(September 12, 2014 at 10:40 am)Stimbo Wrote: 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?

I would say the scientific method gives us the ability to learn pieces of the "truth", but without omniscience we don't know for sure that we're not missing some valuable piece that's causing us to misunderstand our data.

All in all, knowing pieces helps us greatly, but to know the total of "truth", well... That's pretty much the point of each of the threads that I've posted, we don't know.

---

(September 12, 2014 at 10:41 am)Chas Wrote:

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

I do not disagree. I am very fascinated, however, with regard to all the possible influential variables involved in epigenetic expression and what that implies regarding the nature of our reality.

(September 12, 2014 at 11:40 am)sswhateverlove Wrote: All in all, knowing pieces helps us greatly, but to know the total of "truth", well... That's pretty much the point of each of the threads that I've posted, we don't know.

Most members here feel this way. Perhaps if this were your starting point you'd have had a smoother entrance. You'd have entered into agreement rather than strife.

(September 12, 2014 at 10:58 am)TaraJo Wrote: 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.

And again...

Actually quantum theory is said to be "the most accurate physical theory ever". http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics

You may want to read more about epigenetics as research has come a long way http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/e...pi_learns/

And I would appreciate it if you stop claiming I'm "so full of shit", otherwise I'm going to stop responding to your posts. (See, that's called "being assertive")

---

Quote:Most members here feel this way. Perhaps if this were your starting point you'd have had a smoother entrance. You'd have entered into agreement rather than strife.

Perhaps you're right..

In that case, here's my original article that all the threads subsequently derived from...

It's called "The Truth"

Unfortunately, the truth, as I am going to explain it, will most likely make you uncomfortable. The truth will not feed your ego, build your confidence, or reinforce your faith in science.

The truth, despite many claims to the contrary, is that we actually know very little about the truth.

Conscious Awareness
I will start with the little I do know, and it is this, “cogito ergo sum”, “I think, therefore, I am”. Descarte’s famous quote sums up, in a few words, everything that I know as absolute truth. I perceive and form opinion. I observe and assess. I experience and evaluate, compare and assimilate based on all my previous experiences. The opinions I form will be dependent upon what I have observed prior and what information I have been socialized to accept as truth. However, the only thing I really know is that I have this experience. I do not know for sure you also experience this (the truth is, you could be a robot), but I know it happens for me.

Beyond this, there are many claims of truth, for which I will explore. But please bear in mind, the absolute nature of the claims depend upon current technology and the accumulation of observation, experience, and opinion formed by those deemed worthy of forming such an opinion. As far as I’m aware, there are no experts who claim to be omniscient, wherefore we must always consider that there may be variables uncontrolled for and information left out.

Sensory Perception
Biological scientists have attempted to expand upon Descarte’s truth to try to explain the mechanisms involved. Many claim that vibrating waves and particles interact with our awareness and are experienced based on the frequency of the vibration. Labels have been assigned to aspects of, what have been called, “biological systems” to assist with the communication of these concepts. “Baroreceptors”, for example, are said to correlate with our experience of, what has been labeled “pressure”. “Chemoreceptors”, are said to correlate with our experience of, what has been labeled “chemical stimuli”. “Electromagnetic receptors”, are said to correlate with our experience of, what has been labeled “infrared radiation, visible light, and magnetic fields”. “Hydroreceptors”, are said to correlate with our experience of, what has been labeled “humidity”. “Mechanoreceptors”, are said to correlate with our experience of, what has been labeled “mechanical stress or mechanical strain”. “Nociceptors”, are said to correlate with our experience of, what has been labeled “noxious or potentially noxious stimuli”. “Osmoreceptors”, are said to correlate with our experience of, what has been labeled “the osmolarity fluids”. “Photoreceptors”, are said to correlate with our experience of, what has been labeled “sense of position”. “Thermoreceptors”, are said to correlate with our experience of, what has been labeled “temperature”. According to many, there is no experience beyond what is capable of being picked up by these receptors (or assistant technologies). According to public opinion, these receptors tell us the truth about what “is”. Unfortunately (brace yourself), there is no evidence that the mechanisms convey to us anything that resembles what actually “is”. The biological systems are said to produce an experience based on the vibration of particles interacting with receptors and the subsequent biological processes. The truth about what “is” cannot be deduced from this, it simply confirms Descarte’s claim that we experience and form opinion. Similar to the concept of the “Matrix”, if we choose to believe we are experiencing reality, then our reality is real regardless of what actually “is”. This is at the root of all we know, but for the sake of moving on in our exploration of truth, let’s assume the reality of our experience is a given.

