Is Darwinism proven/accepted by official Science?

[shunyadragon]

Your challenge is not to show sources that critique Shapiro, your challenge is to find any peer reviewed source that disagrees with anything that I have said in this thread.

Please try to do it in this order:

1 quote my specific comment (do not try to quote from memory , please find trhe actual comment made by me)

2 quote the exact sentence or paragraph from your source

3 explain why you think the source disagrees with me.

I already cited two good sources that disagree with Shapiro and you concerning Shapiro, view of natural genetic engineering ' You have not responded to my previous posts. Why should I cite more.

 

[leroy]

Your challenge is not to show sources that critique Shapiro, your challenge is to find any peer reviewed source that disagrees with anything that I have said in this thread.

Please try to do it in this order:

1 quote my specific comment (do not try to quote from memory , please find trhe actual comment made by me)

2 quote the exact sentence or paragraph from your source

3 explain why you think the source disagrees with me.

for example @shunyadragon

you said this:

shunyadragon said: ↑
One point we do disagree on is that the 'needs' of organisms cause mutation.

implying that the need of the organism do not cause the mutation

This source says this:

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 - PubMed

(more papers with similar conclutiosn in post 335)
Implying that at least sometimes mutations are not random, but rather cause by the needs of the organism



So if I am capable of spotting your specific comment, and the specific sentences form sources that disagree with you, then why can’t you do the same with my comments? …… can it be that maybe (just maybe) every single comment of mine is consistent with what scientists say?

 

[shunyadragon]

Except for the “protein thing” all the objections seem to be semantic objections , at worst one could argue that Shapiro didn’t used the most appropriate terms………..

But you are forgetting the most important thing……………..nobody is claiming that the Shapiro is correct beyond reasonable doubt, of course there are disagreements, that is and has always been my point, up to this point genetics is too complex and no scientists (except for yourself) claims to know beyond reasonable doubt the details and mechanisms on how organisms evolve. …the whole point that I am making in this thread is that there is disagreement on how organisms evolve, specifically on the role of non random mutations.

NO, they are clear and specific objections to Shapiro's anthropomorphic descriptions of his conclussions. Since you cannot respond correctly why should I cite ten or more scientific referesnces that say the same thing????

 

[shunyadragon]

for example @shunyadragon

you said this:
implying that the need of the organism do not cause the mutation

This source says this:
(more papers with similar conclutiosn in post 335)
Implying that at least sometimes mutations are not random, but rather cause by the needs of the organism



So if I am capable of spotting your specific comment, and the specific sentences form sources that disagree with you, then why can’t you do the same with my comments? …… can it be that maybe (just maybe) every single comment of mine is consistent with what scientists say?

So what???? As usual too selctive to be unbiased.

All this is true, but again, again . . .and again these sources disagree with Shairo's anthropomorphic discriptions of his conclusions. Most do not disagree with there being 'some' non-random mutations and that ALL processes of evolution are non-random. What all the sources reject, and is the anthropomorphic natural of Shapiro's conclusions. This a very minority view in the sciences of evolution.

The fallacy of 'Cherry Picking' rules your hose of an Intelligent Design agenda.

 

[leroy]

I already cited too good sources that disagree with Shapiro and you concerning Shapiro, view of natural genetic engineering ' You have not responded to my previous posts. Why should I cite more.

No, no , no

Quote any of my comments and then quote the specific sentences form your sources that disagree with me.


QUOTE="shunyadragon, post: 6781650, member: 61872"]I already cited too good sources that disagree with Shapiro and you concerning Shapiro, view of natural genetic engineering ' You have not responded to my previous posts. Why should I cite more.[/QUOTE]
Because you are basing your response on a straw man, sure many scientists disagree with Shapiro, but so what, I am not arguing that Shapiro is correct in everything , I simply quoted Shapiro among many others as an example of a scientist that proposes an alternative to Darwinism.

That is why you should quote a source that contradicts any comment of mine , your challenge is to show that scientists disagree with any of my comments, do you accept this challenge?

 

[leroy]

Most do not disagree with there being 'some' non-random mutations and that ALL processes of evolution are non-random. .

Most? Does that include you? yes or no?

Do you accept the fact that non random mutations occur?

