Hi, Darwin postulated that species arise from a natural struggle to survive. His theories are now mainstream biology and with DNA evidence to back it up.

Mainly, there are 2 pillars of evolutionary theory:

(1) Descent with modification and (2) Natural selection.

DNA mutations happen all the time. It is natural. Children are always different than their parents. Sometimes by gene shuffling, sometimes by random mutations. Hence (1) descent with modification.

Natural selection (2) determines which mutations are beneficial for survival and which ones are not.

As an example look at animals living in dark caves. Many do not have eyes. Why? 

Eyes are not beneficial for the survival for these animals living in total blackness. Eyesight takes a lot of energy. Mutations (1) resulted in animals that had reduced eyes but were able to survive better than their eyed progenitors. (2) natural selection.

If you look at all the animal species on earth, you will find that the most exotic and unusual animals are found on isolated islands, isolated mountaintops, isolated caves, etc. Evolutionary theory is the only logical way to explain how this could happen.

Wow! Many new information I just learned from you. Thank you very much sir.

Science always ask proof, evidence, reproducibility. Is evolution reproducible, scientifically proved? Or, it's a theory to explain present day living organisms?

For example, if we hypothesize that living on dark caves mutated their eyes, then if we provide them appropriate environment with light, their eye will regenerate, isn't it? Or, if we put other land animals in dark, they will lost their eyes. Is there anything like that?

Thank you very much sir again.

"if we hypothesize that living on dark caves mutated their eyes, then if we provide them appropriate environment with light, their eye will regenerate" - wait 500 million years to find out!

There have been experiments with Drosophila kept in the dark for 1400 generations - and they are now more fit n the dark than other Drosophila (i.e. they produce more offspring in the dark than regular Drosophila do in the dark) - so they show some level of adaptation. But they haven't lost eyes completely for example.

Domestication is a good place to look at how humans can rapidly (few '000 years) alter a species.

Thanks. Most of the time I found someone explain Darwinism, they just talk about adaptation. Thank you for clarifying that.

We don't have evidence for Darwinism, still its theory? But how scientist accepted it without any clear evidence of change of kinds!!

I saw many people who were normal, later on due to accident some lost eyes, some lost hand, some feet. After that, first few months or years it was very difficult for them to move, but later on they somehow adapted with it. Its not evolution, changing of kinds as Darwin says from Ape to human, fish to crocodile and so on...

So, its not fact. Its faith. Scientist do believe that something like that could be happen millions of years ago?

yes evolution has been proven, your analogy to chopping off hands is more acclimation that adaptation. adaptation means the progeny inherit that trait but of course that doesn't happen if you lose a hand. its nothing to do with faith.

also Darwin did not say an ape became a human and this is not what the scientific community have shown. apes (eg chimps) and humans diverged about 5 million years ago.  this is not the same as one species 'becoming' another. 

for evidence, which you say isn't present, please see 15 examples here:

http://www.nature.com/nature/newspdf/evolutiongems.pdf%3Fgclid%3DCMuynbKpuZgCFQaA3godSxLYZQ

Not faith. Facts.

Hi Mamun, science is not faith driven, It is fact driven.

Fact: Animals that have been isolated by geography develop new species not found anywhere else.

This is not up for debate.

Anyone can see that kangaroos are only found in Australia, Kiwis are only found in New Zealand, lemurs are only found in Madagascar, etc, etc.

The only scientific explanation to explain these facts are (1) descent with modification and (2) natural selection.

It takes faith to argue that each of these species were purposefully put in these places by divine intervention.

Thank you all for your information.

I am trying to understand this term, not arguing. There are many species that don't have evidences of evolution. Found number is much lower than not found. In such case, we call lower amounts as exception, and larger amount as example. I got confused.

And can we say, these animals are present day animals ancestor by the similarity of their bone only? Because most of their other parts, eyes, food, digestive systems are different. So, what is the main basis of counting?  In case of human, we live in all over the world, but we can digest same food, we can reproduce, we are almost same. So, what happened in human? Do we from just single pair? I mean, we evolved from same couple, not several? Or what?

I am trying to realize the whole things. Please help.

Thank you very much.

Hi, can you please distill your position into specific questions about why you think evolution is faith based?

You are going all over the place talking about amputees, fossil and soft tissue remnants, dietary practices of long gone hominoids.

All the while you are not questioning the main pillars of evolutionary theory that have been proven again and again for over 150 years: (1) descent with modification and (2) natural selection. 

Why don't you just come out and admit it.

You believe that Noah gathered all mammals, marsupials, birds, reptiles, insects, fish, bacteria, viruses, etc. onto a boat. The boat landed on Mt. Ararat and all the different species traveled to Australia, New Zealand, Hawaii, Madagascar, etc by themselves.

Also, can you stop your posturing?

This whole thing about "I am learning" "I am trying to understand" "I am trying to realize" is pretty thin.

You are in Japan, you have peer-reviewed publications and you have access to the internet. Simple Google searches would yield answers to your questions. 

So, why are you posting your question?

Dear Mamun

The comment of Steingrimur very interested and fit with the theories of quantitative genetics, but especially about natural selection the theory did not works well in human community because of the interaction of the activities of human community to help the abnormal genotypes and genetic disorders to continue in survive and the high level of healthcare in human community provide the chance for these genotypes ( abnormal genotypes and genetics disorders ) to contribute in the progeny of the next generation by medical treatments or medical technology, all these practices work against natural selection.

Good Luck

Hi Khalid, I would argue that natural selection works perfectly with humans.

Humans are social animals that have prospered because of their strong social ties and willingness to cooperate and sacrifice towards bringing a better life to their kind.

Natural selection compels most humans to help another human in need. It is hardwired into us. It is engrained in all major religions. 

No other animal on earth spends this much time and energy to take care of the sick and invalid. 

Our care for the sick and suffering has brought us all the miracles of modern medicine that allows human to live longer and multiply with less hazard.

If that is not natural selection in progress, then I don't know what is.

Thanks a lot for all your answers. I think there is some misunderstanding among us. I am beginner in this field. So I know very few and whatever I am reading, got confused. Please don't get angry. I apologize.

http://www.allaboutscience.org/darwins-theory-of-evolution-video.htm

Hi Steingrimur

I agree with you totally about humanity and mercy as traits, and all you described about these traits ok and natural selection increased these good traits, but what about disorders like Down syndrome , PKU and other genetic disease , the genotypes of these individuals have low fitness according to natural selection theory ( low viability and low fertility and may be sterile ) the high- level healthcare gave these genotypes chance to reproduce and contribute in the next generation with progeny have genetic disorder also, so the Eugenic gave advice to individuals have genetic disorder to not reproduce to decrease the percentage of genetic disorders in human community.

Good Luck

Hi Khalid, I agree with you that genetic disorders like Down's, PKU, Huntington's. cystic fibrosis, etc. decrease the viability of an individual, but many are recessive and rare and they do not pose a threat to humans as a species.

Humans have an impressive list of mutations that impair an individual, but we continue to thrive as a species.

Eugenics has never worked and will not ever work. Recessive mutations, germ cell mutations, frame shift mutations, etc cannot be predicted and cannot be controlled.

Although our gene pool is relatively shallow compared to other species, humans have persisted with the genetic material they have.

-----------------------------

Mamun, can you please stop pretending that you are a naïve soul looking for answers!

You are not a beginner, you are a fundamentalist and you know exactly what your mission is.

You linked to a video that was made by intelligent design proponents. It has been thoroughly discredited.

Please just come out and admit that you are a fundamentalist that doesn't believe in evolution. It will make conversations much easier.

