• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is Darwinism proven/accepted by official Science?

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
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.

The disagreements are not controversial and are resolved over time with more discoveries and research. Research paers provided and you choose to selecively cite some to justify your agenda and ignore others.

Yes, your aregument is support ID.
 
Last edited:

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
There is no such intellectual movement as "Darwinism", what people are talking about is the Theory of Evolution, a widely accepted and well-tried theory that can explain many instances of speciation better, more coherently, and more succintly than any of the alternatives. Together with the science of genetics, we can even track more recent instances of speciation. (For example, genetic studies have recently shown that polar bears and North American brown bears are starting to interbreed, as polar bears move South due to global warming).
Yes, but the hybrids are unlikely to outcompete the existing brown bear population. They're not going to establish themselves as a separate population.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
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
Science rejects unsupported assertions. It's religion that tends to accept them. Science is fact, not faith based.
Evolution and the theory describing its mechanisms is massively supported.
Creationism has no supporting evidence and uses a False Dichotomy for support. It tries to blow holes in the ToE with the assumption that if a flaw can be found, ID must needs be the only alternative.

It's not very good at this though, having little knowledge of what its attacking, little knowledge of science or its methodology and poor reasoning skills.
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..........
How do you think they evolved? What other mechanism are you proposing?

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[/QUOTE]
There are whole libraries of support for this. It's the very principle underlying the process. It's the established starting-point for al biological research.
Pick just about any article from a biology journal and you'll find this evidence.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
shunyadragon said:
An important point is randomly occuring mutations play a dominant role in developing the diversity of genetics

in the 'raw materials' for evolution,
It's the raw material for most prokaryotic and some eukaryotic evolution, but it's reproductive variation that usually drives evolution in sexual organisms.
 
Last edited:

leroy

Well-Known Member
The disagreements are not controversial[

The way I see it, disagreements by definition are controversies …..but ok lets use the term “disagreement” can we agree on that there is disagreement on how organisms evolve?


and are resolved over time with more discoveries and research.

Sure, I am not saying that these disagreements will be permanent.


The problem is that in some comments you claim that there are no disagreements and in some comments you are granting that there are disagreements, so which one is it?
 

night912

Well-Known Member
I am saying, that the technical part of Science was conducted by an organization with a different name: not Science, but Natural Theology. The Natural Theologists have discovered many things and truths in nature, e.g. Pythagorean Theorem.
So since Muslims discovered some correct things in mathematics, they are correct about everything? So why aren't you a Muslim?
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
The way I see it, disagreements by definition are controversies …..but ok lets use the term “disagreement” can we agree on that there is disagreement on how organisms evolve?

No agreement here unless you believe Trump and Dr. Emmanuel that Aliens interbred with humans, and demons cause diseases.

The problem is that in some comments you claim that there are no disagreements and in some comments you are granting that there are disagreements, so which one is it?

The bottom line is yes there are disareements in the sciences that evolution is based on, but no, you exaggerate to the extreme that the disagreements are controversial.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
.

The bottom line is yes there are disareements in the sciences that evolution is based on, but no, you exaggerate to the extreme that the disagreements are controversial.
On what way did I exaggerate? Can you quote a comment where I said something "too exaggerated"
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
On what way did I exaggerate? Can you quote a comment where I said something "too exaggerated"
Calling noraml scientific disagreements as controversial and an issue for the 97%+ scientists who ssupport evolution without conditions.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
Calling noraml scientific disagreements as controversial
Ok, can we conclude that there is “normal scientific disagreement” on how organism evolve?
and an issue for the 97%+ scientists who ssupport evolution without conditions.
I never made an issue about that, but granted 97+ accept evolution, but there is disagreement on how organism evolve, particularly on the role of random and nonrandom mutations………….agree?
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Ok, can we conclude that there is “normal scientific disagreement” on how organism evolve?

I never made an issue about that, but granted 97+ accept evolution, but there is disagreement on how organism evolve, particularly on the role of random and nonrandom mutations………….agree?
By "how organisms evolve," are you talking about evolution, or about the origin of life?
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
By "how organisms evolve," are you talking about evolution, or about the origin of life?
Evolution…there is disagreement in the scientific community on how organism evolve, particularly there is disagreement on the role of random mutations and the role of non random mutations
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Evolution…there is disagreement in the scientific community on how organism evolve, particularly there is disagreement on the role of random mutations and the role of non random mutations
What's a non-random mutation?

There is no disagreement about the major mechanisms of evolution. The disagreements are at the fringes, in the details. Everyone agrees that reproductive variation + natural selection is the major driver of evolution in most multicellular organisms.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Ok, can we conclude that there is “normal scientific disagreement” on how organism evolve?

Yes, but that is not what you describe from the layman's perspective.

