Is Darwinism proven/accepted by official Science?

[TagliatelliMonster]

You just said that the environment can change the hot spots…………so which one is it?

Mutation X being more likely to occur due to environmental circumstances over mutation Y, doesn't imply in any way that X isn't random to fitness.

If a certain type of radiation makes X more likely, X can still be neutral, harmfull or beneficial.

It seems that you still don't understand what "random with respect to fitness" actually means.

Do you accept that at least some mutations are not random? Yes or no……

With RESPECT TO FITNESS. Not "random, full stop".

Implying that the environment determines (at some degree) the probability of a mutation-.

[/quote]

DOES NOT MEAN THAT THOSE MUTATIONS AREN'T RANDOM WITH RESPECT TO FITNESS

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Really? Explain to me with your own words what shun tried to say


That is just a random combination of words intended to avoid a direct answer……..

He's saying exactly what I'm saying and what you can't seem to comprehend.

He and I are saying that which specific types of mutation occurs can be influenced by environmental parameters.

AND that this doesn't mean that those mutations aren't random with respect to fitness.


If a certain type of radiation or mutagens make a certain mutation more likely... Then that is all it does. It doesn't mean that the mutation itself isn't random with respect to fitness.

It might have a positive outcome, a negative outcome or a neutral outcome.

A mutagen might rise the probability of specific mutation X to occur - or even trigger it every single time. And the phenotypical result of that mutation X might be beneficial in scenario A, it might be harmfull in scenario B and it might have no effect on fitness in scenario C.

You should really learn the difference between "random in terms of occurance" and "random in terms of fitness". These are not the same things.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

and if you have time @TagliatelliMonster can you expalin to me what shun meant?.

I didn't follow the exchange. But I'm guessing he's referring to the wording being used, implying some kind of hindsight teleological fallacy stuff ; implying intention and alike.

We all know you are a cdesign proponentsist. So naturally, we are all a bit on our guards when you use ambiguous wording.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I never said “anthropomorphic need” once again you made another dishonest stawman….so ill ask again ¿are you sure you are not a YEC? You seem to be using the same dishonest tactics that they tend to use…

What I did say is that at least some mutations (or some hereditable variations) are not random, in the sense that the mutation is more likely to occur if the organism would benefit from it. ……. So do you agree or not?

Again: the "random" part refers to the effect of the mutations on the fitness of the organism.

Every biologists I have ever seen talking about this stuff, is quite carefull to make that clear. It's random WITH RESPECT TO FITNESS. And thus not so much on which specific parts of the genome will mutate, nore on what type of mutations might be taking place.

While many of these are indeed random in that sense, it is also well known that certain conditions / circumstances can make some mutations more likely then others.

But that is dealing with the likelyness of specific mutations. NOT with their effect on fitness.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Really? Explain to me with your own words what shun tried to say


That is just a random combination of words intended to avoid a direct answer……..

I'll give an example from something closer to my expertise as a software engineer: genetic algorithms, which I've used in the past to some extent.

In a GA, one designs the structure of what we call a "chromosome". This is the genotypic description of the phenotypic system that we try to evolve. In a GA, it is the "chromosome" that will mutate. This "chromosome" is then translated into the phenotypic systems which is subjected to a fitness test.

To keep it simple, let's say that the structure of the chromosome is just a fixed string of 10 letters and numbers.
The mutation function, will be a randomized method, which will for example first randomize how many mutations will take place. We'll call that X. Next, it will take X random characters from the string. Next, it will take those characters and replace it by another random character.

This would be the equivalent of a fully randomized mutation process - both in terms of occurance AND in terms of fitness.

Now, we could introduce the equivalent of a strong "mutagen". In the randomized function, we could say that this mutagen will have a 50% chance of changing all characters with the value "A" into the value "B".

This obviously changes the probabilities of which specific mutations will occur, especially when it comes to the "genes" with value "A".

==> This change in probability of occurance has no impact at all on the probability in terms of fitness.