Mamun, take a look at this program about Dover PA lawsuit about evolution which rips Behe and intelligent design to shreds.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1rkCR8_664

Thanks Steingrimur Stefansson, for all your information. 

"Please just come out and admit that you are a fundamentalist that doesn't believe in evolution. It will make conversations much easier."

I dont think science is something to believe. Religions to believe. Science is for clear understanding. This video, the man, he was an evolutionist (used to believe on evolution), later on he said he found many things that are against evolution. If someone like him, say something like that, people who are learning Darwinism should be confused. 

Why you are thinking me as fundamentalist? I did not understand. There are lots of experts and many of them have different opinions. If I ask about that matter, I am fundamentalist? The definition "fundamentalism definition. A conservative movement in theology among nineteenth- and twentieth-century Christians. Fundamentalists believe that the statements in the Bible are literally true. Note: Fundamentalists often argue against the theory of evolution.

Fundamentalism | Define Fundamentalism at Dictionary.com

dictionary.reference.com/browse/fundamentalism"

I dont think so. I never told any reference from religious books. Some said, its proved, some said we have fossil evidence and if we go back millions of years ago then we will found these animals were closely linked with each other. My question is, how we can know that these are closely related and these are not? As many animals posses some similarities and many dissimilarities too. So, which characteristics we have to prefer? For example, whale and its ancestors (according to Darwinism) has some similarity and dissimilarity, to connect them which characteristics we have to consider?

Thanks Khalid Hassan and all others too for all your information.

The question of 'what is the theory of Darwinism at this present day' is so open ended it can lend itself to a broad range of interpretations. It is a bit like asking what is the theory of Marxism at this present day, or what is the theory of economics at this present day. Each of these terms are just labels and what comes under each label is not necessarily the same through history. Different people can take contradictory positions and still describe themselves by the same label (Hull, 1988 pointed this out for science). So the question can only be addressed with respect to particular criteria one sees as relevant, and in this case none were provided other than a generalized reference to a dichotomy between fact or faith. So is the real question one of the role of fact and faith in Darwinism today? One might ask the same question of science in general - what is the role of fact and faith. I am sure there are almost as many answers as scientists. 

In my view (which is after all just my view) as an evolutionary biologist, is that arguments over fact vs faith are not very interesting (of course for others such arguments are very interesting indeed) as one can only end up where one wants to end up. For me I am interested in evolutionary methodologies - the practice and procedures employed to generate questions and answers. Maybe such practices involve both 'facts' and 'faith', but regardless, it is the productivity of the practice that interests me. When, for example, an evolutionary method generates a prediction about a 'fact' that has yet to be discovered through practical means then that is very interesting to me. I think the classic example in physics was Einsteins prediction that gravity would bend light which was later corroborated experimentally. Was this prediction fact or faith. Does it matter? In evolution the composite tectonic structure of North America was first predicted from evolutionary biology in 1961 and later corroborated by geologists (1977). Again, this is interesting to me. But not necessarily to others.

Mamun, thanks for coming clean about you "not understanding"  "I am trying to understand" "I am trying to realize".

It was all a lie.

I will believe  you better if you type this sentence and have it permanently affixed to your mortal soul.

THE NOAH STORY IS A MYTH. IT DID NOT HAPPEN.

type this sentence if you dare.

Steingrimur's challenge regarding Noah's arc seems to exemplify the view that science is about beliefs. In this case, presumably, the belief that the Noah story did not happen. perhaps Steingrimur is correct, perhaps he is not. Maybe I would agree with his belief, but its just a belief. There are many beliefs in science, some I agree with, some I do not. Some believe our nearest primate relative is the chimpanzee. Maybe that belief is correct, maybe not. Does it matter? Yes, if one believes that beliefs define science. But then whose beliefs? By definition correct beliefs are correct, those that are not are heresy. To me this goes nowhere. Again, I would rather look at empirical productivity. If the Noah's Arc belief generated something empirical that would be interesting to me, regardless of whether the belief itself was something I agreed with or not.

Thanks for all your detailed explanation.

John Grehan, yeah, your explanation(first one) is right in my case. I want to know about Darwinism present status. Is it proven by modern science? Or it is still in imaginary state as Einstein theory was before proven by other scientists?

Einstein made his theory by his awesome imaginary power that he had. Even after proven his equation he was surprised. Darwin postulated his theory based on similarities between different species. But there were lots of dissimilarities too and he can't prove his theory. So, what happened later on? Like Einstein's theory, is it now proved or still waiting to be proved?

That's my question. If it's proved, please give me some references so that I can learn well.

Thanks again.

And Steingrimur Stefansson, I think the reason of misunderstanding my view is due to the word "Faith" that I used. I am not an English man after all. I saw its definition as in attached file. Yeah, its also used for religious view. Sorry for using this word.

And from your speech I found you are very strong against faith! Maybe you have strong arguments against the attached link below. I believe, you must have.

Whatever, its does not matter in life and end of the day, somehow we came to existence. Whatever people think it will not change what originally happened millions of years ago. Maybe next generation will found something new accurate knowledge. My question was "What is the theory of darwinism at this present day? Please help by clear explanation. Is it fact (proved as Mendel's law) or faith (not proven yet)?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JiMqzN_YSXU

Mamun,

The answer is that Darwinism (as with any other science) is probably a combination of fact and faith. In this context no theory is 'proved' in any absolute sense, but corroborated by empirical observations ('facts'). If I have a theory about how best to cross a road with busy traffic and I am successful in crossing that road then I have corroboration and I also have faith that I will successful cross the road again. In this context Darwinism may or may not be proved if that is what is important to you. If you want others to weight in on this you first have to decide what constitutes Darwinism. I personally consider Darwinism in the sense of a centers of origin, dispersal, and adaptation to be falsified - that it is not sufficiently empirically corroborated. But most others feel differently. The literature on Darwinism is huge and I would not presume to suggest what you should read. It took me years and reading a lot of texts, along with personal research, to reach the understanding of evolution that I have (which is admittedly different from most evolutionary biologists). Best wishes for your own path of exploration.

Thanks a lot John Grehan.

I was so confused that's why I asked here. I thought if it was proven as Mendel's law or Einstein's theory, then all of the scientist would say in a similar manner, not like that some will support and some will be against it. That's why I asked here to be sure.

Anyway, thank you all.

I believe that Darwin's theory has to be expanded. The hierarchical thermodynamics is the foundation of this great theory. Please see: 

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Georgi_Gladyshev

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Georgi_Gladyshev

Thank you very much Georgi Gladyshev .

Dear, Mamun

the theory remains a theory is not a fact accomplished. After a scores of years of observation and reading I came to the fact that if the evolution of living beings exist it is framed by a divine will, as the only source of new in this case is the mutation, but unfortunately this mutation is most often harmful.

And consider that Mendel's law, still if primarily proven, may be very hard to verify by simple observations, since it works generally within a complex context where all kinds of exceptions from the main rule are revealed ... (Mendel had good luck, Darwin wasn't that lucky)

The comments on Mendal's law is a nice case in point. When Barabara McClintock dared to suggest that some genes could move around in a non-Mendelian way she was treated with ridicule and disdain (almost typical of scientists (mostly or all male?) facing paradigm challenges). Of course she  later received a Nobel Prize. But it goes to show that it does not matter whether something is perceived to be fact of theory (and some philosophers suggest that the two concepts are very much tied up with each other), but the productivity of the theory. As Tore noted, Darwin wasn't so lucky - he did some breeding work on peas but failed to perceive the process that Mendel recgnized.

