Is Darwinism proven/accepted by official Science?

[Bear Wild]

So, it is the old idea: monkeys gave birth to us, but not through the Darwinism.

Your video make no sense at all. You do realize that was fake correct? Monkeys did not give birth to us. This idea has no support in science. The theory of evolution has gone far beyond the original proposal of Darwin and continually expanding. You need to become familiar with current ideas instead of restating old ones.

 

[Bear Wild]

The other day my dog was looking into my eyes as thought he thought I was God. A simple thing yet incredibly profound.

I thought it would be interesting thing to work backwards from a dog staring intently into their owners eyes to the big bang and imagine what mutations would have had to occur to make that possible. And that is just one little thing. How about one single cell in your body producing in .005 second what it would take the fastest computer in the world 30,000 years to do the same calculations.

It's mind numbing to think of how many beneficial mutations (by far, most are not beneficial) would have had to occur to go from the big bang to where we are today. I don't care how many years we have, I think it naive to think we could have had that many beneficial mutations. Talk about taking something by faith!

So you see yourself as god?
It is naïve to think that it could not happen. You have no understanding of the time frame we are talking about and the number of organisms involved. You are bound by your limited understanding of you own life span and self importance. We you leave that behind it is all clear. No faith needed only an open mind to see.

 

[Bear Wild]

I just gave you 3 non-religious alternatives to Darwinism…………neutralism, epigenetics, natural genetic engineering.
Each of these alternatives have a place in the PR literature, and are testable and falsifiable,

Epigenetics is only a continuing extension to the theory of evolution initiated by Darwin. It is completely compatible with the ideas he initiated but he did not have the understanding of genetics we have today. Natural genetic engineering as proposed by James Shapiro is describing again more complex ways that the genetic code can be modified. This like epigenetics has nothing to do with Darwin. The science of genetics involving the DNA structure and its modification was not present at the time that Darwin proposed his view of evolution and it is pointless to bring up these topics in comparison to Darwin. Its like asking why didn't Newton use quantum mechanics or relativity to explain his ideas. To debate about evolution needs to be a debate on current theory and just respect how impressive it was to come up with the theory of evolution without the knowledge of genetics.

 

[Bear Wild]

The Natural Theology has studied the Christian God, and has proven His existence, for example in "Five ways of Thomas Aquinas". Then it would have studied the Creation (it means, the Universe, nature) as well, but came the Science and won: "God is dead" (F. Nietzsche). "And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations." Revelation 13:7. But if the Pythagore was theist, then he has prayed before proving the Pythagorean theorem. Thus, this theorem is the product not of Science, but of Natural Theology.

No natural theology has not proven god of any kind. It is only arguments to justify their belief and is not actual proof.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Things we cannot test for aren't necessarily non-existent.
Rather, we just can't claim they exist.

I agree, I figured someone might catch my wording. I should have said, “makes it non-existent to some in their POV.”

You call yourself an atheist (a very nice one, BTW). If you would answer me honestly, has evolutionary theory had some bearing in helping you to reach that conclusion?

 

[questfortruth]

I should have said, “makes it non-existent to some in their POV.”

Such POV is ignorance.

you saw angels... I can't, in any way, corroborate this. YOU are the one who has to convince me. And it is going to take A LOT more than you stating "I'm not sick." I don't care if you're not sick.

You don't care if I am well or sick? You do not love me at all. See the video "love runs out". No wondering: God is Love, and Spirit of Love is God (in my Religion), but you deny God.

Atheist do not hate God{s), because they believe they do not exist.

Do not trust everything, what people say. The people can lie even to their own consciousness.
I argue, that atheists hate God so much, that they deny hatred to God together with God.

What is the mechanism for "natural genetic engineering"?

Effect placebo.

Monkeys did not give birth to us.

The monkey has given birth to something named Limbo. With the many milliard years the Limbo has become Darwinists. Thus, connecting the dots, one can be sure: Darwinists were born by monkey.

So you see yourself as god?

If there is no God in Heaven, then there are gods on Earth. Thus, Atheism is Antropo-theism (individual people are gods) or the pan-theism (the stones are gods).

