Is Darwinism proven/accepted by official Science?

[TagliatelliMonster]

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?

Because however change is introduced, it would still be run through the filter of natural selection.
It would still have to pass the fitness test.

Nobody is asking for absolute facts..... Just a paper that concludes that "more likely than not" Darwinism mechanisms are the main cause of evolution.

It's an aggregated conclusion from a great many number of papers and observation.
There's an immense amount of evidence that mutations random to fitness occur.
There's an immense amount of evidence that natural selections occurs.

There's no evidence, to my knowledge, that there are other methods that have greater impact or a bigger role.
So as it stands, the evidence is pointing in one way only.

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

The same way I know that 7 >1.

Because the enormous majority of papers, support it.

 

[shunyadragon]

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).

Again and again, random mutation are not a cause. They simply provide the diversity of genetics for evolution, and over millions of years the diversity in the genetics is more than enough for evolution to take place in response to environmental change. Mutation in and of themselves do not cause anything. The primary cause natural selection in response to environmental change. Billions of years of time for evolution to take plsce in response to environmental change.is the time frame.

There are over 200 recent research articles on the evolution of the foxp2. You may begin reading here: Google Scholar

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

To begin with, your false assertions and misrepresntations concerning 'epigentics,' NGR, and ah . . . jumping genes? or ah . . . Transposons, Transpositions are not a Natural Law nor a causal 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. Natural Laws and natural processes 'cause' transposons.

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?

Yes, the mutations simply provide the diversity in the genetics of the population of life. Evolution is environment driven for life to evolve, The environment is first fo the necessary conditions for life, than the natural mechanisms that determine evolution which are the Natural Laws and natural processes of chemistry and organic chemistry that determine the chemistry of life.

 

[leroy]

Because however change is introduced, it would still be run through the filter of natural selection.
It would still have to pass the fitness test.



It's an aggregated conclusion from a great many number of papers and observation.
There's an immense amount of evidence that mutations random to fitness occur.
There's an immense amount of evidence that natural selections occurs.

There's no evidence, to my knowledge, that there are other methods that have greater impact or a bigger role.
So as it stands, the evidence is pointing in one way only.



The same way I know that 7 >1.

Because the enormous majority of papers, support it.

Well I am just asking for 1 paper, why can’t you share it? (make sure to quote a relevant paper, male sure not to make a straw man)

 

[leroy]

Again and again, random mutation are not a cause. They simply provide the diversity of genetics for evolution, and over millions of years the diversity in the genetics is more than enough for evolution to take place in response to environmental change. Mutation in and of themselves do not cause anything. The primary cause natural selection in response to environmental change. Billions of years of time for evolution to take plsce in response to environmental change.is the time frame.r

More semantic games,…..

Can you show that those mutations that provided the diversity in foxp2 where random?

There are over 200 recent research articles on the evolution of the foxp2. You may begin reading here: Google Schola

Does any of those articles conclude that the mutations that caused the diversity where random?

To begin with, your false assertions and misrepresntations concerning 'epigentics,' NGR, and ah . . . jumping genes? or ah . . . Transposons, Transpositions are not a Natural Law nor a causal 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. Natural Laws and natural processes 'cause' transposons.

What makes you think that I would disagree?

Yes, the mutations simply provide the diversity in the genetics of the population of life

.

And mutations can be ether random or not random (random with respect to the potential benefits) why I it so hard to understand for you?

 

[shunyadragon]

More semantic games,…..

Can you show that those mutations that provided the diversity in foxp2 where random?

Does any of those articles conclude that the mutations that caused the diversity where random?

Nonesense questions. Mutations simply develope the diversity in the genes. The articles deal specifically with the mechanisms which the foxp2 gene evolve. Mutations are not mechanisms, and they are simply the raw materials in the diversity of the genes for evolution. The differnt types and/or kinds of mutations all are raw material of change that the the environmental change results in evolution to adapt to the changes.

You asked for the references and I gave you over 200.

What makes you think that I would disagree?

