Is Darwinism proven/accepted by official Science?

[shunyadragon]

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?)

I consider ALL the mechanisms of evolution to be non-random, and natural mechanisms The only thing that is random is the timing of mutations in a chain of cause and effect outcomes.

 

[shunyadragon]

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

OK, but still not clear what you are arguing for,

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

All those papers? Not that many scientists disagree with the basic mechanisms for evolution.

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

No, 97%+ of all the scientists in the fields related to evolution do not disagree on the basic mechanisms for evolution. No conspiracy involved, except for the few that argue against natural evolution or fringe theories.

The randomness of the timing of mutations is not a mechanisms of evolution. the genetic diversity of a given population caused by random mutations simply represent the 'raw materials' of evolution.

 

[leroy]

I consider ALL the mechanisms of evolution to be non-random, and natural mechanisms The only thing that is random is the timing of mutations in a chain of cause and effect outcomes.

Well I provided sources for non random mutations, why won't you take them in to account?

 

[leroy]

OK, but still not clear what you are arguing for,

I am arguing for non random mutations that could have played a role in the evolution of life

The randomness of the timing of mutations is not a mechanisms of evolution. the genetic diversity of a given population caused by random mutations simply represent the 'raw materials' of evolution.

But for some reason you can't provide a single source that concludes that the raw materials came exclusively (or mainly) from random mutations

 

[shunyadragon]

I am arguing for non random mutations that could have played a role in the evolution of life.

Random mutations develop the genetic diversity. That is what I describe as the 'raw materials' for evolution.

But for some reason you can't provide a single source that concludes that the raw materials came exclusively (or mainly) from random mutations

No other source in known, and because of this you will not find anything in the scientific literature.. The diversity of genetics and genetic drift are the result of genetic mutations over time, and there are no other known source. Can you come up with one?

 

[shunyadragon]

Well I provided sources for non random mutations, why won't you take them in to account?

Shapiro? There may be 'some' non-random mutations, and they are a product of the natural processes that determine evolution. and that does not change the nature of random mutations that dominantely contribute to the genetic diversity of a poulation. The bottom line is the natural processes that are the basis of evolution are not random, and they are in agreement of over 97%+ of the scientists in the scientific fields realted to evolution.

 

[leroy]

Random mutations develop the genetic diversity.

Source? (please quote the the relevant sentences)

. The diversity of genetics and genetic drift are the result of genetic mutations over time, and there are no other known source. Can you come up with one?

I just described several candidates that have been published in PR....... , epigenetics, trasposons, natural genetic engineering directed mutations etc.

 

[leroy]

Shapiro? There may be 'some' non-random mutations, and they are a product of the natural processes that determine evolution. and that does not change the nature of random mutations that dominantely contribute to the genetic diversity of a poulation. The bottom line is the natural processes that are the basis of evolution are not random, and they .

Sorce, (specifically for the statement in orange letters)

are in agreement of over 97%+ of the scientists in the scientific fields realted to evolution

Source?

Do these 97% claim to know beyond reasonable doubt?

 

[shunyadragon]

Source? (please quote the the relevant sentences)

From the source that follows:

… The fitness effects of random mutations are relevant to evolution in many ways. For
instance, they determine the fraction of nucleotide sites that evolves neutrally and thus
the rate at which populations diverge through random genetic drift …

The Fitness Effects of Random Mutations in Single-Stranded DNA and RNA Bacteriophages

The Fitness Effects of Random Mutations in Single-Stranded DNA and RNA Bacteriophages

• Pilar Domingo-Calap,
• José M. Cuevas,
• Rafael Sanjuán

Abstract
Mutational fitness effects can be measured with relatively high accuracy in viruses due to their small genome size, which facilitates full-length sequencing and genetic manipulation. Previous work has shown that animal and plant RNA viruses are very sensitive to mutation. Here, we characterize mutational fitness effects in single-stranded (ss) DNA and ssRNA bacterial viruses. First, we performed a mutation-accumulation experiment in which we subjected three ssDNA (ΦX174, G4, F1) and three ssRNA phages (Qβ, MS2, and SP) to plaque-to-plaque transfers and chemical mutagenesis. Genome sequencing and growth assays indicated that the average fitness effect of the accumulated mutations was similar in the two groups. Second, we used site-directed mutagenesis to obtain 45 clones of ΦX174 and 42 clones of Qβ carrying random single-nucleotide substitutions and assayed them for fitness. In ΦX174, 20% of such mutations were lethal, whereas viable ones reduced fitness by 13% on average. In Qβ, these figures were 29% and 10%, respectively. It seems therefore that high mutational sensitivity is a general property of viruses with small genomes, including those infecting animals, plants, and bacteria. Mutational fitness effects are important for understanding processes of fitness decline, but also of neutral evolution and adaptation. As such, these findings can contribute to explain the evolution of ssDNA and ssRNA viruses.

