Darwin Proven Wrong?

[sswhateverlove]

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.

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?

---

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

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.

---

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.