Also, when discussing Darwinism it is important to keep in mind that there are non-Darwinian theories or methods out there as well.

I found the Nature paper typical evolutionary waffle - mostly arguments about theories of organism and environment influences that have been around for decades and decades (although the Yes view seem to imply that it is a fairly recent development). Nothing coherence about an evolutionary theory in either side. I found the nature (no pun intended) of the article absurd. Of course this is just my impression which may or may not be accurate.

Dear Nereida

I agree with the most of your comment, but we know that hormones synthesis from genes, so all things pass to the next generation are genes including nucleus and maternal inheritance, besides maternal effects ( cytoplasmic factors produced from genes ). In other hand epigenetics mean inheritable effect of the environmental factor ( including methylation and acetylation ) that affects gene expression but not gene sequence, that leads to switch on or switch off the gene function.

Good Luck

Nereida,

That's OK for us to disagree, but it remains factually incorrect that it is new to say that natural selection and mutations are not the unique causes for species to evolve. Such views have been expressed for decades and decades. One such example is the reciprocal co-construction model of Russell Gray back in the late 1988's and other evo-devo type models also prevalent at that time, not to mention molecular drive theories. Even earlier were orthogenetic models (not the preformationist kind that became the strawmen of the evolutionary synthesis). There is a lot out there, but it is true that it has not been generally popular for most biologists since it is easy to invent a selection story to 'explain' any event. And just for full disclosure - my preference is for the panbiogeographic synthesis - one example of non-Darwinian evolutionary syntheses out there in existence at this time.

Thank you all for all your information and help to me.

Tore Ericsson, mendel had his evidence, not theory (his theory was proposed after his death), but Darwine had only theory that is not proven yet.

By observing our whole body structure, it's very difficult to say all of this changes came by mutation. Most of the parts changed and became something new effective in new environment but can't live in its original environment (whale or fish). Millions of changes among them single is enough to destroy whole organism. To make eye, our cells must have to analyze the details of light as we have to analyze just to make glasses, isn't that? In our body, only eye is light sensitive. Then how it observed light, lights reflection theory (for retina), then transform the light signal into chemical or electric signal to pass through neuron, again translate into image, match two image to get one single! I can't explain with this theory. It's my limitation. Can anyone help me to explain these things?

And also, in molecular biology, protein sequences are prerecorded on RNA and this RNA sequences are prerecorded on DNA and both require several modifications like splicing, post-transnational modifications etc. Darwinian theory cant explain anyone of this. Living beings require all of these processes together for continuing life. Any one dysfunction can cause death.

Dear Mamun,

I do not want to classify any theory as being just a theory, a proven law of nature, or whatever. We must accept our human shortcomings and see these things as models of the real world. Such a model, like Mendel's or Darwin's, may be sufficient for certain purposes or better than any other for a certain application, but they are only models. A model of the real world may be more or less accurate and may always be improved. So with M's and D's, like when they are amended with things that sometimes almost hide them in order to describe real world.

A need of total, absolute accuracy cannot be achieved. Compare with π, which may be realised by its numerical representation (3.1415...). That array of digits is our model of π. It may always be improved by another digit, but will never be so good that it isn't possible to improve with still another digit. Only the mathematical ideotype π is perfect.

Ideotypically, M's and D's could be considered laws, but they are difficult to verify because real nature is so much more than such simple models. The number π may be defined as a condition of the abstraction 'circle' and D's and M's as principles ruling the abstraction 'heredity'. So what?

I do acknowledge that I am approaching these things from another point of view than you. Any initial and/or supporting devine elementary power cannot be included in our simple, human-made models, but must be considered outside.

Mamun, you said (with respect to the eye) that "I can't explain with this theory.". What do you mean by 'explain'?

Thank you all for your answers.

John Grehan, I am trying to realize the whole thing. According to the theory, every living organisms came to existence from one another by some change in DNA. So, how this changes came to make something of accurate performance!!! My question is "How this changes occur? This organism control this changes or it happen randomly? If this change happen into one individual, then why we see all of the species same? In that case we should have one species of many features, isn't that?"

Sorry, its so complicated.

Thank you all.

Mamun, evolution can explain this:

-Blind insects in isolated dark caves that are unique and are not found anywhere else.

-Blind fishes in in isolated caves that are unique and not found anywhere else.

We are talking about 500+ caves around the world that have 1000+ unique species that are specific to certain caves and not found anywhere else.

Did Noah travel to all these caves and deposit unique blind insects and fish in each cave? Did these blind animals find their way to these caves after the ark stranded on Ararat?

If all of this evolution and science talk is "so complicated", please share with us what you think is going on.

My 3 year old daughter was able to comprehend that animals are different, but they share common characteristics.

I explained to my child that animals that she sees are derived from common ancestors.

I gather you tell your children that the animals they see were created that way by God and they haven't changed since they were created ~6000 years ago.

Again, you have been asking questions. Let me ask you a question. Remember it is a sin to lie or disavow.

Do you believe that the universe and all living things were created immutable as described in the Bible and the Koran?

A Simple YES/NO is easy.

Our body have many different kinds of cells. Though they might look different under a microscope, most cells have chemical and structural features in common. In humans, there are about 200 different types of cells, and within these cells there are about 20 different types of structures or organelles. I cant understand how all these cells came into existence, how they divide lots of works among them, how the first cell evolved, how it survived. In case of new kind evolved, it also require another opposite sex in the same time and same place (for example one man evolved in USA, another in UK both of them will die without progeny). Another thing, male sperm know how to fertilize female ovum even though they never meet before! How they know about each other! All of the members of same species can reproduce by matting anyone of opposite sex! Thats amazing!

In case of DNA, it seems to have all of the required information there pre-loaded. and its is just following the information. Micro evolution (parents to child) causes due to the variation between the genome of parents, nothing new is evolved there. In case of natural selection, it says survival of the fittest, in another word, deletion of the weakest. Still it is not evolving new characteristics other than its parents genome information. Sometimes suppression occurs by other genes, but it could be come back later. 

Our eyes are so complex, can detect light signal, then can make it electric or chemical signal to transmit to the brain and brain can read the signal accurately!! But there are trillions of cells involved. All are functions together for same purpose. And to make something like eye, our body cells (before eye evolved) must had to analyze about light, how light works, how many color it has, what about its wavelength (as we can see only 390 to 700 nm), how it reflect, what types of lens we require to see anything in front of us regardless of its distance, and many more. How all these had done by our microscopic cells!! At beginning, living being did not have eye, that time how they analyze all this things accurately!!! 

Human body is so complex (in this link). Its really difficult to come into existence by chance. If it was by chance, then why we are not seeing new animals or humans to evolved now. 

For your repeated question about Ark of Noah, I found its almost similar as the theory of Darwinism, difference is it says about pair, but Darwinism dont say about pair. In comparison, newly evolved animal need its partner to reproduce and continue its existence and also it must have to migrate worldwide as we are today, and also Noah's ark traveled animals have to migrate, but it has its partner to reproduce with easily and multiply, then migrate. It makes some sense. But I did not find that thing you told about Noah's ark. "Did Noah travel to all these caves and deposit unique blind insects and fish in each cave? Did these blind animals find their way to these caves after the ark stranded on Ararat?" I found, it says, “Construct the Ark within Our sight and under Our guidance. Then when comes Our command, and the fountains of the earth gush forth, take on board pairs of every species, male and female, and your people except those of them against whom the Word has already been issued: and address Me not in respect of those who are unjust; for verily they shall be drowned (in the flood).” And also “‘O Earth! Swallow up your water, and O sky! Withhold (your rain).’ The water was diminished (made to subside) and the Decree (of God) was fulfilled (the destruction of the people of Noah)". It is speaking about people of Noah, not the whole world. And it was a massive flood on that area. Where is the wrong? Noah took the animals of his land for their future, not for whole world. 