The Beginning of the Material Universe
The next set of truth claims involve “the beginning”. The two commonly held opinions are “from nothing, God created everything” and “from nothing, the Big Bang created everything”. One is called “religion” and the other is called “scientific fact”, but both make the same claim. This claim contradicts Einstein’s “truth” that “energy cannot be created or destroyed; it can only be changed from one form to another”, but for the sake of exploring further, let’s ignore that. The “Big Bang” theory was proposed by physicists and astronomers and is based on the idea of “gravitational pressure” and how gravity interacts with “matter” and “antimatter”. It relies on “laws” of astrophysics and is said to describe the origins of all of reality. To try to get a better understanding of this “truth”, let’s explore the “scientific facts” about gravity. First, “little g”, or the observed “G-force”, was believed to be “constant” with regard to the “the law” of acceleration until it was realized that acceleration actually depends on mass size and distance, wherefore it cannot predict acceleration through space or on different planets. Due to this the “the law” was revised. From here, Newton’s “Big G” became “the law” as the “universal gravitational constant”. However, “Big G” has not actually been observed to be constant when measured. Further, it predicts that without an external force, two objects traveling along parallel paths will always remain parallel and never meet. Particles that start off on parallel paths, however, are sometimes observed to end up colliding. Due to this, the “the law” was revised and Einstein’s general relativity became “the law” stating those objects are still traveling along the straightest possible line, but due to a distortion in space-time, the straightest possible line is now along a spherical path. 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”. Again, the “truth” about “Big Bang” and the evolution of the universe is currently relying upon the assumption that with all our technology, we are capable of only observing 4% of what “is”. The remaining 96% is some mysterious “other stuff” that we know nothing about. So much for getting clarification of truth through astrophysics.

So, the truth about the material universe as presented by the scientific community and accepted by public opinion is obviously lacking, but it goes further. When observed on a smaller scale, “truth” becomes even more confusing. The matter supposedly created by the “Big Bang”, which evolved into the total of our material reality, has actually been observed to act as both matter and energy when viewed on a quantum level. It has further been observed to act in spooky and “entangled” ways that defy all our previous held “truths” of physics. Quantum physicists report evidence that particles can instantly communicate with each other, even when extremely far apart, that photons pop in and out of existence, and that the observer is actually an influential factor in the perception of matter. There is currently no commonly accepted theory that unifies the observations of astrophysics with quantum mechanics.

Evolution of Life
Despite the lack of concrete evidence with regard to the nature and origin of the universe, for the sake of further exploring truth, we can assume the absolute nature of material reality as a given in order to delve deeper. From here, we will explore the truth about what has been called “life”, or the “origin of species”. Darwin’s “theory of evolution” is based on the fact that all species that exist (at least on planet earth) are genetically similar. This “truth” assumes that all forms of life have a common ancestor and that differentiation has occurred due to “natural selection”. There seems to be little as to theory of how non-living matter and energy originally became that first life form, however, again, for the sake of delving deeper, we will accept it as a given. “Natural selection” assumes that over great lengths of time genetic mutations, or changes to the genetic code, happened as a natural aspect of evolution, as expressed through the first organism’s subsequent offspring. It is claimed that the mutations that were beneficial to the organism in it’s environment allowed the organism to be fruitful in reproduction, whereby encouraging the transmission of that mutation in that environment. It is further claimed that the mutations that were harmful to the organism in it’s environment interfered with reproduction, preventing the transmission of that mutation in that environment. This is referred to as “survival of the fittest” and is said to explain how very small differences in genetic code resulted in the extreme diversity of species. This seems to be the public opinion with regard to evolution that has existed over the past hundred years. It seems to be widely accepted because of it’s simplicity. But is it actually true?

The new science of Epigenetics now has researchers digging deeper into the mechanisms of genetic expression and inheritance than was previously possible. What they report finding seems to imply that the truth of evolution may not be so simple. While it is observed that the genetic codes of all earth’s species are similarly structured, it is said that the actual expression of genes are observed to be very different between species and even among members of the same species. This suggests that it is not simply mutations that result in differentiation, but the dynamic nature of the expression of each gene in the code sequence. For example, a comparative analysis of gene expression between humans and primates found that there were more than 800 genes that varied in their methylation patterns among orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees, and bonobos. Despite these apes having the same genes, methylation differences are said to account for their phenotypic variation. Further, although humans and the great apes share 99% of their DNA, so far, there are known to be 171 genes that are uniquely methylated in humans which have directly correlated with advanced cognitive abilities. This evidence suggests that similar gene sequences can actually be expressed in very different ways. Further, the 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. Additionally, the epigenetic markers are said to be transmitted between generations. 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 warned you what I had to say about truth was likely to make you uncomfortable.

