Is Darwinism proven/accepted by official Science?

[leroy]

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?

The fact that there are many peer reviewed articles disagreeing and/or proposing other mechanisms + the lack of a peer reviewed article that affirms beyond reasonable doubt that organisms evolve through random mutations and natural selection ….. indicates that there is disagreement in the scientific community……… honestly what else would you need to see in order to conclude that there is a disagreement?

 

[Bear Wild]

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.

No you have not. In every subject of human kind there is variation in opinion. This variation is often important for objective questioning of what is held to be true. This is a healthy view rather than acceptance of dogma with absolute faith. That does not however say there is not consensus of the theory and the disagreements are only about aspects of this theory and not the entire theory. This is true of all aspects of science. So do you accept the theory of evolution or not?

 

[shunyadragon]

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.

Sorry to disappoint you, but 97% of all scientists agree on evolution and the natural mechanisms involved. I am a career geologist for more than 50 years. You over play 'disagreements' to justify your anti science agenda, and grorsely misrepresent the natural mechanisms and natural laws which are the foundation of all the sciences

 

[ppp]

The fact that there are many peer reviewed articles disagreeing and/or proposing other mechanisms

Specifically?

the lack of a peer reviewed article that affirms beyond reasonable doubt that organisms evolve through random mutations and natural selection

Perhaps you are unaware that in order for university press to gain membership in the Association of American University Presses that all of their scientific publications must undergo peer review. Which means that if you are actually looking to compare peer reviewed positions, you can go to Harvard or Princeton or Oxford or any of these universities that their publications on evolutionary biology will be peer reviewed.
The Evolutionary Biology of Species (Oxford Series in Ecology and Evolution) by Timothy G. Barraclough

I asked, what checks are you using on your own perceptions, other than your own confidence of self? Anything?

 

[shunyadragon]

The fact that there are many peer reviewed articles disagreeing and/or proposing other mechanisms + the lack of a peer reviewed article that affirms beyond reasonable doubt that organisms evolve through random mutations and natural selection ….. indicates that there is disagreement in the scientific community……… honestly what else would you need to see in order to conclude that there is a disagreement?

No there are NOT many peer reviewed articles disagreeing with the natural mechanisms for evolution. You have one. Shapiro, who is marginal, but still endorces evolution. Other than those with the Discovery Institute with a religious agenda you do not have much to cite.

Nonetheless, still waiting for these 'many peer reviewed articles.'

 

[shunyadragon]

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 )

No you DID NOT. Be specific

 

[leroy]

So do you accept the theory of evolution or not?

Define: “theory of evolution”........what exactly do you mean?

 

[leroy]

and the disagreements are only about aspects of this theory

Granted, including disagreements on what mechanisms took place and which played the most important role…….

 

[shunyadragon]

Granted, including disagreements on what mechanisms took place and which played the most important role…….

There is no disagreement among the 97% of all scientists on what mechanisms are involved in evolution. We can objectively observe and confirm the same mechanisms at work today that take place in evolution.

I believe what is referred t as the history of evolution is the history of the evolution of life.

 

[shunyadragon]

Define: “theory of evolution”........what exactly do you mean?

Simply as 97% at minimum of all scientists endorse the science of evolution, without disagreement as to what natural mechanisms are involved. Disagree ment is not to what natural mechisms are involved, but as to the details of the genetics. paleontology, interpretation of some of lineages, and dating some fossil finds, The fundamental mecahnisms involve natural selection due to environmental changeleast to the survival of the fittest. The genetic diversity in populations is simply the 'Raw material' for natural selection, and is not a mechanism for evolution. The natural mechanisms for evolution an life are not random.

 

[shunyadragon]

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

The specific mechanisms are environmental change and natural selection to adapt to the environmental change through natural selection and survival of the fittest. It actually has not really changed sonce Charles Darwin first proposed the Theory of Evolution that became the Science of Evolution.

What Charles Darwin lack was the knowledge of Genestics and the organic chemistry of DNA/RNA and the organic chemistry of life. Since Charles Darwin science has determined the details of the genetics of evolution and life, including the different possible mutations, genetic drift, and the comparitive genetics , anatomy, and physiology between different species and the history of life.

 

[tayla]

Darwinism is wrong and absurd because humans can not be born by a monkey.

Evolution doesn't teach that humans were born from monkeys.

 

[leroy]

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 )

No you DID NOT. Be specific

.. Source that shows that trasposons are (atleast sometimes) non random but rather guided y selective pressures

Thus, it is perhaps not surprising that TEs are rarely, if ever, randomly distributed in the genome. TEs exhibit various levels of preference for insertion within certain features or compartments of the genome (Fig. 2). These are often guided by opposite selective forces, a balancing act of facilitating future propagation while mitigating deleterious effects on host cell function.Ten things you should know about transposable elements | Genome Biology | Full Text

 

[shunyadragon]

.. Source that shows that trasposons are (atleast sometimes) non random but rather guided by selective pressures

Thus, it is perhaps not surprising that TEs are rarely, if ever, randomly distributed in the genome. TEs exhibit various levels of preference for insertion within certain features or compartments of the genome (Fig. 2). These are often guided by opposite selective forces, a balancing act of facilitating future propagation while mitigating deleterious effects on host cell function.Ten things you should know about transposable elements | Genome Biology | Full Text

This is true, but incomplete. You are describing the fact that jn the outcome of the mutations in the organismns are naturally determined by natural laws, and natural processes to limited preferences and natural opposite selective forces. A natural explanation still stands.