Your post to Transposons as causal non-random mutations, along with epigentics, and NGE, which is all not true, or misleading simplistic interpretation..

And mutations can be ether random or not random (random with respect to the potential benefits) why I it so hard to understand for you?

Understood very well, but your description is false and non-scientific nonesense.

Yes, mutations can be described as random and non-random, but mutations as a whole represent the genetic diversity of the population. As you awkwardly partially noted there are more useful classifications for mutations that are more useful related to their role in the evolution of life.

 

[shunyadragon]

Molecular evolution of FOXP2 , a gene involved in speech and language | Nature.

• Published: 14 August 2002

Molecular evolution of FOXP2, a gene involved in speech and language

• Nature volume 418, pages869–872(2002)Cite this article
• Abstract

Language is a uniquely human trait likely to have been a prerequisite for the development of human culture. The ability to develop articulate speech relies on capabilities, such as fine control of the larynx and mouth1, that are absent in chimpanzees and other great apes. FOXP2 is the first gene relevant to the human ability to develop language2. A point mutation in FOXP2 co-segregates with a disorder in a family in which half of the members have severe articulation difficulties accompanied by linguistic and grammatical impairment3. This gene is disrupted by translocation in an unrelated individual who has a similar disorder. Thus, two functional copies of FOXP2 seem to be required for acquisition of normal spoken language. We sequenced the complementary DNAs that encode the FOXP2 protein in the chimpanzee, gorilla, orang-utan, rhesus macaque and mouse, and compared them with the human cDNA. We also investigated intraspecific variation of the human FOXP2 gene. Here we show that human FOXP2 contains changes in amino-acid coding and a pattern of nucleotide polymorphism, which strongly suggest that this gene has been the target of selection during recent human evolution.

 

[leroy]

Nonesense questions. Mutations simply develope the diversity in the genes. The articles deal specifically with the mechanisms which the foxp2 gene evolve. Mutations are not mechanisms, and they are simply the raw materials in the diversity of the genes for evolution. The differnt types and/or kinds of mutations all are raw material of change that the the environmental change results in evolution to adapt to the changes

No disagreement form my part.

The question is which kind of mutation provided the relevant “raw material” and what role did each type of mutation played in providing such material………if you what to argue that mutations where mainly random I would ask for a source, if you say that “we don’t know” then we would both agree and there wouldn’t be anything left for discussion.

You asked for the references and I gave you over 200.

Care to give a specific example?

Your post to Transposons as causal non-random mutations, along with epigentics, and NGE, which is all not true, or misleading simplistic interpretation..

All I am saying is that those mechanisms can produce hereditable changes. And could have (or could have not) played a major role in ´providing the raw material, and explaining the complexity and diversity of life ……….. is there a disagreement form your part?

Understood very well, but your description is false and non-scientific nonesense.

how is it false?

Yes, mutations can be described as random and non-random, but mutations as a whole represent the genetic diversity of the population. As you awkwardly partially noted there are more useful classifications for mutations that are more useful related to their role in the evolution of life.

No disagreement, all I am saying is that we don’t know yet* if the raw material was supplied mainly by random or by non random mutations (agree?)

 

[leroy]

Molecular evolution of FOXP2 , a gene involved in speech and language | Nature.

• Published: 14 August 2002

Molecular evolution of FOXP2, a gene involved in speech and language

• Nature volume 418, pages869–872(2002)Cite this article
• Abstract

Language is a uniquely human trait likely to have been a prerequisite for the development of human culture. The ability to develop articulate speech relies on capabilities, such as fine control of the larynx and mouth1, that are absent in chimpanzees and other great apes. FOXP2 is the first gene relevant to the human ability to develop language2. A point mutation in FOXP2 co-segregates with a disorder in a family in which half of the members have severe articulation difficulties accompanied by linguistic and grammatical impairment3. This gene is disrupted by translocation in an unrelated individual who has a similar disorder. Thus, two functional copies of FOXP2 seem to be required for acquisition of normal spoken language. We sequenced the complementary DNAs that encode the FOXP2 protein in the chimpanzee, gorilla, orang-utan, rhesus macaque and mouse, and compared them with the human cDNA. We also investigated intraspecific variation of the human FOXP2 gene. Here we show that human FOXP2 contains changes in amino-acid coding and a pattern of nucleotide polymorphism, which strongly suggest that this gene has been the target of selection during recent human evolution.

