Is Darwinism proven/accepted by official Science?

[leroy]

You will have to be more specific as what you are referring to as random mutations, because by the definition which is used for my references and Genetics and all science is that the timing of the cause and effect (ie gemetic mutations) cannot be predetermined. The type of mutations is determined by the organic chemistry of DNA/RNA, and possibly environmental factors like exposure to radiation.

Another common example is radioactive decay. The timing of any one radoactive decay cannot be pre-determined, but the over all pattern of radioactive decay can be objectively determined.

As the source explains with random I simply mean (and have always meant) that the mutations is equally likely to occur regardless if the organism would benefit from it. In the case of transposons (at least sometimes) mutations are not random but rather driven by the “needs” of the organism.

 

[Milton Platt]

It is not necessary for you to go to God, to the happy ever after place. However, you should realize, that there are many theists. In fact, atheists are the absolute minority. So, you should not fight the majority and their Status Quo without sufficient reason (see "Principle of Sufficient Reason" in Wikipedia).
"But this cometh to pass, that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause." John 15:25

The truth of a proposition is not dependent upon the number of people who believe it. How many people do you think have to believe something before it is true???

 

[shunyadragon]

As the source explains with random I simply mean (and have always meant) that the mutations is equally likely to occur regardless if the organism would benefit from it.

Yes the timing of the occurance of an individual mutation is equally likely to occur or not regardlees if the organism would "need" or benifit it or not, but that is also true of any mutation including transposons. The nature of the DNA/RNA of the population determines the potential mutations and the types of mutations. Some mutations like transposons are rare in viruses, but common in bacteria and higher forms of life.

In the case of transposons (at least sometimes) mutations are not random but rather driven by the “needs” of the organism.

First, even though incorrect does not describe randomness in the mutations in the genetics of a population. You are attempting to offer a driving force of meeting the "needs," which would not be random. The occurance of transpositions in the population is random as per reference. If the genetic diversity of transpositions and other mutations necessary for the natural selection of the population to adapt and survive is lacking the necessary "needs" of the population will not be met and the population will not survive.

First the "needs" of the organiam does not drive mutations. The genetic diversity in the population is related to the health and diversity of the popullation in an ideal environment. If the diversity of the genes in the population is not sufficient, then the population will likely decline and go extinct, and there "needs" will not be met. This happens in the extinction of many species today. The size of the populations decreases to the point that the population does not have the diversity to change and meet the enviromental change, and goes extinct.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes there is disagreement among scientists that is my point…..

A handfull of scientists, among thousands - if not millions, isn't exactly a good basis to say that there is "disagreement" or "controversy" in the field.

Scientific consensus doesn't mean that 100% of scientists must agree.

You are picking the odd example and pretending that it is the norm.

this recent paper (Amplification of lac Cannot Account for Adaptive Mutation to Lac+ in Escherichia coli) supports the old 1988 paper and I am sure we can find dozens of paper flowing in both directions

No, not dozens "in both directions".
The extreme majority of the +300.000 papers go in one direction only.

, the point is that there is no consensus on how organism evolve

That is just false.

and there is no consensus on the role that random and nonrandom mutations played.

Also false.
Again, just because you can find a handfull with the odd opinion, doesn't mean you get to say that therefor there is no consensus.

If that were the case, then there wouldn't be any consensus about anything at all, because pretty much every scientific field has the odd scientist in their midst with different ideas.

You act as if evolution theory is in the same spot as dark matter and energy in physics, where every physicist and their mothers have opinions about what their nature might be.

Let's not pretend as if that is the case because obviously it isn't.

Well the consensus is that organisms evolve through a process or natural selection and genetic drift, that we share a common ancestor with other species and that we don’t know which type of mutation (random or non random mutations) played the most important role in explaining the diversity of life……. Do you accept the consensus?

The consensus relevant to this conversation, is that muations are random to fitness.

 

[leroy]

A handfull of scientists, among thousands - if not millions, isn't exactly a good basis to say that there is "disagreement" or "controversy" in the field.

