(September 11, 2014 at 2:56 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(September 11, 2014 at 12:03 pm)sswhateverlove Wrote: 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?

It's had over 150 years of further development and new discoveries, so the current theory is much more nuanced.

(September 11, 2014 at 12:18 pm)sswhateverlove Wrote: 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.

Now you're no longer even talking about Darwin's theory, since he was not aware of the existence of genes when he published. All he knew on the mechanism of heredity was that organisms vary from generation to generation, and that those variations are heritable.

That said, 'seems to negate the assumed 'truth' that gene mutations are responsble for evolution of life and the differentiation of species' does not follow from 'evidence suggests that gene mutations can either be expressed to some degree or silenced based on the specific circumstances of each individual organism'.

(September 11, 2014 at 12:03 pm)sswhateverlove Wrote: 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).

And 'seems to negate the assumed 'truth' that gene mutations are responsble for evolution of life and the differentiation of species' doesn't follow from that, either.

(September 11, 2014 at 12:03 pm)sswhateverlove Wrote: 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".

There is no atheist perspective on this. An individual atheist's opinion on it will be based on what they find plausible. Most Western atheists will defer to the experts in the relevant fields precisely because they don't view their atheism as impinging on the facts of the matter.

a·the·ism/ˈāTHēˌizəm/
noun
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

What in that definition leads you to believe that atheism seems to be 'very' absolute?

To clarify, gene mutations and changes to gene expression based on methylation and histone protein status are not the same thing. The latter seems to be negating the former, in my opinion. What is yours?

(September 11, 2014 at 1:53 pm)sswhateverlove Wrote: 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.

From the department of blowing your mind, not all atheists believe in Darwinistic evolution.

(September 11, 2014 at 3:06 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(September 11, 2014 at 1:53 pm)sswhateverlove Wrote: 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.

From the department of blowing your mind, not all atheists believe in Darwinistic evolution.

Memo from the department: Plenty of theists do as well.

(September 11, 2014 at 2:55 pm)sswhateverlove Wrote:

(September 11, 2014 at 2:51 pm)Bibliofagus Wrote: That damned Darwin and his theory of dark matter!

Oh wait wut???

Umm... yeah, I know it's getting confusing. I think "darks" were added to this conversation because of epigenetic expression being influenced by environmental factors and "the darks" (as claimed) making up a majority (96%) of our reality. My question was putting out there was if others think this mysterious stuff we don't know anything about could possibly influence hold humanity has evolved? If your answer is no, why not?

If dark matter matters (has a measurable effect on stuff), it's possible to have had a measurable effect on evolution. It would be interesting to find evidence for how that works.

Other factors we don't really know about? We don't really know I guess. But evolution is still the best explanation available. Hell it's so good I like to ask what the hell could stop evolution from happening given the millions of years of chance for it to happen and the literally countless individual specimen for it to happen to.

(September 11, 2014 at 2:17 pm)sswhateverlove Wrote: 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.

What would be interesting is a leading expert in epigenetics who agrees with your conclusion that this field 'proves Darwin wrong'. That would support the contention that you know what you're talking about on this matter and not simply misinterpreting it.

Frankly, I'm not qualified to make that evaluation, which is why I'm willing to defer to experts in the relevant fields. At this point, I've no reason to suspect that you're more qualified than I am to derive the particular conclusions you have from this research.

(September 11, 2014 at 3:02 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(September 11, 2014 at 1:16 pm)sswhateverlove Wrote: Wow, many of you seem to be very rude. I'm simply asking you to give your perspective based on information I have been exploring. No need to be a jerk...

I suppose many of us are rude, but it seems to be in reaction to the way you present yourself. You're making a LOT of assumptions about your audience. Some may consider that being a jerk.

I'm being justifiably rude, since the OP has just come here, spammed three or four threads, blatantly lied about his/her knowledge of science (no, OP, dark matter doesn't have anything to do with the rate of expansion of the Universe, and the "facts" you pull out of your ass regarding evolution and epigenetics are shit), and never, ever, backs up his/her claims. He/She also lied about his/her beliefs (profile says "agnostic", whatever that is, threads say "raging theist wooer"), but that's a minor point. I suspect the OP believed it would make his/her claims more believable, which is common among theists who have never knowingly interacted with anyone outside their own community, but that's just my speculation.

First of all, proving Darwin wrong means nothing. Darwin was wrong about a number of things. Evolutionary theory does not depend on Darwin.

Second, I still have not seen how you are bridging the gap between epigenetics, therefore evolution is wrong. Please explain. The study you provided does not address this. It might also not be a coincidence that evolutionnews.org is touting this perspective you hold.

You have also not addressed why you think this is an "atheist perspective".

Quote:evolutionnews.org

Just another creatard web site.

(September 11, 2014 at 2:48 pm)sswhateverlove Wrote: Umm... I think this person is confused. May want to check your source. Both "darks" are assumed to explain why the expansion is accelerating and not slowing down.

Wrong.

Dark matter is assumed to explain the gravitational effect of objects such as galaxies that don't appear to have enough luminous matter to explain the gravitational interaction with other objects.

(September 11, 2014 at 2:48 pm)sswhateverlove Wrote: Yes, I agree about them both being "placeholder" names because they have not actually been observed, so they cannot claim them to be "matter" or "energy". Neil Degrasse Tyson actually said they would be better off labeled "Fred" and "Wilma" because we know nothing about what theyactually are.

With all due respect to Tyson, "dark energy" and "dark matter" are better names because they actually serve to describe the properties that those unknown "things" have - both are so far not directly observable (dark), and one (dark matter) interacts gravitationally like ordinary baryonic matter, and the other (dark energy) behaves like, well, energy.

(September 11, 2014 at 3:33 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

(September 11, 2014 at 2:48 pm)sswhateverlove Wrote: Umm... I think this person is confused. May want to check your source. Both "darks" are assumed to explain why the expansion is accelerating and not slowing down.

Wrong.

Dark matter is assumed to explain the gravitational effect of objects such as galaxies that don't appear to have enough luminous matter to explain the gravitational interaction with other objects.

(September 11, 2014 at 2:48 pm)sswhateverlove Wrote: Yes, I agree about them both being "placeholder" names because they have not actually been observed, so they cannot claim them to be "matter" or "energy". Neil Degrasse Tyson actually said they would be better off labeled "Fred" and "Wilma" because we know nothing about what theyactually are.

With all due respect to Tyson, "dark energy" and "dark matter" are better names because they actually serve to describe the properties that those unknown "things" have - both are so far not directly observable (dark), and one (dark matter) interacts gravitationally like ordinary baryonic matter, and the other (dark energy) behaves like, well, energy.

Ok, interesting. Can you direct me to where I would find info on "properties" of dark matter an dark energy that have been observed?

---

(September 11, 2014 at 3:21 pm)coldwx Wrote: First of all, proving Darwin wrong means nothing. Darwin was wrong about a number of things. Evolutionary theory does not depend on Darwin.

Second, I still have not seen how you are bridging the gap between epigenetics, therefore evolution is wrong. Please explain. The study you provided does not address this. It might also not be a coincidence that evolutionnews.org is touting this perspective you hold.

You have also not addressed why you think this is an "atheist perspective".

Hmmm... Why do people put labels on themselves and then claim that there's no common perspective amongst those who have that label? Why don't you tell me what the label of "atheist" means? My notiion is that you believe there is no evidence that suggests that there is a possibility of an intelligence to design of reality or possibility of intelligent influence in reality. If that is not true, please explain how I'm mistaken.