Is Darwinism proven/accepted by official Science?

[leroy]

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.

The problem is that you expect others to accept your assertions without any sources, or evidence..... You should join the faltt earth society you will find many things in common with them

 

[leroy]

nd


I read over your refrence completely on epigenetics and evolution, and found nothing controversial

i
That is because they are not suppose to be controvertial

All these articles show is that there is disagreement on how organisms evolve (which is and has always been my point)

The article still proposed natural mechanisms

Fine, nobody is claiming that supernatural mechanisms where involved

 

[shunyadragon]

i
That is because they are not suppose to be controvertial

All these articles show is that there is disagreement on how organisms evolve (which is and has always been my point).

It remains that all you cited, and what I cited from scienitific references refer to 'natural processes' for evolution. Disagreements are not controversial, and no problem as further research and discoveries resolve the problems.

Fine, nobody is claiming that supernatural mechanisms where involved

An important point is randomly occuring mutations play a dominant role in developing the diversity of genetics in the 'raw materials' for evolution, as referenced. All the ]natural mechanisms'. are not random.

 

[leroy]

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....






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.

You are claiming with certanity that most scientist accept beyond reasonable doubt that organisms evolve mainly by a process of random variation and natural selection..........

If you can't cite a paper supporting your position, then how do you know that your position is true? What are your sources for making such an assertion ?????? Let me guess....... your favorite youtuber told you and you trust him

 

[leroy]

An important point is randomly occuring mutations play a dominant role in developing the diversity of genetics

in the 'raw materials' for evolution,

Source please please quote (copy paste) the relevant parts of your source where they reach at the conclusion that "beyond reasonable doubt, random mutations play a dominant role"

 

[shunyadragon]

You are claiming with certanity that most scientist accept beyond reasonable doubt that organisms evolve mainly by a process of random variation and natural selection..........

If you can't cite a paper supporting your position, then how do you know that your position is true? What are your sources for making such an assertion ?????? Let me guess....... your favorite youtuber told you and you trust him

I cited such a scientific paper and you have failed to respond.

 

[shunyadragon]

Source please please quote (copy paste) the relevant parts of your source where they reach at the conclusion that "beyond reasonable doubt, random mutations play a dominant role"

I cited the paper twice and you failed to respond. I also cited earlier a list of references concerning the mutation of the Foxp2 gene and specifically one of the articles in detail and you failed to respond. Since you lack the basic education and background of organic chemistry and genetics it is unreasonably for you to make demands such as these when you do not likely even understand the technical articles cited. There are literally thousands of articles like these over the recent history of the discoveries and research on gentics, evolution and organic chemistry.

I also cited two excellent articles on the over all review of the literature supporting 'natural evolution' and the mechanisms involved, and of course, you failed to respond.

 

[leroy]

I cited such a scientific paper and you have failed to respond.

You have cited many articles, most (if no all of them ) irrelevant to this particular point, care to provide the specific article and quote the relevant text

 

[leroy]

I cited the paper twice and you failed to respond. I also cited earlier a list of references concerning the mutation of the Foxp2 gene and specifically one of the articles in detail and you failed to respond. Since you lack the basic education and background of organic chemistry and genetics it is unreasonably for you to make demands such as these when you do not likely even understand the technical articles cited. There are literally thousands of articles like these over the recent history of the discoveries and research on gentics, evolution and organic chemistry.

Don’t worry, my intent is not to understand a technical paper, I am willing to accept the conclusions and results ……. Care to provide a source of a paper concluding beyond reasonable doubt that random mutations are the main source of the raw material?

I also cited two excellent articles on the over all review of the literature supporting 'natural evolution' and the mechanisms involved, and of course, you failed to respond.

which is ok, because nobody is arguing for supernarual evolution

 

[leroy]

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.

The point of the paper is to show that random mutations reduce the fitness of some viruses………how is that relevant and how does that support your assertion that the “raw material” that created all the complexity and diversity of life came mainly from random mutations, and not any other of the mechanisms described in the papers that I quoted?

 

[shunyadragon]

The point of the paper is to show that random mutations reduce the fitness of some viruses………how is that relevant and how does that support your assertion that the “raw material” that created all the complexity and diversity of life came mainly from random mutations, and not any other of the mechanisms described in the papers that I quoted?

The reference I a cited had more information including both the increase and decrease of fitness.