Do you grant the possibility that maybe (just maybe) non random mutations played a major role?

*Random in this context means: arising irrespective of potential need

 

[shunyadragon]

No, no , no

YES, YES, and YES!

 

[shunyadragon]

Most? Does that include you? yes or no?

Most including me, roughly 97%

Do you accept the fact that non random mutations occur?

Yes, always have.

Do you grant the possibility that maybe (just maybe) non random mutations played a major role?

*Random in this context means: arising irrespective of potential need

No, the timing of all mutation is random.

Separate context. Mutations arise irrespective of potential need. .

 

[shunyadragon]

Your challenge is not to show sources that critique Shapiro, your challenge is to find any peer reviewed source that disagrees with anything that I have said in this thread. Did both. I can cite many more.

Please try to do it in this order: Put on your glasses and your ditionary and do the reading yourself.

 

[leroy]

Most including me, roughly 97%



Yes, always have.

Do you grant the possibility that maybe (just maybe) non random mutations played a major role?



No, the timing of all mutation is random

Separate context. Mutations arise irrespective of potential need. .

Clarify your position, you are contradicting yourself.

Based on the definition of random that I provided, do you accept the fact that non random mutations occure? Yes or no? (Random in this context means: arising irrespective of potential need)

Mutations arise irrespective of potential need

Well then deal with the sources and evidence that suggest otherwise.

 

[shunyadragon]

Clarify your position, you are contradicting yourself.

No I have not

Based on the definition of random that I provided, do you accept the fact that non random mutations occure? Yes or no? (Random in this context means: arising irrespective of potential need)

First, this is NOT the definition of random, and never accepted it. .

Randomness - Wikipedia

In the common parlance, randomness is the apparent lack of pattern or predictability in events.[1][2] A random sequence of events, symbols or steps often has no order and does not follow an intelligible pattern or combination. Individual random events are by definition unpredictable, but since they often follow a probability distribution, the frequency of different outcomes over numerous events (or "trials") is predictable.[3] For example, when throwing two dice, the outcome of any particular roll is unpredictable, but a sum of 7 will occur twice as often as 4. In this view, randomness is a measure of uncertainty of an outcome, rather than its haphazardness, and applies to concepts of chance, probability, and information entropy.

According to Ramsey theory, ideal randomness is impossible especially for large structures. For example, professor Theodore Motzkin pointed out that "while disorder is more probable in general, complete disorder is impossible".[4] Misunderstanding of this can lead to numerous conspiracy theories.[5]

The fields of mathematics, probability, and statistics use formal definitions of randomness. In statistics, a random variable is an assignment of a numerical value to each possible outcome of an event space. This association facilitates the identification and the calculation of probabilities of the events. Random variables can appear in random sequences. A random process is a sequence of random variables whose outcomes do not follow a deterministic pattern, but follow an evolution described by probability distributions. These and other constructs are extremely useful in probability theory and the various applications of randomness.

Randomness is most often used in statistics to signify well-defined statistical properties. Monte Carlo methods, which rely on random input (such as from random number generators or pseudorandom number generators), are important techniques in science, particularly in the field of computational science.[6] By analogy, quasi-Monte Carlo methods use quasi-random number generators.

It is true that mutations do 'arise irrespective of potential need'

Non-random is the reverse of random.
Non-random is that the occurance of and outcome of an event or series of events may be predicable consisten and defined by a cause.



In Genetics a bit technical

Real-Time Definition of Non-Randomness in the Distribution of Genomic Event

Ulrich Abel, Annette Deichmann, Cynthia Bartholomae, Kerstin Schwarzwaelder, Hanno Glimm, Steven Howe, Adrian Thrasher, Alexandrine Garrigue, Salima Hacein-Bey-Abina, Marina Cavazzana-Calvo, Alain Fischer, Dirk Jaeger, Christof von Kalle.

Features such as mutations or structural characteristics can be non-randomly or non-uniformly distributed within a genome. So far, computer simulations were required for statistical inferences on the distribution of sequence motifs. Here, we show that these analyses are possible using an analytical, mathematical approach. For the assessment of non-randomness, our calculations only require information including genome size, number of (sampled) sequence motifs and distance parameters. We have developed computer programs evaluating our analytical formulas for the real-time determination of expected values and p-values. This approach permits a flexible cluster definition that can be applied to most effectively identify non-random or non-uniform sequence motif distribution. As an example, we show the effectivity and reliability of our mathematical approach in clinical retroviral vector integration site distribution.