Again, I have no problem to accept the truth. I just need the clear understanding. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBIYwiktPsQ

Mamun,

I get the impression that you are not well read on the subject of evolution as you  imply that you are unaware of how your objections have been addressed by evolutionary studies and theory in the literature. I think it is more productive for you to understand these studies and then if you have problems with them raise them here as specific questions that address the details of such studies. 

A building is complex too, and involves zillions of molecules. But it still gets built. Various people have whined about the complexity of the vertebrate eye being too complex to have evolved (playing the role of God I guess by declaring what is or is not possible in God's world) as it can only function in its complete form, while conveniently ignoring the fact that several 'intermediate' forms do occur and function quite well thank you in various mollusks.

Understanding is something only you can find. No one can find it for you. I cannot understand higher physics - my limitation, not a limitation of higher physics.

Best wishes for your future efforts

Mamun,

You may start your studies on birds. There are circumglobal species which have spread from an original area and eventually met on the opposite side of the globe and there now appear as two different species. Thus, each of them, when tracked around the earth from that place back to that same place show a gradual change in genes and gene expression into another species. That is gradual evolution which you may observe on your own after consulting any ornithologist.

By the way, survival of the fittest isn't equivalent to culling of the weakest, but rather culling of the worst fit; this latter may actually describe the process very well, since some development branchinga seem to be selection indifferent.

Soon you may be on your way to understand why the evolutionary process may be so difficult to understand. Try seriously, good luck!

I concur with Tore Ericsson's suggestion to conduct one's own study of subject material, especially one concerning how the biology is structures in space (geographically). It was the geography of life that gave Darwin his central clue to the existence of evolution as he acknowledges in the opening passage of the "Origin" and it is biogeography that can still ground one's experience of evolution and connect laboratory research with the evolutionary stages as it has actually played out.

Mamun,

I give you a D- for evading the question:

Why are unique species most often found in isolated places like caves, islands, mountaintops, atolls, etc?

Since you are a fundamentalist that believes in the literal interpretation of Holy Scriptures, you are stuck. You have to explain this by Noah depositing all of these unique animals where they are found today.

Alternatively, you have to explain that all these animals, whether blind, wingless, etc. found their way to their current isolated habitats by traveling from Mt. Ararat.

Problem. God destroyed all life on earth prior to Noah's landing on Mt. Ararat. That would have made it impossible for the ark animals to survive when they got to solid ground.

No vegetation for herbivores and no meat for carnivores.

I understand that Holy Scriptures are central to your core belief, but this is the wrong forum for your proselytizing.

Steingrimur Stefansson, Thanks a lot for your informative answers. 

In case of Noah's ark, there mentioned God destroyed Noah's tribe and their animals. 

I found its almost similar as the theory of Darwinism, difference is it says about pair, but Darwinism dont say about pair. In comparison, newly evolved animal need its partner to reproduce and continue its existence and also it must have to migrate worldwide as we are today, and also Noah's ark traveled animals have to migrate, but it has its partner to reproduce with easily and multiply, then migrate. It makes some sense. But I did not find that thing you told about Noah's ark. "Did Noah travel to all these caves and deposit unique blind insects and fish in each cave? Did these blind animals find their way to these caves after the ark stranded on Ararat?" I found, it says, “Construct the Ark within Our sight and under Our guidance. Then when comes Our command, and the fountains of the earth gush forth, take on board pairs of every species, male and female, and your people except those of them against whom the Word has already been issued: and address Me not in respect of those who are unjust; for verily they shall be drowned (in the flood).” And also “‘O Earth! Swallow up your water, and O sky! Withhold (your rain).’ The water was diminished (made to subside) and the Decree (of God) was fulfilled (the destruction of the people of Noah)". It is speaking about people of Noah, not the whole world. And it was a massive flood on that area. Where is the wrong? Noah took the animals of his land for their future, not for whole world.  Maybe Noah took these animals for milk and later domestication. In case of these animals food, Bible did not mention about flood on Mt Ararat area.... Maybe there were foods for them.  I was not discussing about scriptures here, its was you repeatedly asking about scriptures, so I have to check what the scriptures says.

Again, I have no problem to accept the truth. I just need the clear understanding. 

In case of Darwin's theory, if one new kind of organism evolve, it must need its opposite sex same animal in same place same time to evolve, otherwise it cant be able to reproduce. And food habits, to evolve a new kind of animal with new food habit (vegetation for herbivores to meat for carnivores) the newly evolved organism require all enzymes to digest the meat, fat, and also have to know how to utilize them for building its own body. We recently know about enzymes, digestion system, protein biosynthesis, DNA, RNA, etc. Then how without knowing all this information, these animals evolved? 

If you have one blind and one deaf child, you would buy colorful toys for the deaf and sound making toys for the blind. It means your selection of toys depends on their capability, not the opposite. Maybe these isolated animals found that places safe for them as that place were dark, and as we (eyed animals) cant see in dark, they survived from us. Whole world is same for the blind animals, they migrated wherever they could, and later on only those survived who were out of reach to their predators..... It could be according to Darwinism also (natural selection), not natural evolve. If nature can evolve, then surely we can evolve new kinds easily in our lab. 

Goodness. Not only are you ill informed about evolution, you are ill informed about the Bible creation myth as well.

But, OK. You are a fundamentalist and there is no way that you will change your view.

Please do me one favor.

Since we are on a science site, please be specific and pick one scientific discipline/fact supporting Darwin that you and fellow fundamentalists are "not understanding".

I'll make it easy and indicate which ones support Darwin.

Just pick one!

-Biochemistry of human/animal/plant metabolism support Darwin.

-Mendelian rules of heredity support Darwin.

-Paleontology and comparative animal physiology support Darwin.

-Whole genome sequencing of 50+ animals support Darwin.

-Epigenetic studies in the last 5+ years support Darwin.

-Radiochemical dating of fossils support Darwin.

-Hominid fossils discovered in the last 10+ years support Darwin.

-Antibiotic resistance of bacteria seen in the last 20+ years support Darwin.

-Plate Tectonic theory supports Darwin.

-Paleoclimate measurements of ice core samples support Darwin.

-Ancient alien theory does not support Darwin.

-Radiometric dating of geological strata support Darwin.

-Flat earth theory does not support Darwin.

-Chemoresistance of cancers support Darwin.

-Immunology and Modern Medicine supports Darwin.

(fellow travelers can add to the list). 

Thanks for the above information. I would like to clarify this based on 

-Whole genome sequencing of 50+ animals.

I hope this time you will teach me the truth and if I understand that clearly, I will accept the truth.

Dear Steingrimur,

Am I correct to assume that 'support Darwin' is a substitute for 'support evolution'? All of the list items are consistent with evolution, but not all are necessarily consistent with Darwin's views (e.g. his belief in the fixity of geography vs later tectonic theory).

 Dear Mamun

According to Epigenetics phenomena, some environmental factors can change the gene expression of some characteristics of an individual and the changes passed on to its offspring ( these changes explained by methylation and acetylation in molecular level with out change of DNA sequence ), the phenomena of epigenetic may be close to Lamarck’s theory of evolution rather than Darwin’s theory of evolution about the rule of the individual of pass his acquired traits to his offspring.