No natural theology has not proven god of any kind. It is only arguments to justify their belief and is not actual proof.

It is my justified word against yours. You have not justified your claim. You have the fallacy of wishful thinking. Why you wanna God of Love and Justice to be dead or to be non-existent like satan? Maybe you hate God?

 

[leroy]

Epigenetics is only a continuing extension to the theory of evolution initiated by Darwin. It is completely compatible with the ideas he initiated but he did not have the understanding of genetics we have today. Natural genetic engineering as proposed by James Shapiro is describing again more complex ways that the genetic code can be modified. This like epigenetics has nothing to do with Darwin. The science of genetics involving the DNA structure and its modification was not present at the time that Darwin proposed his view of evolution and it is pointless to bring up these topics in comparison to Darwin. Its like asking why didn't Newton use quantum mechanics or relativity to explain his ideas. To debate about evolution needs to be a debate on current theory and just respect how impressive it was to come up with the theory of evolution without the knowledge of genetics.

Natural Genetic Engineering and epigenetics sound more like Lamarkism rather than Darwinism.

The core of Darwin's idea was "random variation" (random with respect to the organisms needs) while these mechanisms are non random, so if any of these mechanisms happens to be the main contributor to evolution Darwin would be wrong

 

[shunyadragon]

Natural Genetic Engineering and epigenetics sound more like Lamarkism rather than Darwinism.

The core of Darwin's idea was "random variation" (random with respect to the organisms needs) while these mechanisms are non random, so if any of these mechanisms happens to be the main contributor to evolution Darwin would be wrong

Natural genetics has nothing to do with engineering. Genetic engineering is a human discipline to enegineer genetics for scientific and commercial purposes.

Terribly confusing. (1) Natural processes and mechanisms are not random by definition. (2) The only thing that is random in the cause and effect events are outcomes 'within a very limited range of possible outcomes' limited by Natural Laws, and natural processes. (3) Darwin's idea was that evolution took place by natural selection of traits. Natural selection as proposed by Darwin is a determing process determined by the interaction of the environment and the survival of the species, and not random. At the time Darwin did not know about the DNA/RNA genetics, nor genetic mutations. (4) Contemporay evolution is not Darwinism.

Again science does not prove anything, and the science of evolution and abiogenesis is accepted by over 95% of all the scientists, and almost universally supported by those in the disciplines related to evolution and abiogenesis.

 

[Revoltingest]

I agree, I figured someone might catch my wording. I should have said, “makes it non-existent to some in their POV.”

You call yourself an atheist (a very nice one, BTW). If you would answer me honestly, has evolutionary theory had some bearing in helping you to reach that conclusion?

No, it was something pointed out by a friend
(fellow atheist) some many many decades ago.

 

[Revoltingest]

Effect placebo.

I don't know what that means.
Can you describe the prediction & experiment to test it?

 

[shunyadragon]

Do not trust everything, what people say. The people can lie even to their own consciousness.

I argue, that atheists hate God so much, that they deny hatred to God together with God.

You may believe that, but it is illogical, and dishonest that you can determine what other people think.

I accept that you believe in God, and atheists do not believe in God(s) and there is absolutely no evidence anyone is lying. Atheist give specific reasons they do not believe in God, and I have no reason to not believe in them.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

You don't care if I am well or sick? You do not love me at all. See the video "love runs out". No wondering: God is Love, and Spirit of Love is God (in my Religion), but you deny God.

So instead of addressing the FACT I raised that you have no worthwhile evidence for your claims, you instead attempt to put a dent in others' perception of my character. Way to go, champ - you've just furthered my stereotype of theists so often doing little more than dodging the point. Typical... just typical. What a waste.

I also have a feeling you know what I meant when I said "I don't care if you aren't sick." That was me stating that THAT as a point for why I should believe your claim about "seeing angels" is something that isn't going to work on me. The fact that you are not sick does NOTHING to convince me that you saw angels. Nothing. THAT is what I was getting at. I am extremely happy for you that you are not sick. I, personally, despise being sick, and so I understand that not being sick is awesome.

Now why not stop dancing around, making all sorts of unrelated points and claims, and just address even ONE of the points that are presented to you. Hmm?