Well then deal with the sources and evidence that suggest otherwise.

Otherwise what?

I gave suggested readings and references so far you have failed to respond.

 

[shunyadragon]

for example @shunyadragon

you said this:
implying that the need of the organism do not cause the mutation

This source says this:
(more papers with similar conclutiosn in post 335)
Implying that at least sometimes mutations are not random, but rather cause by the needs of the organism

You say imply, but no this reference does not describe that the 'need' of the organism causes the mutation. As a number of sources show that metabolic processes may cause mutations, but not based on 'need.'

This does not say that the mutation is random or non-random. Mutations have causes but the event of the mutation is random and not predicable. Only the cause is predictable. In pretty much all the different types of mutations the cause is predictable, but the event of the mutation is not predctable as defined..

 

[leroy]

First, this is NOT the definition of random, and never accepted it. .

That definition of random comes from your own source

Jim Shapiro has made a well-documented case against the sufficiency of random mutations (arising irrespective of potential need)

So based on that definition, do you accept that some mutations are non random? Yes or no?

I gave suggested readings and references so far you have failed to respond.

Because there is nothing in your sources that contradict any of my claims in this thread

Feel free to quote any of my Comments and explain how is it in Contradiction with any of your readings

 

[shunyadragon]

That definition of random comes from your own source

It is not the definition.

So based on that definition, do you accept that some mutations are non random? Yes or no?

That is NOT the definition of random and non-random it is how it was used.

 

[leroy]

It is not the definition.

Again

1I am using the definition from Your own source

2 this definition is probably the most common definition used by scientists in the context of genetics

3 even if the definition is incorrect you still know what I mean


So....

Do you accept that non random mutations (as I defined random) occur? Yes or no?

 

[shunyadragon]

<snip>

Not the definition of random from my source. It is how random was used.

 

[Bear Wild]

Again

1I am using the definition from Your own source

2 this definition is probably the most common definition used by scientists in the context of genetics

3 even if the definition is incorrect you still know what I mean


So....

Do you accept that non random mutations (as I defined random) occur? Yes or no?

Mutations of the genetic code are random and none are directed by some design to make intentional changes. That has never been a question in evolution. Natural selection is not just random but influenced by behavior and environment. There are genetic mechanisms that are not random also. You are confusing human genetic engineering in which there are intentional changes in the genetic code for a specific purpose. That is not what is happening in nature. There is no evidence of some outside force (supernatural or other) that is directing mutations. You cannot show any evidence to support any intentional manipulation of the genetic code for a specific direction.

So what is your point to all of this. You are driving a point about random but applying it to the wrong concept now. Why do you want to confuse the issue? Epigenetics is not about mutations it is about control of the expression of the genetic material and does not represent permanent changes in the DNA structure.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Random in this context simply means that mutations are equally likely to occur

No, that is not at all what "random" means in this context.
In this context, "random" means only random with respect to fitness. There's no implication that mutations are "equally likely" to occur.

Surely certain types of mutations are more likely then others. Surely environmental conditions can shift those hotspots as well.

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.

There is no such controversy or open question in mainstream science.

 

[leroy]

Not the definition of random from my source. It is how random was used.

Again I am quoting from your source

Jim Shapiro has made a well-documented case against the sufficiency of random mutations (arising irrespective of potential need)

So based on that definition, do you accept the fact that non random mutations occur?

 

[leroy]

There is no evidence of some outside force (supernatural or other) that is directing mutations. You cannot show any evidence to support any intentional manipulation of the genetic code for a specific direction.

Which is OK, because no one in this thread is arguing for "intentional manipulation"

So what is your point to all of this

.

My point is that there is disagreement in the scientific community on some details related to evolution, including "how organisms evolve" and specifically on the role of non random mutations

Epigenetics is not about mutations it is about control of the expression of the genetic material and does not represent permanent changes in the DNA structure.

Sure, but the traits of an organism can change due to epigenetics,

These traits are hereditable

Epigenetics could have played an important role in explaining the complexity and diversity of life

Any disagreement from your part?