Good Luck

Mamun, there is no universal "truth".

There is belief in science and there is belief in faith.

Belief in science requires you to modify your view about the world we live in based on new facts that are being discovered almost every day. This is not easy. In science, the only constant is change. Many people can't deal with that, but science has got us to where we are today and will show us where we will be tomorrow.

Belief in faith requires you to hold onto the world view of our ancestors. Some faiths have not changed their world view since the bronze age. It is comforting to have a never changing faith in an ever changing world. I envy people who find inner peace and serenity through their faith because, for them, the world never changes.

However, closing your eyes and denying progress might make you feel good, but it will handicap your children that have to adapt and prosper in a changing world that will require different skills based on science.

Saying that there is no universal "truth" is tricky as its not scientific statement, but an assertion of faith. Science cannot ascertain whether or not there is a universal truth (although in practice most scientists seem to assume that and do their best to find it in their respective fields).

Hi John, Copernicus believed that geometric shapes are the basis for planet orbitals. Does that overshadow his model for a heliocentric system?

Newton had no idea what gravity is. Does that discredit him for his laws of motion?

Einstein was skeptical of quantum mechanics. Is his relativity theory then suspect?

Darwin was a child of his time. He did not know about genetics, heredity, DNA, mutations, radiodating, plate tectonics (Darwin was dead ~100 years before Wegener), anthropology, etc. etc.

He did plant the idea (along with Wallace) that species that you see are not fixed. They are ever changing and they change because of then coined "survival of the fittest".

Unique animals are often found in isolated places.

Why?

Darwin's theory now encompasses 150+ years of scientific discovery in all levels of biology, physics, geology, etc. which are incorporated into 2 simple and demonstrable axioms:

(1) Descent with modification.

(2) Natural selection.

There is no biological theory that have been tested more thoroughly and withstood the tests. 

Hi John, science does not deal in "truth"

There is only one branch of science that deals in truth. Mathematics.

The best that science can do is theories.

Theories can be challenged with new data, modified to fit the new data or refuted all together.

Many theories have come and gone, but there are a few theories that have withstood all challenges. One of them is the theory of evolution. 

Steingrimur,

Perhaps it comes down to how one views truth. Even when theories are refuted by data scientists may hang on to them (and say that the data is somehow wrong). At least some scientists appear to represent their theories as saying something 'true' about the subject material. 

Evolutionary theory can have the appearance of circularity in that it explains what is also seen to be evidence of evolution. At a certain level of generality it has certainly continued to retain general acceptance among researchers, although some components have not.

Hi Khalid, respectfully, Lamarck’s ideas of inherited traits is as far removed from epigenetics as those of Mendel, Wallace, Huxley and Darwin.

Non of these fellows knew about DNA methylation and gene silencing. 

Dear Steingrimur

Thank you for your comment, I mean that the idea of acquired traits inheritance appeared again with a new modern explanation result from science development.

Good Luck

John,

I think you and I have a different interpretation of the word "truth". That word never comes up when I am talking to colleagues in the biochemistry or nanotechnology field. As a scientist (for at least 30 years), I have never said that I speak truth.

I always say that, as far as I know, my argument is consistent with current knowledge.

That knowledge may change.

I recall a quote by (I think) Niels Bohr when he was asked about when his quantum theories will be accepted. His reply was "when all the opponents retire or die of old age".

Although my history may be wrong, the truism remains. Theories have to stand the test of time.

Evolutionary theory has withstood all challenges.

Please name a field in any science that challenges evolutionary theory.

A question on the interface of science and philosophy. But not really:

Evolution itself is proven in my point of view by an experiment conducted by Richard Lenski:

http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/

He took clones of an E. coli strains and cultivated them in parallel to see whether changes will manifest over time. E. coli has a very short generation time, and therefore seems highly suitable to investigate evolution in "fast forward" mode.

After 50.000 generations (which compares to millions of years in terms of "higher" animals like mammals), one of the E. coli strains acquired the property of metabolizing the citrate added to the medium for buffering reasons. This is a new trait that increases the fitness of this mutant, which overgrew all other cells in the cultures.

That genes are mutating is mathematically inevitable - since no chemical reaction is 100 % "perfect" - e.g. DNA polymerases will make errors, no enzyme is 100 % specific - statistics (and therefore, math as universal truth) alone would dictate that DNA changes over long timespans. Also, the error rate of DNA-polymerase itself is selected for in evolution: Would it be near perfect, and make close to zero errors, evolution would not be possible or at least a lot slower. So the fidelity is selected in evolution to be as high as needed, but as low as to allow certain variability and the possibility to offer new variants to the environment - to adapt.

Mark,

When you stated"apes (eg chimps) and humans diverged about 5 million years ago" were you intending to present that as a 'fact' or as a 'theory'?

Steingrimur,

Not sure why you asked me to " Please name a field in any science that challenges evolutionary theory" as did not indicate that I thought there were any.  Evolution is the dominant paradigm for most scientists today.

John, I was just answering your post:

"Evolutionary theory can have the appearance of circularity in that it explains what is also seen to be evidence of evolution. At a certain level of generality it has certainly continued to retain general acceptance among researchers, although some components have not."

What components of evolutionary theory have not been accepted by researchers?

OK - but that quote did not indicate that there were any challenges to evolutionary theory (in general). Components: The static geography of Darwin is principle example that comes to my mind. Darwin's centers of origin and attribution to dispersal ability as the mechanism for allopatry is widely accepted although contested. Darwin's 'laws of growth' have never been accepted (so far as I know) by Darwinists. Lamark's acquired characteristics as the principle mode of evolution was rejected (but now revisited in a molecular form for specific instances). Teleological evolution has been explicitly rejected (although many evolutionists still present teleological arguments to explain adaptation). Orthogenesis was rejected by Darwinists. So my reference to components that have not been accepted refers to the fact that there are controversies and therefore components that are not accepted by this or that research program.

To my mind, evolutionary theory builds on Darwin's theory and the two are not synonymous. Darwin's views ~100 years ago are not regarded as infallible tenets of evolutionary theory today.

Look at other scientific innovators. Copernicus, Galileo, Hooke, Descartes, Newton, Priestley, Einstein, etc. Many of their ideas have since been proven wrong, but their contributions to science are not totally discarded because they were fallible.

Many of Darwin's ideas have been proven wrong, but his major contributions to biology are the concepts:

(1) Descent with modification and

(2) Natural selection.

These the basis of evolutionary theory to this day regardless of other things Darwin wrote 150 years ago..

Agreed - evolutionary theory and Darwin's theory are not synonymous in all respects. But some of what Darwin expressed have been rejected by all/some subsequent researchers - that was my only point in response to your question. It did not imply that all his  contributions were totally discarded.

Natural selection is accepted as a reality by all evolutionists, but its role (e.g. relative to other mechanisms such as molecular drive) in generating divergence and adaptation is subject to various viewpoints.

Hi John. I'm glad we are in agreement on where Darwin ends and evolutionary theory begins.

But, please explain what you mean by:  

"Natural selection is accepted as a reality by all evolutionists, but its role (e.g. relative to other mechanisms such as molecular drive) in generating divergence and adaptation is subject to various viewpoints."

Please tell me that you don't subscribe to M. Behe's drivel about the "irreducible complexity" of molecular motors. 