Only a fitness test will determine how this mutation affects fitness.
Changing A to B in position 1, might have a completely different effect as opposed to changing A to B in position 7.

It might destroy fitness, it might increase fitness, or it might have no effect whatsover.

See?


Random in terms of occurance versus random in terms of fitness.

They are NOT the same thing.

 

[leroy]

No one would argue that there is disagreement in the scientific community about most theories in science so the theory of evolution is no acceptation.

Yes I know, my comments where not meant to be controvertial, I expected everyone to agree, on that there are disagreements on how organisms evolve

So what is your real point

My real point was to answer to the OP....... Darwinism has not been proven....

(understanding Darwinism as the idea that organisms evolve mainly by a process of random variation and natural selection)

So would you agree on that Darwinism has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt?

Epigenetics does not cause permanent changes in the dna sequence.

But epigenetics changes "the traits" natural selection doest care if a new trait was caused by a mutation or by epigenetics, NS only cares if this new trait is beneficial or not.

 

[leroy]

Again: the "random" part refers to the effect of the mutations on the fitness of the organism.

Every biologists I have ever seen talking about this stuff, is quite carefull to make that clear. It's random WITH RESPECT TO FITNESS. And thus not so much on which specific parts of the genome will mutate, nore on what type of mutations might be taking place.

While many of these are indeed random in that sense, it is also well known that certain conditions / circumstances can make some mutations more likely then others.

.

Yes granted that is also what I mean with random "random with respect to fitness" @shunyadragon is the one who seems to dislike that definition.

But that is dealing with the likelyness of specific mutations. NOT with their effect on fitness

Well I have provided multiple sources suggesting that non random mutations (with respect to fitness) occurr and that they could have played a major role in evolution.

So if you disagree, you have to deal with the sources and explain why are the authors of the papers wrong.

 

[leroy]

Random in terms of occurance versus random in terms of fitness.

They are NOT the same thing.

Granted, since my very first comment, I made it clear that with random I mean "random with respect to fitness"


So given that you now know what I mean with random..... do you accept the fact that non random mutations occure?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes I know, my comments where not meant to be controvertial, I expected everyone to agree, on that there are disagreements on how organisms evolve

The reason people don't agree, is because you misrepresent the level of disagreement as well as the things on which there is disagreement.

There is disagreement on details, just like in all of science. There is however no mentionworthy disagreement on the big picture. There's consensus on the big picture.

My real point was to answer to the OP....... Darwinism has not been proven....

No scientific theory is "proven", nore will any scientific theory ever be "proven", because by very definition of what theories are - they can't be proven, only supported.

So you're just stating the obvious here.

 

[leroy]

Leroy said

Do you accept that at least some mutations are not random? Yes or no……

With RESPECT TO FITNESS. Not "random, full stop".

Well the good news is that we can all learn stuff in this kind of forums...

Some evidence for non random mutations
(Yes non random with respect to fitness)

These mutations are guided by both the physical properties of the genetic code and the need to preserve the critical function of proteins, the researchers said
Evolution is Not Random (At Least, Not Totally) | Live Science
.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes granted that is also what I mean with random "random with respect to fitness"

CLEARLY that is not the case, as you have demonstrated in this post
You are clearly conflating "random in terms of occurance" and "randomin terms of fitness".

@shunyadragon is the one who seems to dislike that definition.

He does not, as he stated quite clearly in this post

Do you even read the posts you reply to?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Granted, since my very first comment, I made it clear that with random I mean "random with respect to fitness"

No. As the linked post in my previouss post above clearly shows: you conflate the two. And you seem to do that on purpose to sow confusion, until you are called out on it and then you backtrack and pretend as if that is what you meant since the beginning.

Which clearly isn't the case.

I've received warnings in the past on this forum for calling someone dishonest liars. Even when it was clear beyond doubt that and that the very posts in question literally exposed them as such.