I never made an issue about that, but granted 97+ accept evolution, but there is disagreement on how organism evolve, particularly on the role of random and nonrandom mutations………….agree?

The disagreements are not concerning the foundation nature of the natural mechanisms and processes of evolution, but more differences of degree of function and details of these mechanisms and processes.

The science of evolution is not controversial among scientists.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
What's a non-random mutation?

There is no disagreement about the major mechanisms of evolution. The disagreements are at the fringes, in the details. Everyone agrees that reproductive variation + natural selection is the major driver of evolution in most multicellular organisms.

Random in this context simply means that mutations are equally likely to occur redardless if the organism would benefit from it.

Non random would simply mean the opposite, the mutation occurs because the organism needs it


Both random and non random mutations have been observed, the question and source of disagreement among scientist is on the role that each type of mutation played in the evolution of life.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Random in this context simply means that mutations are equally likely to occur redardless if the organism would benefit from it.

No random refers to the timing of the mutation happen. There is nothing in the nature of genetics that mutations are ;equally likely to occur. Yes there are benificial, neutral and detremental mutations. Benificial and neutral mutatins contribute to the positive genetic diversity and genetic drift that are the 'Raw materials for evolution. Harmful mutations lead to death of the individuals and do not contribute to the positive diversity of a population.

Non random would simply mean the opposite, the mutation occurs because the organism needs it.

No as I stated before. Needs of the organism is too anthropomorphic. Both random and non-random mutations may be benificial to the organisms. Needs do not play a role in the diversity available for adaptation to the changing environment. Many species and populations have needs not meet, and perish or go extinct, because the genetic diversity is simply available to meet the needs of the population.


Both random and non random mutations have been observed, the question and source of disagreement among scientist is on the role that each type of mutation played in the evolution of life.

False. Sience has determined the role of many mutations played in the evolution of life. They have been able to compare the mutations of time that play roles in the evolution of the eye.

Mutations Are the Raw Materials of Evolution | Learn Science at Scitable

Mutations Are the Raw Materials of Evolution
By: Joel L. Carlin (Department of Biology, Gustavus Adolphus) © 2011 Nature Education
A mutation is a change in the sequence of an organism's DNA. What causes a mutation? Mutations can be caused by high-energy sources such as radiation or by chemicals in the environment. They can also appear spontaneously during the replication of DNA.

Mutations generally fall into two types: point mutations and chromosomal aberrations. In point mutations, one base pair is changed. The human genome, for example, contains over 3.1 billion bases of DNA, and each base must be faithfully replicated for cell division to occur. Mistakes, although surprisingly rare, do happen. About one in every 1010 (10,000,000,000) base pair is changed. The most common type of mistake is a point substitution. More uncommon is the failure to copy one of the bases (deletion), the making of two copies for a single base (point duplication) or the addition of a new base or even several bases (insertion). Chromosomal aberrations are larger-scale mutations that can occur during meiosis in unequal crossing over events, slippage during DNA recombination or due to the activities of transposable events. Genes and even whole chromosomes can be substituted, duplicated, or deleted due to these errors (Figure 1).

Mutations can have a range of effects. They can often be harmful. Others have little or no detrimental effect. And sometimes, although very rarely, the change in DNA sequence may even turn out to be beneficial to the organism.

A mutation that occurs in body cells that are not passed along to subsequent generations is a somatic mutation. A mutation that occurs in a gamete or in a cell that gives rise to gametes are special because they impact the next generation and may not affect the adult at all. Such changes are called germ-line mutations because they occur in a cell used in reproduction (germ cell), giving the change a chance to become more numerous over time. If the mutation has a deleterious affect on the phenotype of the offspring, the mutation is referred to as a genetic disorder. Alternately, if the mutation has a positive affect on the fitness of the offspring, it is called an adaptation. Thus, all mutations that affect the fitness of future generations are agents of evolution.

Mutations are essential to evolution. Every genetic feature in every organism was, initially, the result of a mutation. The new genetic variant (allele) spreads via reproduction, and differential reproduction is a defining aspect of evolution. It is easy to understand how a mutation that allows an organism to feed, grow or reproduce more effectively could cause the mutant allele to become more abundant over time. Soon the population may be quite ecologically and/or physiologically different from the original population that lacked the adaptation. Even deleterious mutations can cause evolutionary change, especially in small populations, by removing individuals that might be carrying adaptive alleles at other genes.

