RE: Darwin Proven Wrong?
September 12, 2014 at 2:52 am
(This post was last modified: September 12, 2014 at 3:03 am by sswhateverlove.)
(September 12, 2014 at 2:35 am)LostLocke Wrote:(September 12, 2014 at 2:29 am)sswhateverlove Wrote: "The Force", ok, thanks YodaWow.. OK... for the last time, it is not undetectable.
Pretty interesting that we've come to the point in science where the scientific community is generally accepting an invisible and undetectable "force" driving the acceleration of the expansion of the universe. I think it's cool. I'm looking forward to what comes next.
The basic rundown:
The universe is expanding. This is a known fact.
The expansion of the universe is accelerating. This is a known fact.
What is causing the acceleration? We really don't know, but we've given this phenomenon the placeholder name of "dark energy".
What about this concept is giving you trouble?
No disagreement with your rundown, only the "not undetectable" part.
(September 12, 2014 at 2:49 am)Zidneya Wrote:(September 11, 2014 at 12:03 pm)sswhateverlove Wrote: Public opinion in science over the past hundred years is that Darwn's theory of evolution is "true". It seems to be widely accepted because of it’s simplicity. But is it actually true?Isn't this info at most alters the way we understand evolution but it doesn't refutes the theory itself?
New 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. 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'm curious as to atheist perspective on this, as "atheism" seems to be a very absolute with regard to a perspective on what "cannot possibly be".
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.
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?
The issue I was posing was that genetic mutation may not be responsible for evolution and differentiation, so yes, it is a question about whether we understand how it works.
Interesting article, although shitty journalism with respect to the headline and the last few paragraphs about Fodor.
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/...enes-wrong
Also, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22922032
Very interesting.
Quote:Repeat after me. The force in question is detectable and visible because it has been detected through its visible effects.
This isn't the first time this fact has been represented to you.
I had thought you were merely confused. Now I am beginning to think you are disingenuous as well.
Perhaps we're having an issue regarding semantics?
"un·de·tect·a·ble
synonyms: unnoticeable, imperceptible, invisible"
Is it not invisible? I would say that observing effect is not the same as observing the cause (the force) itself. I was agreeing with everything else you were saying. How was I being disingenuous?