So I won't do that again.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Leroy said



Well the good news is that we can all learn stuff in this kind of forums...

Some evidence for non random mutations
(Yes non random with respect to fitness)

This is far too technical for me to comment on with confidence.

However... a quick read-through of this article

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.140172

It seems to me that this is dealing with randomness in occurance and not so much in terms of fitness.
Since it is driven by preservation processes which increase mutation rates of specific parts of (mitochondrial) DNA. (mitochondrial, because that is what they studied, as you can see in the link I provide, it is explicitly mentioned that this might be different in nuclear dna).

In other words, it is not driven by the environment and / or which mutations would be beneficial for future generations. These are internal DNA processes driven by preservation and repair mechanisms, not by what future beneficial traits are "anticipated".

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes granted that is also what I mean with random "random with respect to fitness" @shunyadragon is the one who seems to dislike that definition.

This is again is not a definition of randomness. but how randomness is used in context. and if they are "random with respect to fitness" the organisms do not determine mutations based on 'need.' Yes, metabolic processes fo influence the mutations that take place. The organic chemistry and metabolism of organism definitely have evolved in a way to most efficiently utilize mutations in evolution as the organism as a whole naturally, and also maintain the health of the organisms.

Well I have provided multiple sources suggesting that non random mutations (with respect to fitness) occurr and that they could have played a major role in evolution.

So if you disagree, you have to deal with the sources and explain why are the authors of the papers wrong.

Your multiple sources were selectively cited to justify your agenda.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

]
Your multiple sources were selectively cited to justify your agenda.

Not to mention that the articles posted do not say what he claims they say.

 

[leroy]

Your multiple sources were selectively cited to justify your agenda.

Genetic fallacy, even if I have an agenda that does nothing to refute the claims made by the authors in the articles.

It is a well-documented fact that nonrandom mutations (with respect to fitness) occur, the only reason you won’t accept this fact is because you are unable to admit that you were wrong, and that you learned something new because of me.

 

[leroy]

This is again is not a definition of randomness. but how randomness is used in context. and if they are "random with respect to fitness" the organisms do not determine mutations based on 'need.' Yes, metabolic processes fo influence the mutations that take place. The organic chemistry and metabolism of organism definitely have evolved in a way to most efficiently utilize mutations in evolution as the organism as a whole naturally, and also maintain the health of the organisms.
.

Again a random and meaningless combination of words, where you didn’t answer my question…but rather you are keeping your answer vague and ambiguous so that you can deny your words in the future.

I will ask you once again directly, do you accept that at least some mutations are nonrandom with respect to fitness? (an organism is more likely to get the mutation if he would benefit from it) yes or no

 

[leroy]

Not to mention that the articles posted do not say what he claims they say.

Then justify your assertions, quote any of my comments and explain why are the sources saying anything different from what I said.

Or you can just quote any of my comments and show that its wrong………… ***MOD EDIT***

 

[leroy]

This is far too technical for me to comment on with confidence.

However... a quick read-through of this article

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.140172

It seems to me that this is dealing with randomness in occurance and not so much in terms of fitness.
Since it is driven by preservation processes which increase mutation rates of specific parts of (mitochondrial) DNA. (mitochondrial, because that is what they studied, as you can see in the link I provide, it is explicitly mentioned that this might be different in nuclear dna).

In other words, it is not driven by the environment and / or which mutations would be beneficial for future generations. These are internal DNA processes driven by preservation and repair mechanisms, not by what future beneficial traits are "anticipated".

Yes nonrandom (at occurrence) mutations also happen

The question is do accept the fact that nonrandom mutations (with respect to fitness) occure.

Not to mention that the article does support non random mutations with respect to fitness…..”sites where mutations are likely to be positive are mutating at a higher rate than other sites.

 

[leroy]

This is far too technical for me to comment on with confidence.

The under what basis do you affirm that I am wrong?......why cant you say “I don’t know if Leroy is wrong, because the information is too technical ?”