Darwin Proven Wrong?

[One Above All]

Please show me where you have received confirmation that we know anything at all about dark matter and dark energy...

Aside from my teacher with a degree in astrophysics (who's in charge of one of the most important observatories in my country), the presentations on the subject given at my college by people working with CERN, and well as the countless papers on what we know about them? Well, aside from those things, I received no confirmation whatsoever.
If you're "quite versed" in physics, as you claimed in another thread, why don't you tell me why astrophysicists even felt the need to come up with those two names? Why not just keep their mouths shut, if we don't know anything about them? In fact, if we don't know anything about them, why would we even be searching for them?

I think you are mistaken.

That makes... let me check... yup, one of us.

[LastPoet]

OP: Are you asserting that believing something needs to be disproved? If I believe have an undetectable pink unicorn in my garage, is it YOUR job to disprove it? Science works on what it can detect, yet, religious morons tell us about a great fairy in the sky, that grants wishes to you, but when it doesn't, it has mysterious ways. You are so blinded by your faith, that you cannot see the possibility of a natural universe, you prefer to flee to the stupidity of solipsism.

And science never claimed absolute knowledge, isn't that fascinating to have unknowns? To be able to participate in searching for our part in the universe? You know, instead of hanging to a decrepit concept, from moldy books, perpetuated by ignorance and fear.

[TaraJo]

Seriously, OP, if a scientist had evidence that evolution was wrong, he would win a nobel prize. But it hasn't happened yet.

Also, you have a severe misunderstanding of how epigenitics work. Epigenetics effect trait expression, true, but not enough to turn chimpanzees into humans. Millions of years of evolution is needed for that.

[sswhateverlove]

Please show me where you have received confirmation that we know anything at all about dark matter and dark energy...

Aside from my teacher with a degree in astrophysics (who's in charge of one of the most important observatories in my country), the presentations on the subject given at my college by people working with CERN, and well as the countless papers on what we know about them? Well, aside from those things, I received no confirmation whatsoever.
If you're "quite versed" in physics, as you claimed in another thread, why don't you tell me why astrophysicists even felt the need to come up with those two names? Why not just keep their mouths shut, if we don't know anything about them? In fact, if we don't know anything about them, why would we even be searching for them?

I think you are mistaken.

That makes... let me check... yup, one of us.

I think you're confusing "dark matter and energy" with something else...
Einstein’s general relativity is currently “the law” of gravitational acceleration in the universe. This, however, predicted that the attractive force of gravity pulls all matter together, wherefore subsequent to the “Bang” the expansion of the universe should be observed to slow. This has not been observed, however, and instead, recent evidence confirms the expansion of the universe appears to be accelerating. To explain this, another revision is now necessary and a few theories have been proposed. What seems to be the common opinion now is that 96% of reality is actually unknown and undetectable substances called “dark matter” and “dark energy”. Making this assumption is said to be the only way to confirm general relativity is still a “scientific fact”.

---

Seriously, OP, if a scientist had evidence that evolution was wrong, he would win a nobel prize. But it hasn't happened yet.

Also, you have a severe misunderstanding of how epigenitics work. Epigenetics effect trait expression, true, but not enough to turn chimpanzees into humans. Millions of years of evolution is needed for that.

I'm not making any claims, only sharing information I've been reading. I don't even know if apes did turn into humans. Epigenetics argues that "natural selection" is not accurate, because genetic mutations don't actually assure any differences. When mutations can be expressed or silenced based on the environment, environmental factors seem to be much more important with regard to how something develops, how it functions, and what it passes to it's offspring.

---

OP: Are you asserting that believing something needs to be disproved? If I believe have an undetectable pink unicorn in my garage, is it YOUR job to disprove it? Science works on what it can detect, yet, religious morons tell us about a great fairy in the sky, that grants wishes to you, but when it doesn't, it has mysterious ways. You are so blinded by your faith, that you cannot see the possibility of a natural universe, you prefer to flee to the stupidity of solipsism.

And science never claimed absolute knowledge, isn't that fascinating to have unknowns? To be able to participate in searching for our part in the universe? You know, instead of hanging to a decrepit concept, from moldy books, perpetuated by ignorance and fear.