Its one thing to suppose random mutations give rise to variation that then may differentially affect survival of individuals with those variants, its another to suppose that this is the only way divergence and adaptation can occur. Molecular drive has nothing to do with Behe (admittedly I have not read his stuff, but I get the impression that it is based on metaphysical claims that lie outside science as I understand science). Molecular drive is  model of genetic divergence that involves non-random changes such as bias gene conversion. There's quite a literature on it in molecular genetics. Its the sort of stuff that is usually ignored in many evolution accounts where it is easy (and without accountability) to attribution evolution and adaptation (especially the latter) solely to imagined and unknown (since they were in the past) natural selection events.

Sorry, I misunderstood the term "molecular drive" that you used.

If I am not mistaken, molecular drive includes gene duplication, gene silencing, transposons, viral gene insertions, etc. right?

Are these modifications not influenced by natural selection?

I know at least that gene duplication is responsible for the development of the vertebrate blood coagulation system.

I address you to our together with Elena Kadyshevich paper published recently in the J. Molecular Evolutiion and to other our papers related to this problem. There, you will find a new explanation of the species diversity. Our Life Origination Hydrate Theory (LOH-Theory) gives the mechanism of living matter origination in its chemical, physical, biological, and thermodynamic aspects and considers different related problems. The papers are available in my and Elena Kadyshevich pages of the ResearchGate site. 

Darwin introduced his brightness theory of natural selection and his role in biological evolution, but Darwin didn't explain the mechanism for the sources of variations in the natural population, the development of knowledge after Darwin add many aspects to the theory especially after the great development in molecular biology and what genes told us about evolution, and the role of mutations to create a new form of genes ( spontaneous and induced mutation ) and the role of external factors to induce mutations.

Good Luck

As Khalid notes, the key is the nature of mutations. If they are not just 'random', but arise or spread through a genetic bias then selection only becomes one mechanism that interacts with another. To pick up on Steingrimur's question about molecular drive - it may indeed involve the specific gene changes identified, but also biased gene conversion, unequal crossover and slippage. These processes need not be modified by natural selection, but no doubt there may be dynamic interrelationships between these biological processes and selection should the outcomes influence reproductive output in some way. If they don't then selection does not even come into the picture. In addition to selection Darwin actually did propose biological mechanisms of evolution that did not require selection. He called these "laws of growth". You will not find this discussed in the Darwinian literature. Its probably viewed as too much of an embarrassment.

Dear Halid, Dear John, Dear All, 

The human mind is conservative, and we got accustomed to believe our university teachers. Meanwhile, the process of cognition of nature is infinite, and we know today, for sure, more than teachers of our teachers did. We are afraid to go beyond the common notion of the natural phenomena and processes, but the present-day widely-distributed notions are, on frequent occasions, the notions of the dreamers of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, who added to their fantasies much more than they obtained from experiments and observations, using, in many cases, the instrumentation that seem now doubtful. A number of ideas that seemed to be brilliant 100-150 years ago are today multiply disproved. People counteract fundamental changes in understanding of natural phenomena, because they are concerned about subsequent changes in the social field; this tendency relates to different fields of cognition of natural phenomena. A number of researchers wrote that the problem of species diversity should be reconsidered when the progress in the understanding of the mechanism of the life origination is achieved. We proposed and substantiated, as deep as it is today possible, the mechanism of life origination, and, indeed, we reconsidered on this basis the species diversity problem. When discussing Darwin’s ideas, I address you to our papers published in J. of Molecular Evolution, Life (Basel), Chirality, Mini-Rev. in Organic Chemistry, and in earlier papers (all these papers are available in my and Elena Kadyshevich's pages at the ResearchGate site) that relate to the problems considered, in particular, by Darwin. You can see that cognition of natural phenomena and processes doesn’t stand still. Of course, we are not solitary and there are many experienced and thinking researchers who understand that Darwin’s explanation of the species diversity is today archaic. Geological, biological, physical, and chemical studies persistently count in favor of this statement. A random appearance of unique living issues and their diversification to the multiple complex populations is extremely problematic. Geologists stated that a number of mass extinctions occurred on the Earth, when 50% and more species disappeared, and, after which, many new species originated. Millions of generations of drosophilas and other organisms gave no one stable species, in spite of very wide variations in the ambient conditions. Many researchers understand this and write about this, but I name those papers, the logic and adequacy of the content of which are checked by us in different scientific aspects. On the basis of the Life Origination Hydrate Theory (LOH-Theory), we not only reconstructed Darwin’s species diversity, but formulated the first physicochemical explanation of the intracellular processes, mitosis, and replication, first explained the phenomena of chirality of biologically-active substances and extremely slow racemization of chiral substances of definite types, and proposed a new theory of aging of living organisms and new approaches to the problems of optimal nutrition and life prolongation.

And we hope that we have grounds to state that Darwin’s hypothesis of the causes of species diversity should be reconsidered. 

Thanks a lot to all of you, specially to Victor Ostrovskii  for your very detailed and informative answer. Yeah, that was my viewpoint, many of the cellular mechanisms re not fitted with Darwinism. Adaptation and evolution are used to take as basis and explanation of Darwinism, respectively. But I found something opposite. For example, when one organism exposed to a pathogenic microorganism, most off the time the organism already has its own defense mechanism based on proteins (the end product of gene), and it also has many different mechanisms to counteract with the pathogen. It require just the activation of several gene transcription, translation. Everything is present in DNA, nothing new is evolved. If the organism lack that in its genome, then it cant fight and cant survive. 

In case of Darwinism, organism at first have to expose to the pathogen, then it will detect the structure of the pathogen, then it have to design specific protein against that pathogen and have to insert or introduce this newly designed DNA into its own genome to transcribe and translate to fight the pathogen. But in reality, there is nothing like that.

It seems everything is predesigned into the genome, if the organism exposed to something that already its genome have information, only then it can fight, otherwise it cant even fight. So evolution is senseless here.

Correct - the information has to be there in the first place, but that is the point of evolution as the process that generates new variants. So evolution is not 'senseless' at all, it provides an explanatory framework for the origin of new variants. What you attributed to Darwinism  (designing a protein and injecting the design into its own genome) seems more like a Lamarckian model.

With respect to Stengrimur's observations that

"Anyone can see that kangaroos are only found in Australia, Kiwis are only found in New Zealand, lemurs are only found in Madagascar, etc, etc.

The only scientific explanation to explain these facts are (1) descent with modification and (2) natural selection."

I would modify to say that local endemism is not explained by descent with modification as these cases involve descent with divergence. Secondly, natural selection is not an explanation (at least not an informative explanation) for local endemism (why kiwis evolved as kiwis in what is now New Zealand). A central fact for Darwin, mostly overlooked in modern evolutionary literature, is not descent with modification, but the fact that endemic organisms show similarities to other forms in other places. He was first confronted with this in its strongest form when he realized that Galapagos endemics showed similarities to forms in America. This was not a predicted geographic pattern according to the multiple creations theory of the time, and so he found that he had to postulate a shared common ancestor. He did not quite so well in understanding how the related forms came to be isolated, but the ancestor model was the major step forward.

Dear those who defend darwinism; Dear those who are against it, 

The correctness of any theory is determined by the correctness of the statements which are put in its ground. On frequent occasions, the unjustified complicated many-factor theories allow to cram into them a multitude of issues which relate to these theories and which don’t relate to them, and the theories don’t become justified after that. Therefore, the facts, subjects, processes, and phenomena which contradict some theory are much more important for its scientific estimation than the facts which can be described by the theory.

Just the proofs of the correctness of the assumptions which underlie a theory are most important for its estimation.

The Peasant Tower can be supported by different legs for a long time, but, finally, it will either fall or will transform into a wall and will not be a tower any more. The darwinian idea of random origination of life as a unique event and subsequent transformation up to millions of species contradicts the mathematical, geological, chemical, physical, and biological experience.

