Is Darwinism proven/accepted by official Science?

[leroy]

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.

Then justify your assertion and quote any comment of mine where I used “Random” with an other definition such to create confusion. Justify your accusations

 

[leroy]

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".

***MOD EDIT*** quote my exact words and spot exactly where I used the term randomly meaning something different from “random with respect to fitness”

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

Do you even read the posts you reply to?

That post explicitly shows how shun disagrees with that use of the word random

--------------------
But I can make things easy for you

Unless I clarify otherwise, in this thread every time I use the terms nonrandom and random, I mean it with respect to fitness. Is that ok with you?

 

[shunyadragon]

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

You have resorted to failing to respond 'with meaningless combinations of words and agenda driven selective dishonest citations to justify and agenda

Nothing more.

 

[shunyadragon]

Then justify your assertion and quote any comment of mine where I used “Random” with an other definition such to create confusion. Justify your accusations

The definition referenced is the definition of 'random.'

 

[leroy]

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.

There is disagreement on the mechanisms that caused evolution, specifically on the role of nonrandom mutations.

Agree?

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.

More semantic games with “proven” I mean “scientist know beyond reasonable doubt”…….

What I meant is that the statement “organisms evolve mainly through a process of random mutations and natural selection” is controversial, it is not an established fact that can be aserted beyond reasonable doubt

But rather that there is disagreement and scientists are currently discussing alternative mechanism where nobody claims to have the definitive answer.

Do you disagree with anything in orange letters?

 

[shunyadragon]

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

Your dishonist selective citation of thae articels has been refuted.

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.

Your dishonist selective citation of thae articels has been refuted.

 

[shunyadragon]

There is disagreement on the mechanisms that caused evolution, specifically on the role of nonrandom mutations.

Agree?

Not by 97%+ of the scientists in the fields involved with evolution.

More semantic games with “proven” I mean “scientist know beyond reasonable doubt”…….

What I meant is that the statement “organisms evolve mainly through a process of random mutations and natural selection” is controversial, it is not an established fact that can be aserted beyond reasonable doubt

But rather that there is disagreement and scientists are currently discussing alternative mechanism where nobody claims to have the definitive answer.

Do you disagree with anything in orange letters?

Mutations are not a process nor mechanism of natural selection. They are simply the 'raw materials' for the non-random processes and mechanisms of evolution

 

[leroy]

You have resorted to failing to respond 'with meaningless combinations of words and agenda driven selective dishonest citations to justify and agenda

Nothing more.

Another pathetic excuse to avoid a direct answer.

But that is understandable, if you deny nonrandom mutations you know that I could prove you wrong with dozens of different peer reviewed articles that establish the existence of such mutations.

If you accept the existence of nonrandom mutations, you will have to admit that some of your previous comments where wrong, and that I was correct since my first post, which is unacceptable for someone as arrogant like you.

So obviously form your perspective it is better to play semantic games, avoid direct answers, change the topic, lie, and quote irrelevant articles just to look smart

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 by 97%+ of the scientists in the fields involved with evolution.





Mutations are not a process nor mechanism of natural selection. They are simply the 'raw materials' for the non-random processes and mechanisms of evolution

ok, besides my alleged incorrect use of the word “process”(more semantic games) do you disagree with anything else in orange letters?

the statement “organisms evolve mainly through random mutations and natural selection” is controversial, it is not an established fact that can be aserted beyond reasonable doubt

But rather there is disagreement and scientists are currently discussing alternative mechanism where nobody claims to have the definitive answer.

For your benefit I removed the Word “process” because it seems to bother you too much

 

[leroy]

Not by 97%+ of the scientists in the fields involved with evolution.

Source? Proof that 97%+ scientist affirm with confidence that nonrandom mutations (with respect to fitness) didn’t play a major role……….(make sure to read your sources before posting them)

 

[leroy]

Your dishonist selective citation of thae articels has been refuted.
.

Perhaps the moderators removed your refutation, because I can’t find it anywhere in this thread….

 

[shunyadragon]

Perhaps the moderators removed your refutation, because I can’t find it anywhere in this thread….

Refutations throughout this thread you choose to ignore. Moderators removed nothing.

 

[shunyadragon]

Source? Proof that 97%+ scientist affirm with confidence that nonrandom mutations (with respect to fitness) didn’t play a major role……….(make sure to read your sources before posting them)

Been there done that. There is no thing as 'proof.'

 

[leroy]

Been there done that. There is no thing as 'proof.'

Been there done that. There is no thing as 'proof.'

***MOD EDIT*** more semantic games, take my advise, join the YEC or the flat earth community, you will find things in common with them

 

[leroy]

Refutations throughout this thread you choose to ignore. Moderators removed nothing.

Well then perhaps your refutation is hidden on the deep web, otherwise you woudlnt have any problema in quoting it……..

Specifically quote my specific comment and then quote your refutation for that specific comment

 

[shunyadragon]

Well then perhaps your refutation is hidden on the deep web, otherwise you woudlnt have any problema in quoting it……..

Specifically quote my specific comment and then quote your refutation for that specific comment

Nope! is clearly documented in my references you fail to resd.

 

[shunyadragon]

More lies and more semantic games, take my advise, join the YEC or the flat earth community, you will find things in common with them

een there done that. There is no thing as 'proof.'

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Then justify your assertions

Already did. See post 513

………… but we both know that you are not going to do it because you are just a 13yo troll

Good comeback.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

As I said, it's over my head in technicalities. I'm not a geneticist. Maybe an actual geneticist can weigh in here.

I can only tell you that the more detailed paper I linked
1. speaks about past postive selections (as in: after the fact)
and
2. says that the same processes of increased mutation rates in "hotspots" happen just as well at neutral sites.

Together, that tells me that it's random with respect to fitness.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The under what basis do you affirm that I am wrong?

First, I did not "affirm". If you read carefully you'll see that I started my paragraphe with "it seems to me".

......why cant you say “I don’t know if Leroy is wrong, because the information is too technical ?”

Because you and I are in the same boat. You aren't a geneticist either. Neither of us is in a position to properly review such papers and confirm them or point out mistakes.

The main difference between us though, is that you have additional "intelligent design" beliefs and it would be convenient for you to find anything that you can use to support that.

I have no such ulterior motives. I'm happy following the lead of scientific consensus.