The article mentions a “point mutation” it doesn’t say that the mutation was random.

 

[shunyadragon]

The article mentions a “point mutation” it doesn’t say that the mutation was random.

It does not say because it does not make any difference. As before the millions of mutations of every type in any given population are not differentiated between random nor non-random. Again all nutations are a part of the diversity in the genetics only and are selected eventually for function in natural selection.

 

[shunyadragon]

No disagreement form my part.

The question is which kind of mutation provided the relevant “raw material” and what role did each type of mutation played in providing such material………if you what to argue that mutations where mainly random I would ask for a source, if you say that “we don’t know” then we would both agree and there wouldn’t be anything left for discussion.

Care to give a specific example?

I did, but all are relevant.

All I am saying is that those mechanisms can produce hereditable changes. And could have (or could have not) played a major role in ´providing the raw material, and explaining the complexity and diversity of life ……….. is there a disagreement form your part?

ALL mutations, random and non-random, contribute to the raw material for evolution, and produce hereditable changes in response to environmental change.

how is it false?

As cited speifically they are misrepresentation of 'epigenetics' and NGE in particular. I have provided a reference to what is 'epigentics and yu have not acknowldged the problem.

NGE is NOT defined as a non-random process.

No disagreement, all I am saying is that we don’t know yet* if the raw material was supplied mainly by random or by non random mutations (agree?)

No, that is NOT the way you used 'we don't know yet" inparticular ALL mutations are a part of the change that leads to an inhertable trait. It is possible that the determination of the type of gene mutation is important like the epigenetic change where the gene is silenced for teeth in birds. When necessary scientists can make the differentiation. The only thing that is impotat is that th emutation is functional in evolution.

 

[shunyadragon]

The article mentions a “point mutation” it doesn’t say that the mutation was random.

Actually, I believe point mutations would most often be random mutations, bit in this case not important give millions of mutations in any given population..

 

[leroy]

shunyadragon said: ↑
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 care to comment on this? I think its important

 

[leroy]

ALL mutations, random and non-random, contribute to the raw material for evolution, and produce hereditable changes in response to environmental change.

Granted, all I am saying is that to this date we don’t know which type of mutation supplied the most part of the raw material………..agree?

As cited speifically they are misrepresentation of 'epigenetics' and NGE in particular. I have provided a reference to what is 'epigentics and yu have not acknowldged the problem.

You are just asserting that I misinterpreted epigenetics , but you can’t explain why

NGE is NOT defined as a non-random process.

Yes its non – random with respect to the selective benefits of the “mutation” this means that the mutation is more likely to occur if the organism would benefit from it…. Any disarmament from your part? Explain why…

 

[shunyadragon]

@shunyadragon care to comment on this? I think its important

I already did you must have missed it.Post #248. No it is not important.

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.

 

[shunyadragon]

Granted, all I am saying is that to this date we don’t know which type of mutation supplied the most part of the raw material………..agree?

NO, as I stated before and gave examples how we can know whether a mutation is random or non-random if it is important to the research., because they are point location mutations they are most likely random.

You are just asserting that I misinterpreted epigenetics , but you can’t explain why

Yes I refered directly to the source the scientific definition for 'eugenics' and it does not fit yours. The whole reference is a primer on eugenics. Please read.

Again crom the NIH . . .

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.