Scientific consensus doesn't mean that 100% of scientists must agree.

Well, support your assertions, can you show that except for a small minority, most scientists conclude that “almost certainly” life evolved mainly by a mechanism of random mutations + natural selection?.......can you quote a poll, a paper, a study etc. where the assertion is proven to be true??? O wait, you are an atheist you don’t have to support your assertions.

You act as if evolution theory is in the same spot as dark matter and energy in physics, where every physicist and their mothers have opinions about what their nature might be.

Let's not pretend as if that is the case because obviously it isn't.

I would say that evolution is in the same category than “the extinction of dinosaurs” (Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event,) we know it happened, but we don’t know how it happened, most scientists say that it was an asteroid, others say volcanos, climate change, multiple impacts, sea level regression, etc. but nobody claims to have conclusive evidence, and nobody claims to know beyond reasonable doubt.,

 

[shunyadragon]

Well, support your assertions, can you show that except for a small minority, most scientists conclude that “almost certainly” life evolved mainly by a mechanism of random mutations + natural selection?.......can you quote a poll, a paper, a study etc. where the assertion is proven to be true??? O wait, you are an atheist you don’t have to support your assertions.

I am a theist and a scientist.

The polls over the years have documented the support of scientists in the fields related evolution.

Views on evolution among the public and scientists | National Center for Science Education

The same questions were asked in a Pew Research Center survey (PDF) in 2009, providing a basis for a longitudinal comparison. In 2009, 97% of scientists and 61% of the public accepted evolution, while 2% of scientists and 31% of the public rejected evolution. Among scientists who accepted evolution, 87% attributed it to natural processes and 8% to divine guidance; among members of the public who accepted evolution, 32% attributed it to natural processes and 22% to divine guidance. Members of the public were asked whether scientists generally agree that humans evolved over time; 60% said yes, 28% said no.

The questions about evolution were part of a larger project, conducted by the Pew Research Center and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, investigating the public's attitude toward science and comparing it to the attitude of scientists. The report relied on two surveys, one conducted by telephone among members of the general public in the United States in August 2014, and one conducted on-line among members of the AAAS in September and October 2014. The broader significance of the project's results are summarized in the Pew Research Center's report (PDF), issued on January 29, 2015.

I would say that evolution is in the same category than “the extinction of dinosaurs” (Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event,) we know it happened, but we don’t know how it happened, most scientists say that it was an asteroid, others say volcanos, climate change, multiple impacts, sea level regression, etc. but nobody claims to have conclusive evidence, and nobody claims to know beyond reasonable doubt.,

Acording to your ancient religious agenda, but for science no.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I would say that evolution is in the same category than “the extinction of dinosaurs” (Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event,) we know it happened, but we don’t know how it happened, most scientists say that it was an asteroid, others say volcanos, climate change, multiple impacts, sea level regression, etc. but nobody claims to have conclusive evidence, and nobody claims to know beyond reasonable doubt.,

This is simply not true.

Evolution through variation random to fitness followed by selection, is a well established and demonstrated mechanism which literally happens with every newborn.

 

[leroy]

I am a theist and a scientist.

The polls over the years have documented the support of scientists in the fields related evolution.

o.

Which is a very dishonest and misleading strawman...

I am not claiming that scientist reject evolution,

I am claiming that there is disagreement on how organisms evolve, there is disagreement on what mechanisms where responsable for evolution,..... and no scientist claims to have a conclusive answer.

Your source doesn't refute or even attempts to adress my point.

 

[leroy]

This is simply not true.

Evolution through variation random to fitness followed by selection, is a well established and demonstrated mechanism which literally happens with every newborn.

The question is not whether if this mechanism happens or not......

The question is whether if that mechanism played a major role in explaining the complexity and diversity of life.

Given that there are other mechanisms that do happen too, there is disagreement on which mechanisms played a relevant role and which didn't.

But despite the fact that there is disagreement, nobody claims to have a conclusive answer.... If this doesn't count as "controversy" what would?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The question is whether if that mechanism played a major role in explaining the complexity and diversity of life.