 

[leroy]

Natural genetics has nothing to do with engineering. Genetic engineering is a human discipline to enegineer genetics for scientific and commercial purposes.

I am talking about natural genetic engineering as explained by James Shapiro……. (nothing to do with human intervention,)

Terribly confusing. (1) Natural processes and mechanisms are not random by definition

.

Darwin proposed random variation (random with respect to the selective benefits that the variation might have)

(2) The only thing that is random in the cause and effect events are outcomes 'within a very limited range of possible outcomes' limited by Natural Laws, and natural processes

Ok granted for the sake of this conversation



.

(3) Darwin's idea was that evolution took place by natural selection of traits. Natural selection as proposed by Darwin is a determing process determined by the interaction of the environment and the survival of the species, and not random. At the time Darwin did not know about the DNA/RNA genetics, nor genetic mutations.

Yes, but the key point is that Darwin proposed that the traits appeared randomly (random with respect to the selective benefits) an organism that “needs” a trait useful for “cold resistance” is not more likely to occur just because the organism needs it (this is what Darwin said, and this is what is being disputed by modern scientists)

Contemporay evolution is not Darwinism.

Contemporary evolution is “we don’t know” scientist don’t know how things evolve……some say “random variation + natural selection, some say non random variation + natural selection some say random variation + genetic drift etc.

Again science does not prove anything, and the science of evolution and abiogenesis is accepted by over 95% of all the scientists, and almost universally supported by those in the disciplines related to evolution and abiogenesis.

It depends on how you define evolution and abiogenesis..............

 

[questfortruth]

You may believe that, but it is illogical, and dishonest that you can determine what other people think.

I accept that you believe in God, and atheists do not believe in God(s) and there is absolutely no evidence anyone is lying. Atheist give specific reasons they do not believe in God, and I have no reason to not believe in them.

Nobody is a liar, even Hitler or satan? One can lie to himself. Thus, a human will never notice, that he is dishonest.

 

[shunyadragon]

Nobody is a liar, even Hitler or satan? One can lie to himself. Thus, a human will never notice, that he is dishonest.

Than it is possible that you lie to yourself and in reality you do not believe God exists?

 

[rrobs]

So you see yourself as god?
It is naïve to think that it could not happen. You have no understanding of the time frame we are talking about and the number of organisms involved. You are bound by your limited understanding of you own life span and self importance. We you leave that behind it is all clear. No faith needed only an open mind to see.

So your mind may be open to the scriptures? Excellent! An open mind is good.

I once thought exactly like you but then my mind was opened and I saw the perfection of the scriptures vs the less than perfection of science. Don't get me wrong, science is fine. It's just not as fine as God. I've seen it from both sides.

BTW, what made you think I see myself as God? And from that one little post you know the extent of my understanding? That's pretty good. And from that one little post you know all about my feelings of importance? That's pretty good also. And to think you know how many organisms and the time frame I think are involved. Amazing, but I'm going to guess you bypassed the scientific method in order to come to that conclusion, since you did so with incredibly thin observation and evidence.

As a side note, do you happen to know why some elementary particles joined and became quarks while others become leptons? Something I've been studying, so I'd appreciate any input you may have.

Take care

 

[questfortruth]

Than it is possible that you lie to yourself and in reality you do not believe God exists?

There is Presumption of Innocence. I am not naming names, I speak in general.

 

[leroy]

Maybe you hate God?

I don’t think atheist “hate God” it seems to me that atheist think (perhaps unconsciously) that smart people are atheist and theism is for stupid ignorant people………..and since they consider themselves “smart” they feel that they have to go to the atheist side.


Perhaps we should blame TV shows for that, atheist characters are almost always smart.

 

[questfortruth]

I don’t think atheist “hate God”

By killing God's people in USSR (cf., Stalin) the atheists loved God? "Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters." Matt.12:10.

 

[Onoma]

The journals are enterprise for producing truth out of incoming manuscripts.
Darwinism is accepted by all top journals.
Thus, Darwinism is Scientifically proven.

That's as far as I got

There's no such thing as " scientific proof "