My reference is correct that timimg of occurance of the mutatins is indeed random.

 

[leroy]

leroy said: ↑
The fact that there are many peer reviewed articles disagreeing and/or proposing other mechanisms

No there are NOT many peer reviewed articles disagreeing with the natural mechanisms for evolution. You have one. Shapiro, who is marginal, but still endorces evolution. Other than those with the Discovery Institute with a religious agenda you do not have much to cite.

Nonetheless, still waiting for these 'many peer reviewed articles.'

Also answering to @Joe W who made a similar request

Just a few examples of peer reviewed papers disagreeing with the "random mutation + natural selection" model and/or papers that suggest other mechanisms that could have been important for evolution

As the result of studies of bacterial variation, it is now widely believed that mutations arise continuously and without any consideration for their utility. In this paper, we briefly review the source of this idea and then describe some experiments suggesting that cells may have mechanisms for choosing which mutations will occur The origin of mutants

In recent years, the belief that the genetic code is the sole basis for biological inheritance has been challenged by the discovery of trans-generational epigenetic inheritance. Environmentally induced phenotypes can in this way persist for several generations

Evolutionary consequences of epigenetic inheritance | Heredity

But changes in genetic material that occur at the molecular level are not entirely random
Evolution is Not Random (At Least, Not Totally) | Live Science

We argue that the basic neo-Darwinian framework—the natural selection of random mutations—is insufficient to account for evolution.

Beyond neo-Darwinism—an epigenetic approach to evolution - ScienceDirect

The results of molecular genetics have frequently been difficult to explain by conventional evolutionary theory. New findings about the genetic conservation of protein structure and function across very broad taxonomic boundaries, the mosaic structure of genomes and genetic loci, and the molecular mechanisms of genetic change all point to a view of evolution as involving the rearrangement of basic genetic motifs.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/21820630_Natural_genetic_engineering_in_evolution

So if we have peer reviewed articles that disagree with the "random mutation + natural selection model" and there is not a single article that concludes that organisms evolve mainly by random mutations and natural selection......... What stops you for accepting that there is disagreement in the scientific community on how organisms evolve and which mechanisms played an important role?......... What else do you need to see in order to conclude that there is disagreement?

 

[leroy]

Thus, it is perhaps not surprising that TEs are rarely, if ever, randomly distributed in the genome. TEs exhibit various levels of preference for insertion within certain features or compartments of the genome (Fig. 2). These are often guided by opposite selective forces, a balancing act of facilitating future propagation while mitigating deleterious effects on host cell function.Ten things you should know about transposable elements | Genome Biology | Full Text

This is true, but incomplete. You are describing the fact that jn the outcome of the mutations in the organismns are naturally determined by natural laws, and natural processes to limited preferences and natural opposite selective forces. A natural explanation still stands.
m.

Granted, I am not arguing for supernatural causes

All I am saying is that there are non random mechanisms that can produce hereditable traits and that these mechanisms could have (or could have not) played a mayor role in evolution and in explaining the diversity of life........ (any disagreement from your part?)

 

[shunyadragon]

Also answering to @Joe W who made a similar request

Just a few examples of peer reviewed papers disagreeing with the "random mutation + natural selection" model and/or papers that suggest other mechanisms that could have been important for evolution











So if we have peer reviewed articles that disagree with the "random mutation + natural selection model" and there is not a single article that concludes that organisms evolve mainly by random mutations and natural selection......... What stops you for accepting that there is disagreement in the scientific community on how organisms evolve and which mechanisms played an important role?......... What else do you need to see in order to conclude that there is disagreement?

Also answering to @Joe W who made a similar request

Just a few examples of peer reviewed papers disagreeing with the "random mutation + natural selection" model and/or papers that suggest other mechanisms that could have been important for evolution

So if we have peer reviewed articles that disagree with the "random mutation + natural selection model" and there is not a single article that concludes that organisms evolve mainly by random mutations and natural selection......... What stops you for accepting that there is disagreement in the scientific community on how organisms evolve and which mechanisms played an important role?......... What else do you need to see in order to conclude that there is disagreement?

There is not disagreement in the academic community on the basic genetic mechanisms and the role of natural selection in a changing in environment, and "random mutations + natural selection model is the same as random mutations and natural selction. No difference no disagreement here.

 

[shunyadragon]

Also answering to @Joe W who made a similar request

Just a few examples of peer reviewed papers disagreeing with the "random mutation + natural selection" model and/or papers that suggest other mechanisms that could have been important for evolution.

The other fators important to evolution are known to be natural processes. Can you be specific about a 'factor' refered to in scientific literature that is not a natural process' in peer reviewed literature.

 

[leroy]

The other fators important to evolution are known to be natural processes. Can you be specific about a 'factor' refered to in scientific literature that is not a natural process' in peer reviewed literature.

Granted..... I am not arguing for "supernatural processes"

 

[leroy]

There is not disagreement in the academic community on the basic genetic mechanisms and the role of natural selection in a changing in environment, and "random mutations + natural selection model is the same as random mutations and natural selction. No difference no disagreement here.

And what about all the papers that disagree with" random mutation + natural selection"?.....as the main mechanism for evolution?

Would you say that this is part of a massive conspiracy theory, caused by the multimillionaire pharmaceutical industry?