(September 11, 2014 at 4:33 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: 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?

I think it's more the other way around. A predator may develop a particular feature that gives it an advantage over a particular prey. That feature will influence the evolution of that prey animal by selecting out the ones that don't evolve an effective counter-measure, so to speak. The prey species did not develop a counter-measure all at once; some did and some didn't, and those who did were more likely to survive.

Simple example, if a species of lion develops the ability to run a bit faster and farther than other lions, natural selection will favor them because they're more likely to capture prey for food and thus more likely to breed and pass along the genes for faster, longer chases. By the same token, those among its prey who develop greater speed or endurance will also be more likely to survive and breed and pass along their genes.

But also remember that there are a lot of extinct species in Earth's past. I think that most of the time, the "arms race" is not much of a race at all. Maybe a particular species of gazelle died out before it was able to evolve the features that would have allowed it to survive. Maybe there are even species of predator who managed to wipe out their primary food source and died out before they could adapt to new food sources or evolve to hunt down others.

(September 11, 2014 at 4:08 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(September 11, 2014 at 2:55 pm)sswhateverlove Wrote: 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. The question I was putting out there was if others think this mysterious stuff (we don't know anything about) could possibly influence how species have evolved? If your answer is no, why not?

If the answer is yes, why?

Well, because epigeneticists tell me that everything in my environment has the ability to influence the methylation and histone status of my genetic expression and astrophysicists tell me that a majority of my environment (94%) is "dark matter" and "dark energy". Is it a stretch to wonder if "dark matter" and "dark energy" influence my genetic expression?

---

(September 11, 2014 at 4:18 pm)coldwx Wrote:

(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?

My original post was addressing the fact that natural selection (genetic mutations being responsible for evolution) seems irrelevant in light of epigenetics and asking for others opinion on this. Often my atheist friends argue they have no need to consider any outside intelligent being because evolution explains things well enough for them to be confident in the fundamentals of science. Because of this they feel no need to question the idea of intelligent design and influence. Is this your opinion? If not, I am interested in it.

(September 11, 2014 at 4:00 pm)sswhateverlove Wrote:

(September 11, 2014 at 3:56 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: How would a "design of reality" require an outside intelligence which is itself undesigned? If an intelligence capable of producing a "design of reality" requires no designer, why does matter operating by natural laws? If your "'god' intelligence" is designed, you've proposed a reductio ad absurdum.

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.

When have you ever observed the law of gravity actually being imposed by some intelligence?

You have in fact always observed rules and laws of nature to exist without observing their having been created or imposed by any intelligence. But so twistedly brainwashed have your thinking been, and so weak have resistance to faithtards have been, that you could utter the drivel above.

(September 11, 2014 at 4:24 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(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.

I agree there is a difference between man-made laws and laws that man assumes are consistent in the natural world. I also feel like there are times when man assumes he knows laws of the natural world, but with additional information, he realizes he misunderstood the data and the laws that he thought applied to everything, actually only apply to a small portion of things.

(September 11, 2014 at 2:37 pm)sswhateverlove Wrote:

(September 11, 2014 at 2:20 pm)StealthySkeptic Wrote: 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?

---

(September 11, 2014 at 2:33 pm)TaraJo Wrote: 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".

You have a very poor, even incorrect, understanding of genetics.

"Change one species into another by mutating any particular gene" shows your utter lack of comprehension.

Methylation happens differentially across a fetus in both space and time, it is just one of the epigenetic mechanisms.

(September 11, 2014 at 7:38 pm)Chuck Wrote:

(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.

When have you ever observed the law of gravity actually being imposed by some intelligence?

You have in fact always observed rules and laws of nature to exist without observing their having been created or imposed by any intelligence. But so twistedly brainwashed have your thinking been, and so weak have resistance to faithtards have been, that you could utter the drivel above.

I don't think using words like "twistedly brainwashed" and "faithtards" is a very respectful way of going about a discussion.

I do observe things to happen consistently, and I am encouraged to believe what I'm told by scientists with regard to the laws and rules that are implied by them. I also observe that sometimes "laws" and "facts" that were absolute end up being revealed as a misunderstanding of data in light of new information. Fallible human beings report to us the laws, rules and facts and often they end up "eating crow" later on.

(September 11, 2014 at 4:33 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: 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?

No. Competition alters the environment in which a species operate. This In turn changes the optimal mix of behavioral and physiological traits required to maximize chances of survival and reproduction. Random genetic mutation itself is mostly indifferent to these pressures. However, since mutations effect behavior and physiology, changes to the optimal mix of traits changes which mutation would increase a creature's chances of survival and reproduction, and which ones would decrease it.

So generally random gene mutations do not somehow directly respond to the competition. But which product of generally random gene mutations survive and which die out does respond directly to competition.

---

(September 11, 2014 at 7:43 pm)sswhateverlove Wrote:

(September 11, 2014 at 7:38 pm)Chuck Wrote: When have you ever observed the law of gravity actually being imposed by some intelligence?

You have in fact always observed rules and laws of nature to exist without observing their having been created or imposed by any intelligence. But so twistedly brainwashed have your thinking been, and so weak have resistance to faithtards have been, that you could utter the drivel above.