No solution of a particular task of arrangement of one or another species in the invented history of darwinian evolution is able to prove the correctness of the basic notion of a random origin of life.

Of course, people that turn away when they see literature which criticizes the foundation of the darwinian hypothesis and close their ears when they hear about its failure will never know that there is an another explanation of species diversity.

The Life Origination Hydrate Theory (LOH-Theory) gives scientific basis for the phenomenon of origin of life, allows harmonization of a great number of results obtained in different sciences, and, apparently, allows a consensus between darwinists and anti-darwinists, as it is written in our paper published in J Mol Evol (2014) 79:155–178 and titled “Life Origination Hydrate Theory (LOH-Theory) and the Explanation of the Biological Diversification”, the accepted version of which is available at the ResearchGate site by the address https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265255386_Life_Origination_Hydrate_Theory_LOH-Theory_and_the_Explanation_of_the_Biological_Diversification  

Article Life Origination Hydrate Theory (LOH-Theory) and the Explana...

@ John: "I would modify to say that local endemism is not explained by descent with modification as these cases involve descent with divergence."

Just off the bat you totally misunderstand the term "descent with modification". The term has to do with imperfect duplication of DNA. The DNA of the parents is not the same as the DNA of the offspring.

@John, just how did isolated endemic animals get to where they are now? Did Noah make pitstops along the way to Mt. Ararat? Were the endemic animals somehow transported to their current location? How did they make their way to their final location given that Noah's flood had destroyed all living things on earth, meaning no food for the travelling animals.

@Victor. Abiogenesis (creation of life from non-life)  and the theory of evolution are totally different theories. Abiogenesis is still a theoretical curiosity. Please get that straight. 

I contrast, the theory of evolution has been validated from sources that Darwin never imagined:

Embryology, comparative physiology, paleontology, geology, DNA sequencing, RNA sequencing, whole genome analysis, molecular biology, X-ray crystallography, protein chemistry, genealogy, history, solid-state physics,  comparative biology, quantum physics, biophysics, ornithology, mammalian biology, etc, etc.

Victor, you can bloviate all you want and rail against perceived enemies of your pet theory using conspiracy verbiage.

It may give you comfort in your infallibility, but to the rest of us, it makes you look like a crackpot.

This is very simple. You have put your ideas into the public arena. You are either proven wrong or you are proven right. The best you can do right is to propose experiments that will show that you are either right or wrong and accept the results. 

Again, the theory of evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis.

Dear Steingrimur,

 “Just off the bat you totally misunderstand the term "descent with modification". The term has to do with imperfect duplication of DNA. The DNA of the parents is not the same as the DNA of the offspring.”

I disagree with your assertion that I totally misunderstand the term “descent with modification”. I am quite happy with your definition. But descent with modification is not the same as descent with divergence (clade splitting).

“@John, just how did isolated endemic animals get to where they are now? Did Noah make pitstops along the way to Mt. Ararat? Were the endemic animals somehow transported to their current location? How did they make their way to their final location given that Noah's flood had destroyed all living things on earth, meaning no food for the travelling animals.”

Is this a rhetorical question? Why is it being directed to me?

“I contrast, the theory of evolution has been validated from sources that Darwin never imagined:”

I would suggest that for the most part these sources have accepted an evolutionary framework to interpret data rather than validating that framework.

Steingrimur,

 I see I roused your bile. Take care of it; it is of use for your liver. I think you came down on the wrong side of me. Cut power, release accelerator; after that, I am ready to discuss with you as the evolution so the abiogenesis and will not require your excuse even if you do not surmise to adduce it. But it is not good intellectual form to grow angry in discussion. Come on, don’t blow a fuse. I suppose you are not a boy, but, as for me, I am also not a sea cadet. For the beginning, I send you two my papers from a number of ones. They contain as if answers to your choicest swearwords. I am ready to read your works at your discretion, but, I am sorry, unhurriedly, because I have a little of more or less free time.  

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265255386_Life_Origination_Hydrate_Theory_LOH-Theory_and_the_Explanation_of_the_Biological_Diversification

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235342937_Life_Origination_Hydrate_Hypothesis_LOH-Hypothesis    

Article Life Origination Hydrate Theory (LOH-Theory) and the Explana...

Article Life Origination Hydrate Hypothesis (LOH-Hypothesis)

Steingrimur,

I guess your opinion is most authoritative for you; however, our papers on the analogous subject area are published in peer-reviewed J. Phys. Chem. B (2001), Int. J. Nanosci. (2002), Physics-Uspekhi (2007), Thermochim. Acta. (2006, 2007), J. Therm Anal. Calorim. (2009), DNA Replication – Current Advances (Chapter 4, 2011), Life (Basel) (2012), Global J. Sci. Frontier Res. (2012), J. Mol. Evol. (2014), Mini-Rev. Organic Chem. (2015), Chirality (2016) and presented as lectures and oral talks at more than 25 international chemical, physical, biological, geological, and specialized conferences in Russia, Germany, Italy, Spain, USA, Canada, Japan, Singapore, China, India, Thailand, Serbia, Slovenia, Hungary, Greece, Israel, etc. In the context of the ideas developed in the Life Origination Hydrate Theory (LOH-Theory), the first physicochemical explanation of the intracellular processes (MRH-Theory), the explanation of monochirality and causes of the slowness of racemization, new theories of aging and optimal nutrition and a new approach to the problem of life prolongation were developed.

Please, read one of the opinions printed in preface of the book, where our LOH-Theory and MRH-Theory were published:  

“Perhaps the most astonishing and challenging novelty in this book is the approach of DNA structure and chemical dynamics by focusing on its interactions with its natural solvent, the water molecules, and the changes in water concentrations through the cell’s life cycle (chapter by Ostrovskii and Kadyshevich). This most interesting hypothesis develops a concept that escapes conceptions established through the force of habit, which frequently result in dominant, yet unproven intuitive truths. This hypothesis will doubtlessly produce new deep insights into every level of DNA associated processes, and probably also general cell physiology, if given the deserved consideration and further developed.” 

I am wonder how their are people believe theory of Darwinisim, 

I still remember that the first day we studied this theory in school I was 10 years old, we studied it and we studied as well the reasons which make it a wrong theory.

At that time all of the kids were wondering how their is a human can create this theory and how their are people could beilved it .. 

I think that it should be added to IQ test... do you agree theory of Darwinisim? 

Thanks a lot for all your informative answers.

I found many scientists are supporting Darwinism as a proven fact, some as it could be right or wrong, but its just a theory to explain human existence on earth, very few said its totally wrong. 

The number of scientist supporting a theory does not change the actual matter, what is happening it will continue to happen even though our theory is wrong. Just remember so many theories were widely accepted by all scientific community as a fact, but later on they were proved to be wrong, many were far away from the truth. 

In case of Darwinism, it may seems to be right, but when we see in molecular level, Darwinism has no basis as the change is explained by mutation and no mutation found to be beneficial, and to originate something new, so many changes require and every change have its very specific region in DNA. Darwinism cant explain all these changing processes. 

So, I think the idea of making a theory to explain everything was good, but when the theory cant explain we need to through it away and rethink about the existence of us on earth. Truth is truth, we need to have the mentality to accept the truth.