Epigenetics is the study of changes in gene function that are heritable and that are not attributed to alterations of the DNA sequence. The term epi means above. It's a Greek prefix. It's also defined as on top of the basic DNA sequence. In general terms you can think of them like accent marks on words where the DNA is the language and the modifications are the accent marks. Epigenetic marks change the way genes are expressed. The promise of epigenetics is that it tells us about the cell, it's a way to define the cell that's different than just looking at gene expression levels. We could look at any kind of cell and it will have specialized epigenetic patterns. There are two types of modifications: DNA methylation and histone modification. DNA methylation goes awry in cancers so if we knew the normal pattern of methylation and then looked at the pattern of methylation in a tumor we could see what changes were taking place and we could see which genes were being affected.

Laura Elnitski, Ph.D.

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

Yes its non – random with respect to the selective benefits of the “mutation” this means that the mutation is more likely to occur if the organism would benefit from it…. Any disarmament from your part? Explain why…

No, as far as the selective benifits of the mutation, no one considers this random, because the environment drives the benifits for natural selection, and it is not random.

Simply Shapiro is vague on whether mutations are random and basically I do not accept his view. Every cause and effect outome is random, because there if there is more than one possible outcome of the event, and in complex systems like genetics there is definitely multiple possible outcomes thogh still constrained by natural laws and natural processses therefore randomness by definition..but the natural processes that act on the mutations due to the driving forsce as changes in the environment are not random.

Again the possible function of a mutation in the evolving life forms is not dependent on whether the mutation is eandom or not.

 

[shunyadragon]

The article mentions a “point mutation” it doesn’t say that the mutation was random.

I tool a look back at sources and found Point Mutations can be known and efined as either random or non-random mutations as described in the following:

What is a gene mutation and how do mutations occur?.

This a primer in subject of genetic mutations and I will refer to it in more detail.

Also below describing specifically 'random point mutations.

Generation and analysis of random point mutations in an antibody CDR2 sequence: many mutated antibodies lose their ability to bind antigen. | Journal of Experimental Medicine | Rockefeller University Press

Generation and analysis of random point mutations in an antibody CDR2 sequence: many mutated antibodies lose their ability to bind antigen.
https://doi.org/10.1084/jem.176.3.8

By Ching Chen,* Victoria A. Roberts, and Marvin B. Rittenberg* From the "Department of Microbiology and Immunology, Oregon Health Sciences University, Portland, Oregon 97201; and the *Department of Molecular Biology, The Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, California 92037

Summary

We have investigated the impact of mutations on the binding functions of the phosphocholine (PC)-speciiic T15 antibody in the absence of antigen selection pressure. The H chain complementarity determining region 2 (CDR2) sequence of T15 antibody was saturated with point mutations by in vitro random mutagenesis. From the mutant library, 289 clones were screened by direct DNA sequencing. The point mutations generated by this method were randomly distributed throughout the CDR2 region and included all kinds of substitutions. 46 unique mutant antibodies, containing one to four point mutations each, were expressed in SP2/0 myeloma cells. Functional analysis on these antibodies has provided insights into several aspects of somatic mutation. (a) The majority (26/46) of mutant antibodies either lost (20/46) or had reduced (6/46) ability to bind PC-protein conjugates or R36a, a PC-expressing strain of Streptococcus pneumoniae. In contrast, none of the mutant antibodies displayed increased binding for these PC antigens. Taken together with calculations of destructive mutations elsewhere in the V region, the data suggest that somatic mutation may cause extensive wastage among B cells during clonal expansion after antigen stimulation. (b) The frequency of binding-loss mutants increased sharply when a second mutation was introduced into the CDR2 sequence; it appears that, in some cases, two or more mutations are needed to destroy binding. (c) The mutant antibodies were tested for their reactivity to 11 non-PC antigens as well as to three PC analogues. None of the mutants gained new reactivity or changed their ability to discriminate structural analogues, supporting the notion that the major role of somatic mutation is to increase or decrease aff~ty rather than to create new specificities. (d) Mutations in at least five different positions in CDR2 were deleterious, suggesting that these residues may be essential for antigen binding. Three of these positions are novel in that they had not been identified to be important for binding PC by previous crystallographic analysis. (e) Introduction of mutations into two highly conserved residues in CDR2 did not alter the overall conformation of the V region as judged by antiidiotypic analysis, and, in some cases, did not affect the antigen binding function. The results thus indicate that even nonconservative substitutions of invariant residues need not be deleterious, suggesting that their conservation may be due to reasons other than maintaining antibody structure or specificity.