I don't think using words like "twistedly brainwashed" and "faithtards" is a very respectful way of going about a discussion.

I do observe things to happen consistently, and I am encouraged to believe what I'm told by scientists with regard to the laws and rules that are implied by them. I also observe that sometimes "laws" and "facts" that were absolute end up being revealed as a misunderstanding of data in light of new information. Fallible human beings report to us the laws, rules and facts and often they end up "eating crow" later on.

Whether human understanding of law of nature is right or wrong, you have never seen any intelligence impose them. That unimposed laws exist regardless of the correctness of our understanding of it can be proven by the expedient of you stepping out of a window. Does the fact that our understanding of gravity changes the law that you will go splat? Has the law of the splat been seen by you to have been imposed by any intelligence?

That fallible human beings are wrong sometimes does not means they are wrong all the time, nor does it mean when they appear to be wrong, they are not right in some subtle way.

Infallible god, on the other hand, seem to have failed every time where he is rigorously tested.

(September 11, 2014 at 4:31 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(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.

So, you do not think that the fact that mutated genes can be silenced by up to 70% and the unknown variables (such as 96% of potential environmental stimuli being uncontrolled for) should be considered with regard to our previous assumptions about natural selection?

---

(September 11, 2014 at 6:15 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

(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 have researched it. I know what my opinion is. I'm interested in yours and why you have it. I agree that these labels have been put on unknown stuff (96% of reality) because it enables us to explain how the stuff we've observed is possible when it shouldn't be. I haven't found anything that confirms there has been any observations of the properties of said unknown stuff or that anything that would be considered scientific evidence of it's actual existence has been put forth.

---

(September 11, 2014 at 7:40 pm)Chas Wrote:

(September 11, 2014 at 2:37 pm)sswhateverlove Wrote: 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?

---

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".

You have a very poor, even incorrect, understanding of genetics.

"Change one species into another by mutating any particular gene" shows your utter lack of comprehension.

Methylation happens differentially across a fetus in both space and time, it is just one of the epigenetic mechanisms.

As far as I know, epigeneticists claim that methylation is constantly changing throughout the lifetime of every organism based on environmental influences and influences the expression of the genes significantly.

(September 11, 2014 at 3:00 pm)sswhateverlove Wrote:

(September 11, 2014 at 2:53 pm)Esquilax Wrote: You need to promise me that when I bring up fruit fly speciation, or what have you, that you won't say anything like "yes, but they're still fruit flies."

You have to promise. Because to do otherwise will put the lie to all your apparent interest in science.

I'm not familiar with what you're referring to. So, you're saying that they have changed one species to another and have controlled the variables in such a way that only gene code modification occurred and there were no differences in epigenetic expression?

There isn't a dichotomy between genetic and epigenetic effects.

Epigenetics is the mechanisms of embryology acting on the genetics.

---

(September 11, 2014 at 4:00 pm)sswhateverlove Wrote:

(September 11, 2014 at 3:56 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: How would a "design of reality" require an outside intelligence which is itself undesigned? If an intelligence capable of producing a "design of reality" requires no designer, why does matter operating by natural laws? If your "'god' intelligence" is designed, you've proposed a reductio ad absurdum.

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.

You don't understand what is meant by a scientific law.

(September 11, 2014 at 7:43 pm)Chuck Wrote:

(September 11, 2014 at 4:33 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: 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?

No. Competition alters the environment in which a species operate. This In turn changes the optimal mix of behavioral and physiological traits required to maximize chances of survival and reproduction. Random genetic mutation itself is mostly indifferent to these pressures. However, since mutations effect behavior and physiology, changes to the optimal mix of traits changes which mutation would increase a creature's chances of survival and reproduction, and which ones would decrease it.

So generally random gene mutations do not somehow directly respond to the competition. But which product of generally random gene mutations survive and which die out does respond directly to competition.

---

(September 11, 2014 at 7:43 pm)sswhateverlove Wrote: I don't think using words like "twistedly brainwashed" and "faithtards" is a very respectful way of going about a discussion.

I do observe things to happen consistently, and I am encouraged to believe what I'm told by scientists with regard to the laws and rules that are implied by them. I also observe that sometimes "laws" and "facts" that were absolute end up being revealed as a misunderstanding of data in light of new information. Fallible human beings report to us the laws, rules and facts and often they end up "eating crow" later on.

Whether human understanding of law of nature is right or wrong, you have never seen any intelligence impose them. That unimposed laws exist regardless of the correctness of our understanding of it can be proven by the expedient of you stepping out of a window. Does the fact that our understanding of gravity changes the law that you will go splat? Has the law of the splat been seen by you to have been imposed by any intelligence?

That fallible human beings are wrong sometimes does not means they are wrong all the time, nor does it mean when they appear to be wrong, they are not right in some subtle way.

Infallible god, on the other hand, seem to have failed every time where he is rigorously tested.

So, my observations have been that my experience always moves with forward motion, wherefore, if I jump, splat. Physicists, however, say that the laws do not say that it has to happen that way. In fact, they said that according to the laws, I'm just as likely to experience in reverse time than forward time, the calculations work the same. Although I assume that I will continue to experience time in a forward moving direction in the future, I do not rule out the possibility that sometime there may be more information, new technology, etc, that would allow me to experience reality differently.