Darwin Proven Wrong?

[Mister Agenda]

Just saw this today. Not that it negates Darwin's theory, as Darwin did not specifically identify how natural selection occurs. I do realize that.
http://www.simonsfoundation.org/quanta/2...ame-place/

The subject of this thread was a bit provocative. I apologize. I guess it's not as bad at this one though... http://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/...enes-wrong

The headline is a bit much but the article makes a good point of explaining that genetic inheritance sans epigenetic considerations isn't the whole story of heredity, or of evolution. With epigenetics, there seems to be a bit of Lamarckianism going on as well. It's a bit superficial though, what the creationists would insist is 'adaptation, not evolution'.

Well-noted that epigenetics is not a problem for 'Darwinism', but the modern synthesis will have to synthesize epigenetics into the model.

---

Abiogenesis is fact. It's been done in a lab. Repeatably, reproducably. Also, it has nothing to do with evolution. Another common conflation.

I think this requires a bit of expansion. We've inserted a synthetic genome into a denucleated cell, which then went on to reproduce with the synthetic genome. That's close enough to laboratory abiogenesis in the literal sense for most purposes, though some will hold out for making the entire cell from 'scratch'.

However, 'abiogenesis' in the sense of producing life from non-life in the laboratory through duplicating the initial conditions believed to have held on earth just before life appeared has not been accomplished yet, though some fairly lengthy strands of DNA and independent metabolic elements have been achieved.