The answer is "yes", as +200 years of research has established.

Given that there are other mechanisms that do happen too, there is disagreement on which mechanisms played a relevant role and which didn't.

No. Other mechanism also existing doesn't make the already known mechanisms any less relevant.

But despite the fact that there is disagreement, nobody claims to have a conclusive answer.... If this doesn't count as "controversy" what would?

The consensus is that evolution works by reproducing with variation random to fitness followed by natural selection.

You can keep sticking your head in the sand. Won't make the consensus go away.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Which is a very dishonest and misleading strawman...

I am not claiming that scientist reject evolution,

I am claiming that there is disagreement on how organisms evolve, there is disagreement on what mechanisms where responsable for evolution,..... and no scientist claims to have a conclusive answer.

Your source doesn't refute or even attempts to adress my point.

@shunyadragon is talking about the Theory of Evolution (ie, the mechanism), not the facts of evolution.
The theory states that evolution happens through reproduction with variation random to fitness, followed by selection.

 

[leroy]

@shunyadragon is talking about the Theory of Evolution (ie, the mechanism), not the facts of evolution.
The theory states that evolution happens through reproduction with variation random to fitness, followed by selection.

But the source that he is quoting doesn’t talk about specifically the mechanism or random variation and natural selection.

 

[leroy]

But the source that he is quoting doesn’t talk about specifically the mechanism or random variation and natural selection.

But the source that he is quoting doesn’t talk about specifically the mechanism or random variation and natural selection.

If you what to argue that it is uncontrovertially true that organisms evolve mainly by a mechanism of random variation and natural selection, why can’t you quote a single paper that reaches that conclusion?........

 

[ppp]

But the source that he is quoting doesn’t talk about specifically the mechanism or random variation and natural selection.

If you what to argue that it is uncontrovertially true that organisms evolve mainly by a mechanism of random variation and natural selection, why can’t you quote a single paper that reaches that conclusion?........

Is this even a real question? If he quoted a single paper that reaches that conclusion, then what?

 

[leroy]

The answer is "yes", as +200 years of research has established.

But you cant quote a source that supports your assertion, I know and understand that you favorite youtubers told you that atheists don’t have to support their assertions, but perhaps you can make an exception in this case,

The consensus is that evolution works by reproducing with variation random to fitness followed by natural selection.

Sooooooource?

You can keep sticking your head in the sand. Won't make the consensus go away.

I am willing to accept consensus, just prove to me that the consensus is what you claim to be,

 

[leroy]

Is this even a real question? If he quoted a single paper that reaches that conclusion, then what?

I would admit that I was wrong,

 

[ppp]

I would admit that I was wrong,

About what? That there is a paper? Or that evolution is a well-founded scientific theory?

 

[leroy]

About what? That there is a paper? Or that evolution is a well-founded scientific theory?

I would admit that current scientific evidence suggests that organisms evolve through a mechanism or random mutation and natural selection, I have no problem in accepting the consensus, I am not treating evolution differently than I would treat any other topic, given that I am not a scientists I don’t feel qualified to go against the consensus,

But I think I have proved successfully in this forum that there is no consensus, but rather disagreement on how organism evolve.

 

[leroy]

Yes the timing of the occurance of an individual mutation is equally likely to occur or not regardlees if the organism would "need" or benifit it or not, but that is also true of any mutation including transposons.

Well I quoted a source that suggests otherwise about traspososns , the same is true with epigenetics natural genetic engineering, directed mutations and other mechanisms, traits change fit the needs of the organism. (therefore not random )

 

[ppp]

I would admit that current scientific evidence suggests that organisms evolve through a mechanism or random mutation and natural selection, I have no problem in accepting the consensus, I am not treating evolution differently than I would treat any other topic, given that I am not a scientists I don’t feel qualified to go against the consensus,

But I think I have proved successfully in this forum that there is no consensus, but rather disagreement on how organism evolve.

I'm not convinced. What methods have you used to determine what that there is not consensus on the mechanism of evolution in the scientific community? And what checks are you using on your own perceptions, other than your own confidence of self?