I'm not asking you to prove anything, only share with me why you choose to hold to a particular perspective despite possible evidence that it could be inaccurate.

[TaraJo]

Epigenetics argues that "natural selection" is not accurate, because genetic mutations don't actually assure any differences. When mutations can be expressed or silenced based on the environment, environmental factors seem to be much more important with regard to how something develops, how it functions, and what it passes to it's offspring.

Like I said, this is a massive misunderstanding of epigenetics and genetics in general.

It is true that most mutations aren't actually noticable. You might get something minor like an extra milimeter in length on your nose or slightly different color eyes or even two differently colored eyes. And there are a lot of silent mutations, where there's a mutation but it's in a part of a gene that isn't expressed anyway.

Epigenetics do change how much of a trait is expressed but they don't eliminate traits that already exist or introduce new traits. For example, epigenetics seem to play a role in the heriditary nature of alcoholism, smoking and obesity. Those aren't new traits for anyone. When you look at clear genetic conditions like Parkinsons or Lou Gherig disease, those have nothing to do with epigenetics and everything to do with genetics.

[sswhateverlove]

Epigenetics argues that "natural selection" is not accurate, because genetic mutations don't actually assure any differences. When mutations can be expressed or silenced based on the environment, environmental factors seem to be much more important with regard to how something develops, how it functions, and what it passes to it's offspring.

Like I said, this is a massive misunderstanding of epigenetics and genetics in general.

It is true that most mutations aren't actually noticable. You might get something minor like an extra milimeter in length on your nose or slightly different color eyes or even two differently colored eyes. And there are a lot of silent mutations, where there's a mutation but it's in a part of a gene that isn't expressed anyway.

Epigenetics do change how much of a trait is expressed but they don't eliminate traits that already exist or introduce new traits. For example, epigenetics seem to play a role in the heriditary nature of alcoholism, smoking and obesity. Those aren't new traits for anyone. When you look at clear genetic conditions like Parkinsons or Lou Gherig disease, those have nothing to do with epigenetics and everything to do with genetics.

Simply because your opinion of what epigenetics implies does not match with mine, doesn't mean I don't understand it. Perhaps you may not understand it? As far as I know there is no "part of a gene that isn't expressed" (source?) Genes code for things and they are either methylated or not methylated, expressed or silenced. If a mutation occurred, the mutated gene and what it codes for could either be expressed or silenced (and many factors are said to be involved). I believe much of gene therapy is now looking at how methyl groups can be introduced to mutated genes to silence them and prevent the development of Parkinsons and Lou Gherig etc.

[StealthySkeptic]

Public opinion in science over the past hundred years is that Darwn's theory of evolution is "true". It seems to be widely accepted because of it’s simplicity. But is it actually true?

New evidence suggests that gene mutations can either be expressed to some degree or silenced based on the specific circumstances of each individual organism. This evidence, therefore, seems to negate the assumed “truth” that gene mutations are responsible for evolution of life and the differentiation of species on earth.

Further, epigeneticists are now reporting evidence that gene expression is dynamic and influenced by all aspects of the environment. The expression markers are said to change regularly within a single lifetime as a result of environmental stimuli. This new evidence now leaves open to question every possible variable imaginable as being influential in the development and life of the organism, even those mysterious unknowns (“dark matter”, “dark energy”, “god”, “chi”, “cosmic rays”, etc).

I'm curious as to atheist perspective on this, as "atheism" seems to be a very absolute with regard to a perspective on what "cannot possibly be".

Last time I checked, oh, I don't know, the dictionary, all atheism was was a disbelief or lack of beliefs in gods. I know an atheist friend of mine who believes that Area 51 covered up Roswell, for crying out loud. However, I think the majority of us, due to our skeptical thinking on the existence of gods, would call ourselves skeptics on a variety of other issues such as Bigfoot and the Bermuda Triangle.

From what I understand (anybody who is more knowledgeable in biology, please feel free to correct me) genetic mutations are made to the base code of an organism's DNA and cannot be changed within an organism's lifetime, but can be passed on at least in part to offspring. Gene expression is already understood as the way that genetic information is interpreted by RNA so that functional proteins can be created. This absolutely can be influenced by the environment.

