisms by which life evolves. For example, a phenomenon known as genetic drift can also cause species to evolve. In genetic drift, some organisms—purely by chance—produce more offspring than would be expected. Those organisms are not necessarily the fittest of their species, but it is their genes that get passed on to the next generation.


Which is fine, since my intent is not to refute science.

What terminology am I wrongly applying and what words should I use instead?

The falsification of theories an hypothesis for the science of evolution as with all the sciences. More than 95% plus of all the scientists in the disciplines related to evolution support evolution as the only falsifiable hypothesis for the history of life on earth.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
And what is the difference between “controversy” and “disagreement”?…………. If I change the word controversy for the word “disagreement” in my previous comments, would you agree with such comments?
All scientist understand their disagreements, and further research is the goal to resolve the disagreements.

Contorversy is Dr, Stella Immanual proposing aliens interbred with humans and demons cause disease.

Another controversy is the universe is less than 10.000 years old and the Genesis world flood cover the earth.
 
Last edited:

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Can you show the article that I asked for?

What is the evidence for evolution? - Common-questions

BIOLOGOS

What is the evidence for evolution?

Evolution is a scientific theory supported by an overwhelming amount of evidence. Some Christians fear that accepting the theory means rejecting God as creator. But that just doesn’t follow. Christians accept scientific theories about the weather, the formation of mountains, and even the conception and development of individual human beings while still acknowledging that God is the creator and sustainer of these things. So giving a scientific description for a process does not rule out a legitimate theological description of the process as well. This article summarizes multiple independent lines of evidence that evolution is the best scientific description of the process by which life has diversified. Think of each of these lines of evidence as a clue to the past, all of which together form a compelling picture of the relatedness of all species.

Forms and structures point to common ancestors
When we examine the bodies of today’s animals in detail, we find some remarkable similarities. For example, the skeletons of four-limbed creatures (what scientists call “tetrapods”) are only slight variations on the same body plan. The bones are longer in some animals, and in others they are fused together, but they are arranged in the same pattern. Skeletons don’t have to be this way for animals to function, and in fact they result in some inefficiencies (how many people do you know with lower back or knee problems?). But this is the sort of pattern we would expect if the body plans of tetrapods changed slowly and diversified over many generations.

We can also look at the bodies of animals today and find features that are similar to what other animals have, but which no longer seem to function (or have different functions). Scientists call these vestigial traits. Some classic examples are non-functioning eyes in blind cave fish, the hip bones on whales, and leg bones buried in the muscles of some snakes. In our own bodies, we can point to the appendix, wisdom teeth, goosebumps, and many other features. These are more clues that today’s animals have a history that extends back to ancestors that were quite different.

The fossil record reveals intermediate species
If the theory of evolution is correct in its claim that today’s animals can be traced back to common ancestors in the past, it is reasonable to expect that there should be some record of these ancestors in the fossil record. It is often claimed by those who deny evolution that no “intermediate” fossils have ever been found that support the theory’s claims. This just isn’t true. Fossils can’t prove that one species evolved from another, but when we find a succession of them over time with slight modifications, it is difficult to deny the appearance of evolution.

Consider the record of whale evolution that has been preserved in fossils. In just the past few decades, paleontologists have found a remarkable succession of fossils. The oldest known whales, including Pakicetus from around 49 million years ago, looked like land-dwelling mammals but had ears similar to those of modern whales, suggesting adaptations for hearing under water. The slightly younger Ambulocetus shared these ear traits and had feet that were expanded for swimming. Similar species like Maiacetus and Rodhocetus appear later on with feet and spines adapted for more specialized swimming modes. By 40 million years ago, whales like Dorudon and Basilosaurus were fully aquatic animals with a powerful tail that moved up and down through the water during swimming (rather than side to side as in fish) and rudimentary (but fully formed) hind limbs that could no longer support the body on land.

whale_jump-e1547502161911.jpg

Of course we don’t have fossils of every species that lived (fossilization is a very rare event). But there are now thousands of fossil specimens—in the whale lineage alone—that fit into this pattern. These include over 60 different species. And closer to home, there are patterns found among the fossils and artifacts in our own lineage that show a transition from four-footed to upright bipedal walking, increase in brain size, and the use of ever more sophisticated tools. The Hall of Human Origins at the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History reports there are now fossils representing more than 6,000 of these “intermediate” individuals..

Biogeography predicted by evolution
The theory of evolution predicts patterns of species not just over time in the fossil record, but also in the distribution of species today around Earth—the study of which is called biogeography. The differences between species on islands compared to mainlands provide a compelling example of evolution. Because islands provide isolated habitats where there is little chance of interbreeding with mainland species, evolutionary theory predicts that differences will accumulate and new species will evolve.
whaleevolutiondiagram_v4.jpg


The Hawaiian Islands emerged from volcanoes in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, and they are Earth’s most isolated island chain. Before human migration, the only species on the island must have travelled great distances in rare events. After arriving, they adapted over many generations in isolation from their mainland counterparts and in different conditions. This promoted their evolution into new species. So today we find in Hawaii many species of birds, insects, and plants that are found nowhere else on Earth, but are distant cousins of mainland forms.