 

[leroy]

The reference I a cited had more information including both the increase and decrease of fitness.

Ok .. sooo how do you go from “the paper” to “therefore all (or most) of the complexity of life came from a process of natural selection where the raw material was provided mainly by random mutations?”……. you are obviously missing some steps

 

[shunyadragon]

Ok .. sooo how do you go from “the paper” to “therefore all (or most) of the complexity of life came from a process of natural selection where the raw material was provided mainly by random mutations?”……. you are obviously missing some steps

No, my responses do not deal with steps. That is a much bigger subject Clearly this paper deals with the fact the random point mutation can be negative neutral or possitive. There is not problem with the natural processes and mechaisms in the cell underly and influence the mutations within the DNA of the cell, because the whole cell functions together. Nonetheless it is clearly acknowledged that ALL the processes and mechanisms of natural selection in the cell and influences outside the cell are non-random.

 

[leroy]

No, my responses do not deal with steps. That is a much bigger subject Clearly this paper deals with the fact the random point mutation can be negative neutral or possitive.m.

Yes random mutations can be negative, positive or random....... So what? From the fact that random mutations can be positive negative or neutral it doesn't follow that the raw material that explains the complexity and diversity of life, was caused by random mutations​

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes random mutations can be negative, positive or random....... So what? From the fact that random mutations can be positive negative or neutral it doesn't follow that the raw material that explains the complexity and diversity of life, was caused by random mutations​

Of course, not completely, because another change in DNA/RNA is genetic drift are natural changes in allele frequency, which along with mutations increasing genetic diversity in s population. An important element in gene diversity that leads to evolution. I mentioned genetic drift before, but did not go into detail. It is also a random element in increasing the diversity in a population.

Genetic drift - Wikipedia

Genetic drift (also known as allelic drift or the Sewall Wright effect)[1] is the change in the frequency of an existing gene variant (allele) in a population due to random sampling of organisms.[2] The alleles in the offspring are a sample of those in the parents, and chance has a role in determining whether a given individual survives and reproduces. A population's allele frequency is the fraction of the copies of one gene that share a particular form.[3] Genetic drift may cause gene variants to disappear completely and thereby reduce genetic variation.[4] It can also cause initially rare alleles to become much more frequent and even fixed.

When there are few copies of an allele, the effect of genetic drift is larger, and when there are many copies the effect is smaller. In the middle of 20th century, vigorous debates occurred over the relative importance of natural selection versus neutral processes, including genetic drift. Ronald Fisher, who explained natural selection using Mendelian genetics,[5] held the view that genetic drift plays at the most a minor role in evolution, and this remained the dominant view for several decades. In 1968, population geneticist Motoo Kimura rekindled the debate with his neutral theory of molecular evolution, which claims that most instances where a genetic change spreads across a population (although not necessarily changes in phenotypes) are caused by genetic drift acting on neutral mutations.

 

[leroy]

Of course, not completely, because another change in DNA/RNA is genetic drift are natural changes in allele frequency, which along with mutations increasing genetic diversity in s population. An important element in gene diversity that leads to evolution. I mentioned genetic drift before, but did not go into detail. It ia also a random element in increasing the diversity in a population.

Genetic drift - Wikipedia

Genetic drift (also known as allelic drift or the Sewall Wright effect)[1] is the change in the frequency of an existing gene variant (allele) in a population due to random sampling of organisms.[2] The alleles in the offspring are a sample of those in the parents, and chance has a role in determining whether a given individual survives and reproduces. A population's allele frequency is the fraction of the copies of one gene that share a particular form.[3] Genetic drift may cause gene variants to disappear completely and thereby reduce genetic variation.[4] It can also cause initially rare alleles to become much more frequent and even fixed.

When there are few copies of an allele, the effect of genetic drift is larger, and when there are many copies the effect is smaller. In the middle of 20th century, vigorous debates occurred over the relative importance of natural selection versus neutral processes, including genetic drift. Ronald Fisher, who explained natural selection using Mendelian genetics,[5] held the view that genetic drift plays at the most a minor role in evolution, and this remained the dominant view for several decades. In 1968, population geneticist Motoo Kimura rekindled the debate with his neutral theory of molecular evolution, which claims that most instances where a genetic change spreads across a population (although not necessarily changes in phenotypes) are caused by genetic drift acting on neutral mutations.