Author Summary
The fitness effects of mutations are the raw material for natural selection. It has been shown that point mutations typically have strongly deleterious effects in plant and animal RNA viruses, whereas cellular organisms are comparatively more robust. Here, we characterize the fitness effects of random mutations in DNA viruses and compare them with those found in RNA viruses, using six phage species of similar genome sizes. To achieve this goal, we introduced mutations by chemical and site-directed mutagenesis, identified the genetic changes by sequencing, and quantified their fitness effects using growth-rate assays. In all cases, mutations had a strong average impact on fitness. We conclude that mutational sensitivity is a general property of viruses with small genomes and discuss the evolutionary implications of these findings.

I just described several candidates that have been published in PR....... , epigenetics, trasposons, natural genetic engineering directed mutations etc.

No, you misrepresented epignetics, trasposons ,and natural genetics as I specifically referencesd by legitimate scientific references.

Again, again, and again . . .

What are the processes of evolution that are controversial not explained as natural pocesses in science, which are not accepted by 97%+ of all scientists in the fields of science related to evolution

 

[Bear Wild]

From the source that follows:

… The fitness effects of random mutations are relevant to evolution in many ways. For
instance, they determine the fraction of nucleotide sites that evolves neutrally and thus
the rate at which populations diverge through random genetic drift …

The Fitness Effects of Random Mutations in Single-Stranded DNA and RNA Bacteriophages

The Fitness Effects of Random Mutations in Single-Stranded DNA and RNA Bacteriophages

• Pilar Domingo-Calap,
• José M. Cuevas,
• Rafael Sanjuán

Abstract
Mutational fitness effects can be measured with relatively high accuracy in viruses due to their small genome size, which facilitates full-length sequencing and genetic manipulation. Previous work has shown that animal and plant RNA viruses are very sensitive to mutation. Here, we characterize mutational fitness effects in single-stranded (ss) DNA and ssRNA bacterial viruses. First, we performed a mutation-accumulation experiment in which we subjected three ssDNA (ΦX174, G4, F1) and three ssRNA phages (Qβ, MS2, and SP) to plaque-to-plaque transfers and chemical mutagenesis. Genome sequencing and growth assays indicated that the average fitness effect of the accumulated mutations was similar in the two groups. Second, we used site-directed mutagenesis to obtain 45 clones of ΦX174 and 42 clones of Qβ carrying random single-nucleotide substitutions and assayed them for fitness. In ΦX174, 20% of such mutations were lethal, whereas viable ones reduced fitness by 13% on average. In Qβ, these figures were 29% and 10%, respectively. It seems therefore that high mutational sensitivity is a general property of viruses with small genomes, including those infecting animals, plants, and bacteria. Mutational fitness effects are important for understanding processes of fitness decline, but also of neutral evolution and adaptation. As such, these findings can contribute to explain the evolution of ssDNA and ssRNA viruses.

Author Summary
The fitness effects of mutations are the raw material for natural selection. It has been shown that point mutations typically have strongly deleterious effects in plant and animal RNA viruses, whereas cellular organisms are comparatively more robust. Here, we characterize the fitness effects of random mutations in DNA viruses and compare them with those found in RNA viruses, using six phage species of similar genome sizes. To achieve this goal, we introduced mutations by chemical and site-directed mutagenesis, identified the genetic changes by sequencing, and quantified their fitness effects using growth-rate assays. In all cases, mutations had a strong average impact on fitness. We conclude that mutational sensitivity is a general property of viruses with small genomes and discuss the evolutionary implications of these findings.







No, you misrepresented epignetics, trasposons ,and natural genetics as I specifically referencesd by legitimate scientific references.

Again, again, and again . . .

What are the processes of evolution that are controversial not explained as natural pocesses in science, which are not accepted by 97%+ of all scientists in the fields of science related to evolution

Very good article! It is amazing how some people become stuck on a word like random mutation, or missing link and not see all of the other evidence that supports the theory.

 

[Bear Wild]

Do these 97% claim to know beyond reasonable doubt?

Yes they do. There is more than sufficient evidence to believe in the theory of evolution. They know we do not have all of the evidence we would like to have but what we do have leaves no doubt about the theory. All other explanations have too much insurmountable flaws with no evidence, the only conclusion is that the theory is correct and is supported by and strengthened as we learn more.

 

[shunyadragon]

Do these 97% claim to know beyond reasonable doubt?

Yes.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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,





Sooooooource?