Other islands were once connected to continents but have moved away because of plate tectonics. In the case of Madagascar, the island was originally connected to the massive landmass that would become South America, Africa, and Australia. At that time species were able to freely inhabit it. But the Indian subcontinent (including Madagascar) broke away about 135 million years ago, and Madagascar separated from it about 88 million years ago, leaving the island isolated in the Indian Ocean. Species we find there today, like lemurs, are found nowhere else in the world, but can be traced to common ancestors on the mainland, dating from a time when the land was close enough for ancient primates to cross the water and then become isolated. Just as God created the islands themselves through natural processes, the species we find on those islands were also created through natural processes we can explain.

There are many other examples of the distribution of species today that fit the pattern of common ancestry (see ring species for another intriguing example).

Genetics removes all reasonable doubt
The relationships between species inferred from biogeography, the fossil record, and the shapes and structures of animals today now have their most impressive confirmation from the recently developed field of genetics. If we never find another fossil or vestigial trait, genetic evidence puts common ancestry beyond reasonable doubt. Every organism shares the same genetic code, and the pattern of shared genes we’ve recently discovered among species generally matches the relatedness we had concluded from the other kinds of evidence. Genetics, then, enables us to test and confirm hypotheses in a powerful way. Consider just one example from this rich area of research.

Unlike many other animals, we humans are not able to make our own vitamin C. We started realizing this deficiency when long sea voyages became more common. After a couple of months at sea eating only things like dried meat and hardtack biscuits, humans had high rates of scurvy (and many died). But the animals on board (like horses, dogs, and mice) did not contract the disease. We now know that this is due to the human inability to synthesize vitamin C the way these other animals can (and the problem was addressed by the British Navy by supplying their ships with lemon juice for sailors to drink).
 
Last edited:

Bear Wild

Well-Known Member
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.

I have posted information about the foxp2 gene before but here is an article dicussing the situation where even a single substitution has a profound effect on expression and where natural selection plays a clear role.

FOXP2 variation in great ape populations offers insight into the evolution of communication skills | Scientific Reports

You are too caught up in the past. Evolution theory has moved beyond Dawkins. Yes there are disagreements about the relative importance of each aspect of genetic change and variation but there is no question about the validity of evolution. It is how we came about and recognizing this is critical to human survival. Evolution and ecology are intimately intertwined and not understanding how we are all connected and how we came about is the fundamental flaw of our current society and why we are headed to extinction unless the world becomes aware. Religion should help us recognize this fundamental relationship rather than deny it.
 

TagliatelliMonster

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

No, it doesn't argue against that either.
Read it carefully. At no point does he deny that darwinian evolution occurs.

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

The misunderstanding is not on my part. It is on your part. And since you make a big deal of this paper, pretending it supports ID (even ignoring that Shapiro himself has denied this), I feel compelled to continue to bring it to your attention that it most certainly does not, nore that it argues against darwinian evolution.

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

That is just false.
We don't know everything about everything, but that doesn't mean we know nothing at all.
There are quite a few things that we DO know and which we know for a fact. Like Darwinian evolution occuring. On a grand scale. Every day.

…… And you won’t find disagreement from my part……….so do you agree with the scientific consensus or not?

I agree with the actual scientific consensus, yes. Not with your misrepresentation of it.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
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?

This is a false question in context of how science actually works.
To use words like "mainly" or "only" in context of a conlusion of a single paper, it implies appeals to negative evidence and ignorance. Science doesn't allow for that.

At best, a paper can establish that darwinian evolution occurs.
When after multiple efforts of finding additional mechanisms that are equally, or even more, of a factor in the evolutionary process fails, one might conclude that it is likely to be the main mechanism of evolution. But such a conclusion can not be stated as fact, since it ultimatly is an appeal to ignorance: the lack of knowledge of other mechanisms. Just because we aren't aware of such mechanisms or haven't discovered them (yet?), doesn't mean they don't exist.

So at best you could say that the current state of research supports the idea. But I sincerely doubt you'ld find such a conclusion in a scientific paper.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member

No where in the article does it say that mutations in foxp2 where random, they could have been non random mutations.

In fact Foxp2 is very hard to explain by Darwinian mechanisms because a phalogebetic tree places Tarsiers (a primate) closer to squirrels than to other primates and chimps closer to gorilla's than to humans

images


Discordant trees are very hard to explain within random mutations, because that would imply that 2 genomes evolved the same variations independently more than once, that would be like 2 students having the exact same spelling mistakes in the a same words multiple times.