However, gene expression is only interpreting the blueprints (mutations). So natural selection pressures bears down on an organism and if their mutation and its expression is disadvantageous in their environment, then they'll die and not pass that on. This is basically what the modern theory of evolution is. What you seem to be saying is that just because mutations can be expressed dynamically in the environment by an individual organism, that mutations don't matter (yeah...). The best of Lamarckism combined with the best of intelligent design and pseudoscientific woo, but it's not at all going to derail the modern theory of evolution.

Sorry for the double post, but I'd like a reply from sswhateverlove sometime this week.

[One Above All]

I think you're confusing "dark matter and energy" with something else...
Einstein’s general relativity is currently “the law” of gravitational acceleration in the universe. This, however, predicted that the attractive force of gravity pulls all matter together, wherefore subsequent to the “Bang” the expansion of the universe should be observed to slow. This has not been observed, however, and instead, recent evidence confirms the expansion of the universe appears to be accelerating. To explain this, another revision is now necessary and a few theories have been proposed. What seems to be the common opinion now is that 96% of reality is actually unknown and undetectable substances called “dark matter” and “dark energy”. Making this assumption is said to be the only way to confirm general relativity is still a “scientific fact”.

So you are full of shit. What a surprise. I wish I had called it befo- Oh, wait, I did.
Dark matter has nothing to do with the expansion of the Universe. In addition, dark energy is not an assumption; it's a placeholder name for whatever is causing the expansion to accelerate.
Anyway, I'm now done with your posts. Gonna try to find an "ignore" button. See ya!

[TaraJo]

You still don't understand epigenetics.

Epigenetics can determine whether you get fat or not. So, why is it that nobody, regardless of their epigenetic status, has their fat collect as a big hump on their back like camels do? Because no matter how much we alter epigenetics, we still don't have the genetics to get the fat hump on our backs. No amount of genetic markers will change a gene that we don't have in the first place.

As for my source, that would be basic college level biology text books. Do you really need me to look it up online and post a link?

[sswhateverlove]

Last time I checked, oh, I don't know, the dictionary, all atheism was was a disbelief or lack of beliefs in gods. I know an atheist friend of mine who believes that Area 51 covered up Roswell, for crying out loud. However, I think the majority of us, due to our skeptical thinking on the existence of gods, would call ourselves skeptics on a variety of other issues such as Bigfoot and the Bermuda Triangle.

From what I understand (anybody who is more knowledgeable in biology, please feel free to correct me) genetic mutations are made to the base code of an organism's DNA and cannot be changed within an organism's lifetime, but can be passed on at least in part to offspring. Gene expression is already understood as the way that genetic information is interpreted by RNA so that functional proteins can be created. This absolutely can be influenced by the environment.

However, gene expression is only interpreting the blueprints (mutations). So natural selection pressures bears down on an organism and if their mutation and its expression is disadvantageous in their environment, then they'll die and not pass that on. This is basically what the modern theory of evolution is. What you seem to be saying is that just because mutations can be expressed dynamically in the environment by an individual organism, that mutations don't matter (yeah...). The best of Lamarckism combined with the best of intelligent design and pseudoscientific woo, but it's not at all going to derail the modern theory of evolution.

Sorry for the double post, but I'd like a reply from sswhateverlove sometime this week.

Methylation can reduce the expression of a mutated gene by up to 70% and is environmentally influenced. You do not think this is an important variable to consider with regard to how influential natural selection based on gene mutation has been?

---

You still don't understand epigenetics.

Epigenetics can determine whether you get fat or not. So, why is it that nobody, regardless of their epigenetic status, has their fat collect as a big hump on their back like camels do? Because no matter how much we alter epigenetics, we still don't have the genetics to get the fat hump on our backs. No amount of genetic markers will change a gene that we don't have in the first place.

As for my source, that would be basic college level biology text books. Do you really need me to look it up online and post a link?

As far as know, scientists have also not been able to change one species into another by mutating any particular genes, but if you have a source that conflicts I would like to see it. I find this interesting, especially when there are many species that share so many of our genes that they should be so similar, but they are not. The most significant factor that seems to be diverse amongst different species (and even within same species) is methylation/histone protein status that is "epigenomic", not "genetic".