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

I'm done with this conversation. I explained it a dozen times already.
Einstein defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results.

It's clear that you are unable to open your mind for just an inch and are determined to stay your course no matter what.

So go ahead and repeat the same already addressed nonsense over and over and over and over and.....

You can go work at the Discovery Institute. They are specialised in never listening and repeating their BS ad nauseum. You'ld fit right in.


So you go birdie... fly away from the chessboard and claim victory after crapping all over.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

A SINGLE paper would be reflecting a consensus accross an enormous scientific field like biology (and all its subfields like molecular biology, genetics, comparative anatomy, micro-biology, etc etc etc etc) in your opinion????

Sheesh... no wonder that this conversation went to way it went....

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.

You proved nothing at all. You quoted a paper or two (which didn't even really support your case) and you then pretended as if that odd paper somehow means that there is no consensus about it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

The fact that you need to ask, kind of makes his point.

Just saying.

 

[shunyadragon]

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

Again, and agian, this says nothing about what you calim.I already responded to this.

 

[shunyadragon]

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?

All the papers by fringe scientists I count on fingers without taking off my shoes. All you have cited is a couple of papers. Not much of substance since you are ultimately arguing a religious agenda.

There is no disagreements with 97%+ scientists concerning the mechanisms of evolution.

I ask again what are the specific mechanisms where there is disagreeement? Mutations are not mechanisms of evolution.

 

[shunyadragon]

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

Still what for you to specifically describe the mechanisms of evolution where there is disagreement among scientist.

Still waiting . . ., but I will not hold my breath.

 

[shunyadragon]

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

No, you have not cited specific mechanisms of evolution where scientists disagree.

Still waiting.. . .

You have not responded to this . . .

From the source that follows:

… The fitness effects of random mutations are relevant to evolution in many ways. For
instance, they determine the fraction of nucleotide sites that evolves neutrally and thus
the rate at which populations diverge through random genetic drift …

The Fitness Effects of Random Mutations in Single-Stranded DNA and RNA Bacteriophages

The Fitness Effects of Random Mutations in Single-Stranded DNA and RNA Bacteriophages

• Pilar Domingo-Calap,
• José M. Cuevas,
• Rafael Sanjuán

Abstract
Mutational fitness effects can be measured with relatively high accuracy in viruses due to their small genome size, which facilitates full-length sequencing and genetic manipulation. Previous work has shown that animal and plant RNA viruses are very sensitive to mutation. Here, we characterize mutational fitness effects in single-stranded (ss) DNA and ssRNA bacterial viruses. First, we performed a mutation-accumulation experiment in which we subjected three ssDNA (ΦX174, G4, F1) and three ssRNA phages (Qβ, MS2, and SP) to plaque-to-plaque transfers and chemical mutagenesis. Genome sequencing and growth assays indicated that the average fitness effect of the accumulated mutations was similar in the two groups. Second, we used site-directed mutagenesis to obtain 45 clones of ΦX174 and 42 clones of Qβ carrying random single-nucleotide substitutions and assayed them for fitness. In ΦX174, 20% of such mutations were lethal, whereas viable ones reduced fitness by 13% on average. In Qβ, these figures were 29% and 10%, respectively. It seems therefore that high mutational sensitivity is a general property of viruses with small genomes, including those infecting animals, plants, and bacteria. Mutational fitness effects are important for understanding processes of fitness decline, but also of neutral evolution and adaptation. As such, these findings can contribute to explain the evolution of ssDNA and ssRNA viruses.

Author Summary
The fitness effects of mutations are the raw material for natural selection. It has been shown that point mutations typically have strongly deleterious effects in plant and animal RNA viruses, whereas cellular organisms are comparatively more robust. Here, we characterize the fitness effects of random mutations in DNA viruses and compare them with those found in RNA viruses, using six phage species of similar genome sizes. To achieve this goal, we introduced mutations by chemical and site-directed mutagenesis, identified the genetic changes by sequencing, and quantified their fitness effects using growth-rate assays. In all cases, mutations had a strong average impact on fitness. We conclude that mutational sensitivity is a general property of viruses with small genomes and discuss the evolutionary implications of these findings.

 

[shunyadragon]

nd

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?

I read over your refrence completely on epigenetics and evolution, and found nothing controversial in their interpretation, except for some of the wording they used, which was not an important disagreement.

The article still proposed natural mechanisms and relationships between the evolution of life, and the natural mechanisms that are basis of evolution and factors that determine evolution like the environmental pressure for change. The article did describes non-genetic natural bioogic factors that influence mutations. I have no rpoblems with this. I do not agree with some points, but the over concept is OK.

Evolutionary consequences of epigenetic inheritance | Heredity