Esraa,

It really does not matter what people believe for or against Darwinism. Darwinism is just a label that is attached to certain research programs at different times and places. What might constitute Darwinism may or may not be the same as it was in 1859. In science belief is not the issue, whether in physics, chemistry, or biology. Same for evolution. Belief is scientifically irrelevant. We all might have particular beliefs about evolution, about physics, chemistry, biology etc, and we are entitled to those beliefs, but those beliefs as such are not science. They are just what we believe in or not. Science is a process – an application of methodology. In a sense a scientist has beliefs in methods – that is particular methods are more productive that others in generating new insights, regardless of the subject.

Mamun,

So Darwinism may not explain all “these changing processes”, presumably that the origin of mutations that are not “beneficial” (which is a bit of a teleological perspective). Fortunately evolutionary theory does not impose such requirements upon the origin of mutation and not all evolutionists are necessarily Darwinists in the sense you portray.

Thanks a lot.

I am wondering in case of molecular and chemical basis. When something molecular arise in new form, they must have to know each others chemical, physical features. In molecular biology, we see that everything going on so smoothly, specifically that any alteration can leads to the death. In a time when there are trillions of same species, I have no problem to agree that maybe few new species can be evolved by some alterations with huge numbers of death due to alteration in inappropriate regions. 

I don't understand the beginning of the life, then evolving multicellular organisms from single cell, evolving land animals from aquas animals, something like that. In case of physical structure, we see little differences, but in case of molecular, physical, chemical structures, there are huge numbers of change! That surprises me and I don't find any explanation here. 

I don't understand how all these complex organelles evolved just from some chemicals random organisation and later on their specific regulation on each of them as a whole!!!

Good for you! Welcome to the world of science. I get the impression that you have no idea what science is about (which makes me wonder how you got accepted to Research Gate). Science is the exploration of what is not understood. So if you lack of understanding about how complex organelles evolved and their later regulation, you have a choice – either the subject lies within your skill set and you set up a research program to learn more, or you will just have to wait upon what others discover or not. I don’t understand how the universe began, if it indeed did, but lacking skills in astrophysics, quantum mechanics, etc etc, I will just have to be a bystander and await their discoveries. That’s the nature of existence, and the nature of science.

Dear Esraa, Dear All, 

Scientific problems can't be solved through vote. Like you, my classmates 70 years ago chuckled when our schoolteacher told us about darwinism. Children sense keenly the truth and lie; however, children fill by the sense but not by the scientific logic. As for us, we began to study the problem of life origination and related problems, being rather experienced scientists in different fields after 40 years of works in different fields of science and after a great number of theoretical and practical studies. Today, the Life Origination Hydrate Theory (LOH-Theory) has chemical, thermodynamic, physical, and geological grounds; it is developed into the specific bio-chemical field of cellular mitosis and replication and explained a number of related processes and phenomena. Over the world, many thousands of researchers know this theory: a great number of review papers are written by us, we gave lectures in university audiences and at tens of international conferences, the book, where our theories were printed, was downloaded by more than 5000 researchers and our paper from this book was in addition downloaded by about 1000 researchers; about 1000 researchers downloaded our paper printed in “Life” (Basel), and about 1000 our different papers are downloaded from ResearchGate etc. Our review paper printed in J. Molec. Evolution proposes a consensus between darwinists and anti-darwinists. I advise you to read this paper, and, maybe, after that you will want to read other our papers on this and related subjects. And I propose you to discuss these problems once more.    

Thanks a lot dear Victor Ostrovskii.

Hi John.

In response to my saying that sciences outside of evolutionary biology support Darwin's hypothesis, you said:

"I would suggest that for the most part these sources have accepted an evolutionary framework to interpret data rather than validating that framework."

Really? So Plate Tectonic theory accepted an evolutionary framework before it was validated on its own? Same for  radionucleic decay? Geology? Medicine?

Victor, we can have a discussion when chemistry has a testable mechanism on how life began and other scientists can replicate it.

Until then, anybody can publish volumes on their pet ideas and support it only with equations and computer models.   

@Mamun, how does your religion deal with the fact that mitochondria have bacterial origins? God made it that way?

Stengrimur,

I was referring to organic evolution as a framework. Plate tectonics and radionucleonic decay involved extended temporal scales and for geology, sequential events. In a general sense of evolution as sequential change it would seem that plate tectonics could be looked at as demonstrating a geological evolution (and one that is certainly congruent with organic evolution as currently understood).  In much of biology and chemistry structures and processes are discovered that are interpreted in an evolutionary context rather than existing as an accident of design.

John, sorry. I have no clue what you are talking about.

"I was referring to organic evolution as a framework" 

What does that even mean?? What is organic evolution? and what is it's framework?

"Plate tectonics and radionucleonic decay involved extended temporal scales and for geology, sequential events."

OK, I am a simple guy and English is not my first (or second language). So can I translate that sentence into "plate tectonics and radionucleonic decay occur over very, very long time periods"?

As for: "in much of biology and chemistry structures and processes are discovered that are interpreted in an evolutionary context rather than existing as an accident of design"

Um.. No. Biology did not begin with Darwin. Blood circulation, red blood cells similarities, bone structure similarities, teeth similarities, functions of organs, separation of mammals into species, differentiation of placentals and marsupials, similarities of human physiology to apes...etc ..etc..

All of this was known way before Darwin even set foot on the Beagle. 

PS

"accident of design"???

Yes, those similarities were already known. Did not imply that they were not. What I meant was that for most (not all of course) pre-Darwin biologists (at least in Europe and North America) those similarities were seen as evidence of God's design.

I see you have never dealt with creationists. There are no "accidents of design". Everything was created perfectly!

Most creationists believe that birth defects, cancers, psychological and genetic disorders, illness in general and communacatable diseases in particular, are due to lack of personal piety.

Sadly, this worldview is probably shared by some posters on this thread like Mamun and Esraa.

I note that you say 'probably'. Perhaps better to ask than to impute.

"accidents' in the sense of just happens to be the way things were designed.

Science cannot refute either way whether life (or the universe) is by 'accident' or 'design', much as many try to assert one way or the other. It does not matter whether one believes that certain conditions are due to a lick of personal piety so long as that is not presented as a scientific outlook.

Cheers, John

John, can you please clarify your comment:

"accidents' in the sense of just happens to be the way things were designed."

I don't know your background, but things are not designed to have accidents.

I think most engineers can tell you that man-made structures are manufactured to withstand accidents.

If life was indeed designed by a higher intelligence, then that architect should be fired.!

Take human "design". Brain is so big that giving birth is a major struggle. Jaws are so short that late molars "wisdom teeth" have little or no space to erupt. The body is poorly balanced and back problems are inevitable. Useless organs like the appendix. Inability to synthesize important vitamins. Tail bones. Human specific cancers. Human specific gene alterations and birth defects, etc, etc.

For Mamun, if he had bothered to crack a book since his first post in Feb 2016...

accident in the sense of that is just the way things were designed. This is not the same as things being designed to have accidents. It's like one might say why is a leaf shaped the way it is and one would respond that is just the way it was designed. It's a bit like asking why the law of gravity has the rate of attraction that it does. One could say it was designed that way, and existentially that may be true, but design, in the sense of purpose, is a question that likes outside science.

Seems that my use of the term 'accident' has created some unnecessary confusion. Sorry.

Um, I think you need to revisit your use of the word "design". The word "design" implies intelligent manufacture.

Animals are not "designed". They either survive in their environment or they perish.

Their survival depends on 2 vital factors:

(1) descent with modification

(2)  natural selection  

If you believe in a hands-on creator of everything material and otherwise, then that creator "designed" everything, including the laws of nature.

I think, it is not the place for either religious or antireligious advocacy. Such an advocacy as applied to adults doesn't testify to a great intellect of the advocate.