The Progression of Time
Finally, it would not be a thorough exploration of the truth of reality without discussing the aspect of time progression. As I stated above, there are currently no commonly accepted theories that unify the observations of general relativity and quantum mechanics, but that does not mean there are no theories. A theory that has been said to unify and explain these conflicting observations assumes first that the progression of time, as we perceive it, is illusory. To put this in context, Einstein first proposed a thought experiment with regard to how this applies to acceleration through space. He claimed that perception of time, relative to time on earth, slows down the closer one travels toward a black hole. The thought experiment concludes that an organism traveling as such would return to earth, in the future, having aged very little, while similar organisms on earth would have aged as expected. If we are to assume the perception of time progression as illusory, then the truth of reality could be such that, observed from an outside perspective, everything in our reality began and ended, was created and destroyed, started and finished without following the slow progression we experience. In this sense, the total of the reality experience is only perceived by our conscious awareness, in increments, as the progression of time, but time itself, would not be factual. Some researchers who are attempting to unify general relativity with quantum mechanics, are claiming just that. If this is the case, the foundational principles of all the “truths” explored above would also be negated. Without time progression as a given, perception of expansion and evolution would also be illusory.

Conclusion
So, is any of this truth? How can you tell? When we have no choice but to accept given after given to try to understand what we’re observing, how can we ever know anything for sure? When “scientific facts” often don’t live up to their predictions, how can we trust? There are many claims about the truth of reality, and many people who pose themselves as experts capable of making such claims. As for me, however, I trust that I perceive. I trust that I observe and form opinion. Beyond that, I humbly admit that I am ignorant with regard to the truth.

(September 12, 2014 at 1:58 am)sswhateverlove Wrote: Um... you may want to check your facts. Dark energy has not been observed, only it's assumed effects.

http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/foc...rk-energy/

The effects of things are all we ever really observe of them, except for particles impacting our sense organs. We don't have mystical direct observation powers. Everything we perceive and detect is mediated. We don't see a dog, we see the photons reflected off the dog. We don't touch a table, the electron fields of the atoms in our fingers are repelled by the electron fields of the atoms in the table.

Would you argue that we don't observe wind if we only see its effects?

The Force thing was cute, though.

(September 12, 2014 at 11:47 am)sswhateverlove Wrote: Unfortunately, the truth, as I am going to explain it, will most likely make you uncomfortable. The truth will not feed your ego, build your confidence, or reinforce your faith in science.

A) The 'truth' according to you.
B) Your truth feeds only your ego.
C) I don't have 'faith' in science.

You continue to assert that I, and others hold certain beliefs, and that once 'challenged' we'll become uncomfortable in those beliefs. Again, you're wrong.

You call this brand of bullying being 'assertive'. Well, you certainly got the 'ass' part right. You're either dumb as cement or you're a meaningless troll. Either way, it's pretty clear that you're no 'agnostic'.

(September 11, 2014 at 7:28 pm)sswhateverlove Wrote:

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

Sure. But how does that negate natural selection of your genes, which by the way, have clearly been selected at least in part for their epigenetic effects?

The reason we didn't detect these things until recently is because of how little effect they have on the earth. Sure, we wouldn't be here today without them, but there's no good reason to think they have a direct effect on us. And if they did, it would only be because we evolved to be sensitive to them in some way. The only thing that would 'negate' evolution would be something that keeps inherited variation from differentially affecting odds of successful reproduction.

The null hypothesis holds until it's overcome. It's fine to wonder, but idle speculation doesn't make a case for anything. The answer to the question of whether dark matter and energy affect our evolution beyond keeping our galaxies together and speeding up the expansion of the universe is 'probably not'. In order to honestly say otherwise, we would have to find out otherwise.

---

(September 11, 2014 at 7:28 pm)sswhateverlove Wrote: 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.

How about you invite your many atheist friends here so we can hear what they have to say for themselves without it being filtered through you?

Why are you asking us to justify their opinion when we aren't them and we don't hold that opinion? Ask them. If you have convincing evidence of intelligent design, we're interested. All we'll do with it is evaluate it critically. If it's sound, we'll have to believe it.