Center for Invasive Species and Ecosystem Health Courtesy of David Cappaert, Michigan State University. All rights reserved.
info_icon.png


Most mutations occur at single points in a gene, changing perhaps a single protein, and thus could appear unimportant. For instance, genes control the structure and effectiveness of digestive enzymes in your (and all other vertebrate) salivary glands. At first glance, mutations to salivary enzymes might appear to have little potential for impacting survival. Yet it is precisely the accumulation of slight mutations to saliva that is responsible for snake venom and therefore much of snake evolution. Natural selection in some ancestral snakes has favored enzymes with increasingly more aggressive properties, but the mutations themselves have been random, creating different venoms in different groups of snakes. Snake venoms are actually a cocktail of different proteins with different effects, so genetically related species have a different mixture from other venomous snake families. The ancestors of sea snakes, coral snakes, and cobras (family Elapidae) evolved venom that attacks the nervous system while the venom of vipers (family Viperidae; including rattlesnakes and the bushmaster) acts upon the cardiovascular system. Both families have many different species that inherited a slight advantage in venom power from their ancestors, and as mutations accumulate the diversity of venoms and diversity of species increased over time.




Although the history of many species have been affected by the gradual accumulation of tiny point mutations, sometimes evolution works much more quickly. Several types of organisms have an ancestor that failed to undergo meiosis correctly prior to sexual reproduction, resulting in a total duplication of every chromosome pair. Such a process created an "instant speciation" event in the gray treefrog of North America (Figure 2).

The consequence of doubling the genome size in plants is often abnormally large seeds or fruits, a trait that can be of distinct advantage if you are a flowering plant! Most cereals that humans eat have enormous seeds compared to other grasses, and this is often due to the genomic duplications that occurred in the ancestors of modern rice and wheat and, because the mistake occurred in reproductive organs, was successfully passed on to future generations. Humans themselves have mimicked this process by interbreeding individual plants with the largest fruits and seeds in the process of artificial selection, creating many of our modern agricultural crop strains. The idea of evolution by natural selection, first described by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russell Wallace, requires differential survival due to some individuals having greater evolutionary fitness. Whether that fitness is affected by genetic disorders, venomous saliva or enlarged offspring, heritable variation can only arise by mutation. Evolution is simply not possible without random genetic change for its raw material.

More references to follow . . .
 
Last edited:

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
A great deal is known concerning the mutations that were involved in the evolution of the eye from simple light sensative cells to the complex eye. Yes there are disagreements, but not controversial. Disagreements are resolved over time by research and discoveries as in all sciences.

New Perspectives on Eye Development and the Evolution of Eyes and Photoreceptors

New Perspectives on Eye Development and the Evolution of Eyes and Photoreceptors
New Perspectives on Eye Development and the Evolution of Eyes and Photoreceptors
Published:

13 January 2005
  • Introduction
  • In the course of evolution several basically different eye types have been generated, like the camera-type eye, the compound eye, and the mirror eye (Figure 1). These eye types are different not only with respect to their morphology and physiology but also with respect to their mode of development. This has led to the dogma that eyes have evolved in all animal phyla 40 to 60 times independently (Salvini-Plawen and Mayr 1961). However, recent genetic experiments cast serious doubts on this notion and argue strongly in favor of a monophyletic origin of the various eye types followed by divergent, parallel, and convergent evolution. In his latest book, Ernst Mayr (2001) admits that his earlier notion may no longer be correct. In the following article I discuss the evidence arguing for a monophyletic origin of the eyes, and I shall follow the eye back to its origins from single-celled photoreceptors.
The Genetic Control of Eye Development
Mutations affecting eye development are easily detectable and the eyeless (ey) mutation in Drosophila was discovered as early as 1915 by Hoge. A similar mutation was found in mice and designated as Small eye because the heterozygous animals have reduced eyes, whereas the homozygous fetuses that die in utero lack not only the eyes but also the nose and a large part of the forebrain, including the pineal organ (Hill et al. 1991). A hereditary syndrome called aniridia causes a very similar phenotype in humans; reduced iris in heterozygous individuals, and two homozygous mutant aborted fetuses have been described that lacked eyes and nose completely and suffered brain damage. The Small eye and Aniridia genes were cloned by Walther and Gruss (1991) and Ton et al. (1991), respectively, and correspond to the highly conserved Pax6 gene. The Pax6 homolog of Drosophila was cloned by Quiring et al. (1994) and surprisingly turned out to correspond to the eyeless (ey) gene of Hoge. The fact that small eye, aniridia, and eyeless are mutations in homologous genes suggested to me that Pax6 might be a master control gene specifying eye development in both vertebrates and insects.

To test this hypothesis I decided to construct a Pax6 gain-of-function mutation to express Pax6 ectopically in an attempt to induce ectopic eye structures. It is relatively easy to abolish eye formation but more difficult to induce an eye ectopically. Two of my collaborators, Georg Halder and Patrick Callaerts, used the yeast transcription factor gal4 to drive eyeless cDNA into imaginal discs other than the eye disc (Figure 2). After several months of failure, they succeeded in inducing ectopic eye structures on the antennae, legs, and wings, which made the front page of the New York Times with an article titled “Scientists Out Do Hollywood.” Callaerts later showed by recording electroretinogrammes that some of the ectopic eyes on the antennae are fully functional."