 

[Bear Wild]

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

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

Now you are misinterpreting the information. Lets look at the facts. There are only two amino acid substitutions between humans and chimpanzees yet these two substitutions which would have originally been from a random mutation in a single DNA nucleotide for each amino acid substitution had profound effects on this genes phenotypic expression. Equally true is that any substitution that results in a defect of this gene has profound effect on communication. Natural selection should select for conservation of this gene which it has.

The fact that there is divergence in a group with convergence to another group of animals is also consistent with natural selection thus if Tarsiers (a primate) become closer to squirrels to do selective pressures, this response is entirely consistent with natural selection and evolution.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well I am just asking for 1 paper, why can’t you share it?

I just told you in the post you are responding to, as well as in other posts to you. In this very thread.

(make sure to quote a relevant paper, male sure not to make a straw man)

Make sure to actually read the posts you reply to with a speck of attention.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

More semantic games,…..

Can you show that those mutations that provided the diversity in foxp2 where random?

Mutations are random to fitness by observation. Most are neutral to fitness, some are harmfull and some are beneficial. There are no statistical signals of it being non-random.

However what follows, is non-random selection.

And mutations can be ether random or not random (random with respect to the potential benefits) why I it so hard to understand for you?

There is no evidence for that.

 

[shunyadragon]

Leroy

There is a problem with you describing trasposons as non-random mutations, and may also have mispoke.

Transposon for protein engineering.

Transposons (or transposable elements) are mobile genetic elements that translocate from one genomic location to another in a random fashion. ... A bacteriophage Mu transposon is one of the most useful transposable elements in nature due to its high integration efficiency and non-specific target site selection.

Introduction
Transposons (or transposable elements) are mobile genetic elements that translocate from one genomic location to another in a random fashion. Depending on the intermediates formed during transposition, transposable elements are classified into 2 main groups: 1) Class I or retrotransposon, and 2) Class II or DNA transposon.1 Retrotransposons, which are mostly found in eukaryotic organisms, employ the “copy” mechanism: retrotransposons are reverse-transcribed to DNA before insertion of a new copy to another genome location.2 On the contrary, DNA transposons can be found in both prokaryotes and eukaryotes, and employ the “cut and paste” mechanism: DNA transposons use DNA directly as a transposition intermediate without forming RNA intermediates.3

DNA transposons can serve as in vitro molecular tools for various protein engineering applications due to their ability to integrate into various DNA sequences and thus generate extensive mutant libraries.4 In vitro transposition reactions have primarily been mediated by (1) bacterial transposons, such as Tn7,5 Tn3,6 Tn5,7 Tn552,8 Tn10 9 and IS911,10 (2) bacteriophage transposons, such as Mu,11 and (3) yeast transposons, such as Ty1.12 Transposons in the most simplistic form, called mini-transposons, have also been developed to facilitate in vitro transposition reactions.13,14 The minimal elements required for in vitro transposition include the terminal inverted repeat nucleotides within transposons (i.e. transposase recognition site), transposase (i.e., enzyme), the target host DNA, and a reaction buffer.

A bacteriophage Mu transposon is one of the most useful transposable elements in nature due to its high integration efficiency and non-specific target site selection.14 Accordingly, the in vitro Mu transposition reaction has been studied extensively.15 The Mu transposon has 22 bp-long terminal inverted repeats, which is a recognition sequence for MuA transposase.15 Random integration of Mu transposon into target DNA occurs through the following 3 steps; 1) the MuA transposase binds to the symmetrical sequence of the Mu transposon and forms a transposome assembly15; 2) the transposome assembly assists in Mu transposon's self-cleavage at cleavage site (i.e. TA/CA)16; 3) the Mu transposon is integrated into the target DNA with precise 5 bp duplication.15

Sep 22, 2016.

Like many mutations the occurance of transposons are random.