---

(September 11, 2014 at 7:38 pm)sswhateverlove Wrote: I agree there is a difference between man-made laws and laws that man assumes are consistent in the natural world.

It's kind of the opposite of 'assuming' to conclude something is consistent based on never finding an exception to it over a long period of time. That's pretty much what it means to be consistent.

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

But they still apply to the things they were observed applying to. As I said in another post, if you're dissatisfied with science only providing closer and closer approximations to reality and never fully defining it, you may prefer religion. It's wrong, but at least it doesn't update its teachings without kicking and screaming.

---

(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 don't think repeatedly bringing the things your atheist friends say into the discussion when we clearly don't agree with what you say they say is respectful either, but here we are.

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

Would you please give an example of a law or fact that was absolute being revealed as a misunderstanding of data in light of new information? I'm not aware of such a case, though I am aware of occasions where new information shed light on the mechanisms of observed phenomena.

Do you think Newton misunderstood the data he had when he formulated the Laws of Motion?

(September 12, 2014 at 1:58 am)sswhateverlove Wrote: Um... you may want to check your facts. Dark energy has not been observed, only it's assumed effects.

http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/foc...rk-energy/

Let me illustrate by way of an analogy why this sort of hair-splitting is absurdly foolish.

Have you ever visually observed(*) wind directly? No, and nor has anyone else. We observe it only by it's interaction with other things that we can observe. Certainly today we know that wind is the movement of air, which is comprised of molecular oxygen and nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and a host of trace gases. Yet, there once was a time when we did *not* know this, and yet we still knew *something* caused the effects we observed, something we could not see. Only by making observations of the effects did we learn about wind.

We are now in the early stages of learning about what thing causes the expansion of space to accelerate against the force of gravity. That we don't know the exact nature of this thing in no way invalidates it's existence. The force exists, we can observe what it does, even if we can't directly observe it or currently know what causes it. Nonetheless, we can and have learned some of the constraints on the properties this "thing" has.

A hundred years ago, we were in largely the same situation with respect to gravity - and in many ways, still are.

(September 12, 2014 at 11:59 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: Would you argue that we don't observe wind if we only see its effects?

LOL, kind of funny that you posted this while I was typing up my wind analogy.

(September 12, 2014 at 10:02 am)sswhateverlove Wrote: 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.

The impression I get is that you seem to be asking if such things as dark matter or dark energy should be taken into account when considering how mutations occur and organisms evolve. But without knowing what dark matter or dark energy actually are and how they work, I don't see how that would be useful.

It's like saying that maybe dark matter or dark energy are the key to resolving the global warming problem, or the key to eradicating malaria, or to developing low-salt potato chips that don't taste bland. I think we learn faster if we focus our efforts, but this is akin to having a blindfolded chimp tossing darts at a chart of ideas.

(September 11, 2014 at 7:46 pm)sswhateverlove Wrote: 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?

Of course it should be considered. You weren't talking about considering it, you were talking about it negating evolution. Don't be weasely, please. It makes you look like you think the worst thing in the world is to admit you're wrong. Around here there's not much more you can do to earn respect than admit you're wrong gracefully. We respect the ability to update one's views during debate and be honest about it. The point isn't to win, the point is to advance understanding.

(September 11, 2014 at 7:38 pm)sswhateverlove Wrote: I have researched it. I know what my opinion is.

And it's immune to additional information, eh?

(September 11, 2014 at 7:38 pm)sswhateverlove Wrote: I'm interested in yours and why you have it.

I don't believe you. You've seemed far more interested in getting us to admit we think what you think we do. We keep telling you what we think, then you keep asking the same questions. How much do we have to answer your questions repetitively before you feel you've finally gotten our opinion?

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

Shouldn't be according to who? Science isn't about what should be, it's about what is. There's no point in clinging to the past in the light of new information.

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

Clearly they have properties such as causing gravitational lensing, holding galaxies together, and pushing them apart. Whatever is causing those effects exists.

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

They certainly do claim that. But they don't claim it changes how evolution works, which is by selecting for genes that differentially affect reproductive success.

---

(September 11, 2014 at 8:06 pm)sswhateverlove Wrote: 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.

'The calculations work the same' doesn't indicate 'equally likely'. It might be equally likely for space-time to work in the other direction in a different continuum, but this one goes in the direction where you fall before you splat. The calculations don't indicate that time in our continuum could start working in reverse at any moment.

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

And you shouldn't rule it out. You should definitely have a better grasp of the odds, though.