But if mutations are not random, then this is not really a problem
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
No, it doesn't argue against that either.
Read it carefully. At no point does he deny that darwinian evolution occurs.
Granted, nobody denies that Darwinism evolution occurs, the disagreement is on whether if this mechanisms plays a major role or a minor role in explaining the diversity and complexity of life


And since you make a big deal of this paper, pretending it supports ID
Did I ever said that the paper supports ID?


There are quite a few things that we DO know and which we know for a fact. Like Darwinian evolution occuring. On a grand scale. Every day.

But you won't present a source right?
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
t

At best, a paper can establish that darwinian evolution occurs.

But papers also show that other mechanisms occure.... Such as epigenetics, neutralism, natural genetic engineering, jumping genes etc.

GUnder what basis do you conclude that Darwinism (random variation + natural selection) is the main cause of evolution?

]When after multiple efforts of finding additional mechanisms that are equally, or even more, of a factor in the evolutionary process fails, one might conclude that it is likely to be the main mechanism of evolution. But such a conclusion can not be stated as fact,
Nobody is asking for absolute facts..... Just a paper that concludes that "more likely than not" Darwinism mechanisms are the main cause of evolution.


So at best you could say that the current state of research supports the idea. But I sincerely doubt you'ld find such a conclusion in a scientific paper.

So how do you know that this is true? (given that you don't have a paper)
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
No where in the article does it say that mutations in foxp2 where random, they could have been non random mutations.

In fact Foxp2 is very hard to explain by Darwinian mechanisms because a phalogebetic tree places Tarsiers (a primate) closer to squirrels than to other primates and chimps closer to gorilla's than to humans

images


Discordant trees are very hard to explain within random mutations, because that would imply that 2 genomes evolved the same variations independently more than once, that would be like 2 students having the exact same spelling mistakes in the a same words multiple times.

But if mutations are not random, then this is not really a problem

Again the randomness of the individual mutation ONLY contributes to the diversity of the genetics in a population, and does not explain anything beyond this. The reat is balooney. You have failed to respond to my other posts that addressed your questions.

You need to respond to my specific scientific reference and definition on epigenetics, Epigenetics is simply one of the mutation mechanisms that provides the genetic diversity in populations for evolution to take place.
 
Last edited:

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
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
I don't see suffering as disproof of gods at all.
It only seems inconsistent with some belief systems.
I'm a non-believer cuz there's no sound basis for belief.

Btw, such questions are welcome.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
Again the randomness of the individual mutation ONLY contributes to the diversity of the genetics

Aja, and why is that relevant? Can you show that the differences among mammals in the gene foxp2 was caused by random mutations (and natural selection)


.
You have failed to respond to my other posts that addressed your questions.

Please let me know which comment did I fail to address.

You need to respond to my specific scientific reference and definition on epigenetics, Epigenetics is simply one of the mutation mechanisms that provides the genetic diversity in populations for evolution to take place.

And is that mechanism “important” does it play a major role in explaining the diversity of life? Does it play a more important role than random mutations?

1 yes

2 no

3 we don’t know

I would respond 3, would you respond otherwise?
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Granted, nobody denies that Darwinism evolution occurs, the disagreement is on whether if this mechanisms plays a major role or a minor role in explaining the diversity and complexity of life

Notice how far you have backpeddled by now? I certainly noticed it.

You posted the paper as an example of an ALTERNATIVE to darwinism as you responded to a question asking for papers that put darwinian evolution IN DOUBT.

Yet by now, you have backpeddled so much that you have granted that
1. it is not a paper that argues against evolution (followed by saying it only argues AGAINST darwinism as an alternative)
2. it is not a paper that argues against Darwinism either


These 2 acknowledgements effectively disqualify the paper as an example of a paper the kind of which was asked in post #145, and to which you posted this paper as a reply in post #146

So, can I assume that you then retract it as an answer to that question? Considering you just acknowledged that this paper doesn't at all do what the question asked for, and which you then mistakenly claimed it did?

After all, you expressed it in non-abigous terms that it argues AGAINST darwinism and that it provides an ALTERNATIVE to darwinism? Which are 2 things you just granted weren't true, and rather easily I might... almost as if you already knew...

Did I ever said that the paper supports ID?

You certainly seem to imply / assume it. Or working your way upto it.

If I'm mistaken about that and you can explicitly confirm that you don't think that it supports ID, as shapiro himself stated, then I apologies from wrongly assuming it.

But I'm still putting my money on it that you do though... So perhaps you can clarify in clear terms if you think it does or doesn't.


But you won't present a source right?

Try any of the +300.000 peer reviewed papers on the topic, or the many vegetables, fruits and animals we evolved by darwinian means in agriculture and specific breeding programs.

Evolution by darwinian means is so well-established that I find it hard to believe that a person who actually looked into it, is unaware of that fact. It's a bit like claiming to be a physicist while not being capable of properly explaining E = mc²...
 
Top