Almost all the steps and the basic mutations for the evolution of the eye have been resolved and agreed to by scientists without controversy.
 
Last edited:

leroy

Well-Known Member
No random refers to the timing of the mutation happen. There is nothing in the nature of genetics that mutations are ;equally likely to occur. Yes there are benificial, neutral and detremental mutations. Benificial and neutral mutatins contribute to the positive genetic diversity and genetic drift that are the 'Raw materials for evolution. Harmful mutations lead to death of the individuals and do not contribute to the positive diversity of a population.

.
Well, I am the one who is making the claim, therefore I am the one who has to provide the definition of “random” and “non random” but feel free to call it any other way you want. Just let me know which word should I use…

It is a fact that what I call “non random” mutations occur, and it is a fact that at least some peer review sources conclude that probably* these mutations played an important role in evolution. As I have shown in previous references from previous comments.

Quite frankly it is pathetic that you are trying to refute my argument with semantics rather than dealing with the evidence that I provided.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
A great deal is known concerning the mutations that were involved in the evolution of the eye from simple light sensative cells to the complex eye. Yes there are disagreements, but not controversial. Disagreements are resolved over time by research and discoveries as in all sciences.

New Perspectives on Eye Development and the Evolution of Eyes and Photoreceptors

New Perspectives on Eye Development and the Evolution of Eyes and Photoreceptors
New Perspectives on Eye Development and the Evolution of Eyes and Photoreceptors
Published:

13 January 2005
  • Introduction
  • In the course of evolution several basically different eye types have been generated, like the camera-type eye, the compound eye, and the mirror eye (Figure 1). These eye types are different not only with respect to their morphology and physiology but also with respect to their mode of development. This has led to the dogma that eyes have evolved in all animal phyla 40 to 60 times independently (Salvini-Plawen and Mayr 1961). However, recent genetic experiments cast serious doubts on this notion and argue strongly in favor of a monophyletic origin of the various eye types followed by divergent, parallel, and convergent evolution. In his latest book, Ernst Mayr (2001) admits that his earlier notion may no longer be correct. In the following article I discuss the evidence arguing for a monophyletic origin of the eyes, and I shall follow the eye back to its origins from single-celled photoreceptors.
The Genetic Control of Eye Development
Mutations affecting eye development are easily detectable and the eyeless (ey) mutation in Drosophila was discovered as early as 1915 by Hoge. A similar mutation was found in mice and designated as Small eye because the heterozygous animals have reduced eyes, whereas the homozygous fetuses that die in utero lack not only the eyes but also the nose and a large part of the forebrain, including the pineal organ (Hill et al. 1991). A hereditary syndrome called aniridia causes a very similar phenotype in humans; reduced iris in heterozygous individuals, and two homozygous mutant aborted fetuses have been described that lacked eyes and nose completely and suffered brain damage. The Small eye and Aniridia genes were cloned by Walther and Gruss (1991) and Ton et al. (1991), respectively, and correspond to the highly conserved Pax6 gene. The Pax6 homolog of Drosophila was cloned by Quiring et al. (1994) and surprisingly turned out to correspond to the eyeless (ey) gene of Hoge. The fact that small eye, aniridia, and eyeless are mutations in homologous genes suggested to me that Pax6 might be a master control gene specifying eye development in both vertebrates and insects.

To test this hypothesis I decided to construct a Pax6 gain-of-function mutation to express Pax6 ectopically in an attempt to induce ectopic eye structures. It is relatively easy to abolish eye formation but more difficult to induce an eye ectopically. Two of my collaborators, Georg Halder and Patrick Callaerts, used the yeast transcription factor gal4 to drive eyeless cDNA into imaginal discs other than the eye disc (Figure 2). After several months of failure, they succeeded in inducing ectopic eye structures on the antennae, legs, and wings, which made the front page of the New York Times with an article titled “Scientists Out Do Hollywood.” Callaerts later showed by recording electroretinogrammes that some of the ectopic eyes on the antennae are fully functional."

Almost all the steps and the basic mutations for the evolution of the eye have been resolved and agreed to by scientists without controversy.
Sorry, but can you quote any sentence from the paper that is in disagreement with anything that I have said?.......
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Well, I am the one who is making the claim, therefore I am the one who has to provide the definition of “random” and “non random” but feel free to call it any other way you want. Just let me know which word should I use…

It is a fact that what I call “non random” mutations occur, and it is a fact that at least some peer review sources conclude that probably* these mutations played an important role in evolution. As I have shown in previous references from previous comments.

Quite frankly it is pathetic that you are trying to refute my argument with semantics rather than dealing with the evidence that I provided.

So what?!?!?!?!? It remains you have made false statements concerning evolution. I responded with references and you failed to respond.

Still waiting. . .
 
Top