(September 12, 2014 at 8:02 am)Tonus Wrote:

(September 12, 2014 at 5:23 am)sswhateverlove Wrote: With what has been observed in quantum physics and epigentics regarding the potential of things in the environment to influence results, it seems like it would be negligent to rule out "dark matter" and "The Force" as possible variables.

"A force." Not "The Force." You seem strangely hung up on this need to give a name and identity (and even additional properties!) to something that is still not fully understood. Are you aware that you are doing this?

I was trying to be funny.

---

(September 12, 2014 at 8:14 am)Alex K Wrote:

(September 12, 2014 at 8:02 am)Tonus Wrote: "A force." Not "The Force." You seem strangely hung up on this need to give a name and identity (and even additional properties!) to something that is still not fully understood. Are you aware that you are doing this?

Yes, that Tonus says. You tend to give words more magical meaning beyond what scientists actually mean by them, and then voice your doubts about what the scientists allegedly claim about nature.
Your approach involves quite a bit tubular cellulose leftovers from the last harvest.

Spent 3 hours watching Tyson's doc "The Inexplicable Universe" before coming on here. We should probably blame him for my doubts as he insists over and over that scientists know very little about the "truth" of reality with regard to the specific topics I posted about.

BTW, he proposed that "dark matter" should be called "Fred" and "dark energy" should be called "Wilma" or "Barney".

What is the truth of reality?

(September 12, 2014 at 2:49 am)Zidneya Wrote: Isn't this info at most alters the way we understand evolution but it doesn't refutes the theory itself?
How does this refutes evolution? Because I always thought that evolution was the constant adaptation of organisms trough sequential changes inherited by their progenitors in order to maintain the survival of the species.

Except that is not accurate. Organisms do not adapt and survival of the species is not a part of the algorithm of evolution, only a result.

Evolution is change in allele frequencies in populations due to differential reproduction. Genes that contribute to organisms surviving to reproduce are retained in the gene pool and tend to become more common.

Individual organisms do not adapt - they survive or they die. No organism (except possibly humans) is the least bit concerned with 'survival of the species'.

Quote:And if you think this carefully when you say:

evidence that gene expression is dynamic and influenced by all aspects of the environment.

That doesn't sound like it refutes evolution but that it supports it instead. So shouldn't you rephrase your question of: Is evolution actually true? to: Do we really understand how evolution works?

No, she is quibbling about mechanisms.

(September 12, 2014 at 10:07 am)Alex K Wrote: What is the truth of reality?

I guess, if there was an omniscient being (which I am not claiming), it's what they would know.

Which makes your definition worthless for any thing practical.

But for us, not being omniscient, what is the best way to determine that truth? What do we have at our disposal that might reveal it to us?

(September 11, 2014 at 8:09 pm)sswhateverlove Wrote:

(September 11, 2014 at 8:03 pm)Chas Wrote: There isn't a dichotomy between genetic and epigenetic effects.

Epigenetics is the mechanisms of embryology acting on the genetics.

---

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

From my research I've found that micro array analysis of the epigenetic expression of organism's genes suggest evidence that methylation and histone status change regularly throughout the life of the organism, not just in the embryo.

Gene expression is regulated by the environment of the cell. This is not a new idea and does not in any way disprove evolution. It does not even modify it greatly.

These mechanisms are part of the modern evolutionary synthesis (neo-Darwinism).

Geeze, is OP still going on? Hasn't he already demonstrated he doesn't understand physics, biology or philosophy?

So far, he hasn't thrown anything new in here. Very few people have. He claims we're wrong because we don't know everything about everything, but science kinda admits they never really know everything about everything. I mean, getting a 100% consensus on anything is difficult in scientific fields, but most of us feel fairly comfortable siding with the 99.997% of scientists.

sswhateverlove, I think you will find going forward that people are much more open to discussion and/or answering your questions if you do not begin with the false juxtaposition that (your) uncertainty about a given topic translates into piety winning by default.

(September 12, 2014 at 10:37 am)sswhateverlove Wrote:

(September 12, 2014 at 10:07 am)Alex K Wrote: What is the truth of reality?

I guess, if there was an omniscient being (which I am not claiming), it's what they would know.

It is a very interesting philosophical question in which sense sciences approach something like a truth. I've sat in a cool lecture about this by that guy once. We don't know whether the objects in our theories, and our laws of physics correspond to anything of the same form in reality, as it is not clear what that would even mean. What would a statement even look like which is absolutely equivalent to an aspect of underlying reality?

We know that our theories are predictive for a wide range of phenomena, and that there are only a handful of phenomena which e.g. are in contradiction with the standard model of particle physics, and thousands which are in agreement. That's more than nothing.