(September 11, 2014 at 3:45 pm)sswhateverlove Wrote: 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.

I asked you several questions and you did not answer any of them. You simply shifted the burden to me. I am not going to bite. I will ask again, how are you bridging the gap between epigenitics so therefore evolution is false?

You still have not addressed why you think there is an atheist perspective on evolution. As many have repeatable told you, atheism and evolution are mutually exclusive. My atheism simply means I reject the claim that god exists. Are you claiming that you know that the "intelligence" in design is god? Once again, you don't get to shift the burden of proof. What is an atheist perspective on evolution?

(September 11, 2014 at 4:00 pm)sswhateverlove Wrote: I guess I don't have any context in which I have ever observed "laws" or "rules" to exist without them being written, created, or imposed by some being with some intelligence.

Hm. You ought to know that just because, say, there's a rule by which the freezing temperature of water can be determined, it's otherwise comparable to a rule that humans make up to govern their own activities. Rules and laws of nature are descriptions of consistent ways reality behaves. They're really more analogous to landscape painting than to laws. It really makes no sense to link the creation of human laws with the creation of natural ones, it's a conflation of two very different things that happen to have the same name. It's like reasoning that feathers can't be dark, because they're light. People make these kinds of errors all the time, but I doubt this particular one would occur in a language that didn't use the same word for both senses.

law/lô/
noun
1.the system of rules that a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and may enforce by the imposition of penalties.
2.a statement of fact, deduced from observation, to the effect that a particular natural or scientific phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions are present.

---

(September 11, 2014 at 4:18 pm)coldwx Wrote: You still have not addressed why you think there is an atheist perspective on evolution. As many have repeatable told you, atheism and evolution are mutually exclusive. My atheism simply means I reject the claim that god exists. Are you claiming that you know that the "intelligence" in design is god? Once again, you don't get to shift the burden of proof. What is an atheist perspective on evolution?

'Mutually exclusive' is probably not the best phrasing, as it implies that an atheist cannot also accept evolution, when it's closer to say that an atheist doesn't have to accept evolution.

Fine, I used the wrong word. Make him answer my questions.

(September 11, 2014 at 3:03 pm)sswhateverlove Wrote: To clarify, gene mutations and changes to gene expression based on methylation and histone protein status are not the same thing.

That is my understanding as well.

(September 11, 2014 at 3:03 pm)sswhateverlove Wrote: The latter seems to be negating the former, in my opinion. What is yours?

That differing expression of genes does not negate differing selection of genes.

While we're on the the topic of genes, I have a question that will admittedly probably sound naive.

---

When biologists talk about an "evolutionary arms-race," do they in any sense mean that otherwise generally random gene mutations somehow directly respond to the competition? Like, say, an organism develops an eye spot that would give it such a hunting advantage so as to prospectively eliminate all its competitors; in an "arms-race," would its competitors' offspring also mutate the genes necessary for the allowance of an eye spot or...? How exactly does that work?

(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?

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".

I've told you all once.

Never leave a scientific theory out where the kids can get at it. They don't know how to use them and someone will get hurt.

Let that be the last time I have to mention it.

MM

(September 11, 2014 at 4:33 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: While we're on the the topic of genes, I have a question that will admittedly probably sound naive.

---

When biologists talk about an "evolutionary arms-race," do they in any sense mean that otherwise generally random gene mutations somehow directly respond to the competition? Like, say, an organism develops an eye spot that would give it such a hunting advantage so as to prospectively eliminate all its competitors; in an "arms-race," would its competitors' offspring also mutate the genes necessary for the allowance of an eye spot or...? How exactly does that work?

Even though it's a fascinating way to put it, I don't like the "Arms race" metaphor because it's quite inaccurate. An arms race is mostly conscious, in fact, and requires an active effort from both parts to actually take place. In an evolutionary context there is no such intentionality though.

To play along with your example, the competitor's offspring, in order to survive, would of course need to fill the genetic disadvantage but it's not necessary that they do in fact emulate the other species'advantage. For instance they might evolve a finer echolocation sense, or better mobility etc.. They might even not evolve anything and just die out. They would basically need a sheer amount of luck.


It bugs me that I'm on my mobile now and I can't really go too much in depth on the subject, but if you are interested just PM me and I'll gladly try to answer your doubts tomorrow (I'm a student of Biotechnology, just so you know I'm not pulling things outta my ass )

(September 11, 2014 at 4:33 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: While we're on the the topic of genes, I have a question that will admittedly probably sound naive.

---

When biologists talk about an "evolutionary arms-race," do they in any sense mean that otherwise generally random gene mutations somehow directly respond to the competition? Like, say, an organism develops an eye spot that would give it such a hunting advantage so as to prospectively eliminate all its competitors; in an "arms-race," would its competitors' offspring also mutate the genes necessary for the allowance of an eye spot or...? How exactly does that work?

They certainly don't say that, there's no mechanism to tell genes which mutation would have which effect anyhow. It's just nature throwing random stuff at the wall, and some sticks. The stiff competition just makes the advantage of some mutations particularly pronounced.

(September 11, 2014 at 3:45 pm)sswhateverlove Wrote: Ok, interesting. Can you direct me to where I would find info on "properties" of dark matter an dark energy that have been observed?

Seriously, it's not hard to find. You do understand that both are hypothetical constructs that were made in order to explain observations, yes? Quite literally, neither would have any reason to be considered by science, had we not observed effects that were not explained by existing models.

Here's a couple of starting points.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter

Quote:Subsequently, many other observations have indicated the presence of dark matter in the universe, including the rotational speeds of galaxies by Vera Rubin[6] in the 1960s–1970s, gravitational lensing of background objects by galaxy clusters such as the Bullet Cluster, the temperature distribution of hot gas in galaxies and clusters of galaxies, and more recently the pattern of anisotropies in the cosmic microwave background.

You know what, screw it. You can google this stuff yourself.

I always took the "arms race" analogy to emphasize the direct responsive aspect of evolution. For example: where a predator might gain an advantage by, say, developing teeth, it's prey might over time develop a hard exterior or evasive abilities in response to the new pressure provided by its predator. One-ups-manship through mutation and natural selection.