Darwin Proven Wrong?

[Mister Agenda]

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.

---

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.

---

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.

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.

---

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.

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?