That article proves my point There is disagreement on how organisms evolve, as your article explains some say that genetic drift plays a mayor role others say that it plays a minor role. If this doesn't count as disagreement then what would? What evidence should I provide in order to prove my point (in red letters)

I am not denying that genetic drift acting uppon neutral random mutations is a real process that has been observed...... My skepticism is on whether if this phenomena accounts for most of the diversity and complexity of life or if there are other mechanisms that played a major role

 

[shunyadragon]

That article proves my point There is disagreement on how organisms evolve, as your article explains some say that genetic drift plays a mayor role others say that it plays a minor role. If this doesn't count as disagreement then what would? What evidence should I provide in order to prove my point (in red letters)

I am not denying that genetic drift acting uppon neutral random mutations is a real process that has been observed...... My skepticism is on whether if this phenomena accounts for most of the diversity and complexity of life or if there are other mechanisms that played a major role

NO, there are NOT makor disagreements on HOW EVOLUTION evolved. The reference does not suppoert that. Please specifically where this reference supports this.
The difference between whether it is a major or minor role is a major dispute. ALL agree it provides a role.

The article documented that the events of changes allele frequency are random in the process of genetic drift. Please provide a reference to scientists who disagree with these observed fact.

There is no diasagreement on the process of changes in allele frequency in Genetic Drift as functioning in the process of evolution over tiem.

 

[leroy]

NO, there are NOT makor disagreements on HOW EVOLUTION evolved. The reference does not suppoert that. Please specifically where this reference supports this.

sure from your paper
.

Ronald Fisher, who explained natural selection using Mendelian genetics,[5] held the view that genetic drift plays at the most a minor role in evolution, and this remained the dominant view for several decades. In 1968, population geneticist Motoo Kimura rekindled the debate with his neutral theory of molecular evolution, which claims that most instances where a genetic change spreads across a population

So there is a guy namen “” who claims that genetic drift plays a minor role and a gy named motoo kimura who claims that it plays an important role.

If this is not “disagreement” then what would you count as disagreement?

The difference between whether it is a major or minor role is a major dispute. ALL agree it provides a role.

Well that is my point (in red letters) why is it that in some comments you seem to agree and in others you seem to disagree?




T

he article documented that the events of changes allele frequency are random in the process of genetic drift. Please provide a reference to scientists who disagree with these observed fact.

Granted, genetic drift is random, NO disagreement there, my skepticism is on the claim that genetic drift accounts for most of the diversity and complexity of life given that there are other mechanisms that have been proposed and that have been published in PR my skpetisism seems reasonable isn’t it?……..

 

[shunyadragon]

sure from your paper
.

So there is a guy namen “” who claims that genetic drift plays a minor role and a gy named motoo kimura who claims that it plays an important role.

If this is not “disagreement” then what would you count as disagreement?





Well that is my point (in red letters) why is it that in some comments you seem to agree and in others you seem to disagree?




T

Granted, genetic drift is random, NO disagreement there, my skepticism is on the claim that genetic drift accounts for most of the diversity and complexity of life given that there are other mechanisms that have been proposed and that have been published in PR my skpetisism seems reasonable isn’t it?……..

The problem is your picking and choosing words and phrases to suit your agenda. and yes it is a supernatural agenda of Inelligent Design by creating controversy where ther is no controversy, and negating the randomness element of mutations and the processes of evolution and ultimately against a natural explanation

All you are describing is the normal disagreements and debate in the sciences of evolution that is common to all sciences.

 

[leroy]

The problem is your picking and choosing words and phrases to suit your agenda. and yes it is a supernatural agenda of Inelligent Design by creating controversy where ther is no controversy, and negating the randomness element of mutations and the processes of evolution and ultimately against a natural explanation

Yes I have a religious Agenda every Friday I have a secret reunion in a secret underground room, where we make important decisions on how to attack evolution, last Friday we decided to hack and edit the specific article that you quoted so that it seems that the article is describing disagreement on the role of genetic drift.


The fact is that whether if I have an agenda or not, it is a fact that there is disagreement on how organisms evolve, and except from yourself, no scientists claims to have the definite answer, this is why you won’t find papers affirming beyond reasonable doubt that organisms evolved by a mechanism of natural selection where the raw material is provided almost exclusively by random mutations.