Darwin Proven Wrong?

[Anomalocaris]

Er, no. It's effect are observed. Not assumed. No one assumed dark energy until cosmic distance measurements presented voluminous evidence that not only is something pushing against the pull of gravity throughout the universe, but the force of the push has increased through history of the universe, and approximately 7 billion years ago, 6 billion years after the Big Bang, the magnitude of this force had surpassed that of gravity on a cosmic scale, so that when measured across billions of light years, this force now dominates all other forces and is controlling the geometric evolution of the universe.

Unlike theists, physics does not assert the existence of a master of universe without evidence. We have evidence of a force which will dictate the main theme of the evolution of the universe, as far as we can tell, for ever. God with a will and a personality is unevidenced, This force is pretty well evidenced by what it is doing,

[sswhateverlove]

Unlike theists, physics does not assert the existence of a master of universe without evidence. We have evidence of a force which will dictate the main theme of the evolution of the universe, as far as we can tell, for ever. God with a will and a personality is unevidenced, This force is pretty well evidenced by what it is doing.

"The Force", ok, thanks Yoda

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.

[Cyberman]

You do know what a force is, don't you?

[LostLocke]

"The Force", ok, thanks Yoda

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.

Wow.. OK... for the last time, it is not undetectable.

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?

[Anomalocaris]

Unlike theists, physics does not assert the existence of a master of universe without evidence. We have evidence of a force which will dictate the main theme of the evolution of the universe, as far as we can tell, for ever. God with a will and a personality is unevidenced, This force is pretty well evidenced by what it is doing.

"The Force", ok, thanks Yoda

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.

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.

[LostLocke]

You do know what a force is, don't you?

It's what Luke used to hit a soccer ball with a beam of light.

Right?

[Zidneya]

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?

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".

Isn't this info at most alters the way we understand evolution but it doesn't refutes the theory itself?
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?

[sswhateverlove]

"The Force", ok, thanks Yoda

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.

Wow.. OK... for the last time, it is not undetectable.

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.

---

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?

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".

Isn't this info at most alters the way we understand evolution but it doesn't refutes the theory itself?
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.

---

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?

[LostLocke]

Wow.. OK... for the last time, it is not undetectable.

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.

In all honesty, I don't comprehend your stance.

The fact that we detect that the universe is expanding and accelerating.....
...means that we detect that something is causing this.

[Alex K]

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?

Because one can never detect a force itself, only its effect. Detecting a force itself is a meaningless term. That's what detecting means: you have a detecting apparatus, and it shows an effect. A force is a unifying theoretical concept which is used because it is a predictive description of a large range of different such effects. Whether these forces "really exist" is a philosophical question, not a scientific one.

In the case of dark energy, there is only one effect, and one parameter, but dark energy in general relativity is not (!) a force. It is a contribution to the field equation which drives expansion. It is a very simple thing in theory.