Darwin Proven Wrong?

[sswhateverlove]

Please show me where you have received confirmation that we know anything at all about dark matter and dark energy...

Aside from my teacher with a degree in astrophysics (who's in charge of one of the most important observatories in my country), the presentations on the subject given at my college by people working with CERN, and well as the countless papers on what we know about them? Well, aside from those things, I received no confirmation whatsoever.
If you're "quite versed" in physics, as you claimed in another thread, why don't you tell me why astrophysicists even felt the need to come up with those two names? Why not just keep their mouths shut, if we don't know anything about them? In fact, if we don't know anything about them, why would we even be searching for them?

I think you are mistaken.

That makes... let me check... yup, one of us.

I think you're confusing "dark matter and energy" with something else...
Einstein’s general relativity is currently “the law” of gravitational acceleration in the universe. 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”.

---

Seriously, OP, if a scientist had evidence that evolution was wrong, he would win a nobel prize. But it hasn't happened yet.

Also, you have a severe misunderstanding of how epigenitics work. Epigenetics effect trait expression, true, but not enough to turn chimpanzees into humans. Millions of years of evolution is needed for that.

I'm not making any claims, only sharing information I've been reading. I don't even know if apes did turn into humans. Epigenetics argues that "natural selection" is not accurate, because genetic mutations don't actually assure any differences. When mutations can be expressed or silenced based on the environment, environmental factors seem to be much more important with regard to how something develops, how it functions, and what it passes to it's offspring.

---

OP: Are you asserting that believing something needs to be disproved? If I believe have an undetectable pink unicorn in my garage, is it YOUR job to disprove it? Science works on what it can detect, yet, religious morons tell us about a great fairy in the sky, that grants wishes to you, but when it doesn't, it has mysterious ways. You are so blinded by your faith, that you cannot see the possibility of a natural universe, you prefer to flee to the stupidity of solipsism.

And science never claimed absolute knowledge, isn't that fascinating to have unknowns? To be able to participate in searching for our part in the universe? You know, instead of hanging to a decrepit concept, from moldy books, perpetuated by ignorance and fear.

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.