Darwin Proven Wrong?

[sswhateverlove]

Would you argue that we don't observe wind if we only see its effects?

Nope, I totally agree with everything you said.

---

Unfortunately, the truth, as I am going to explain it, will most likely make you uncomfortable. The truth will not feed your ego, build your confidence, or reinforce your faith in science.

A) The 'truth' according to you.
B) Your truth feeds only your ego.
C) I don't have 'faith' in science.

You continue to assert that I, and others hold certain beliefs, and that once 'challenged' we'll become uncomfortable in those beliefs. Again, you're wrong.

You call this brand of bullying being 'assertive'. Well, you certainly got the 'ass' part right. You're either dumb as cement or you're a meaningless troll. Either way, it's pretty clear that you're no 'agnostic'.

Last warning about the name calling. I really have no interest in it and there's nothing that says I have to continue acknowledging you.

[Cyberman]

LOL, kind of funny that you posted this while I was typing up my wind analogy.

Missed a trick there, CD. I'd've gone for "while I was bringing up wind".

[Mister Agenda]

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.

It may be picking a nit, but if it were undetectable, we wouldn't be aware of it. Detecting pretty much anything is a matter of observing its effects on the environment. Dark energy has been detected, we just don't know much about it yet.

There is at least one very interesting hypothesis, though: virtual pressure, the idea that in the vast distances between galaxies, the pressure of the virtual particles in the space between them grows greater the farther apart they get.

---

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.

There's nothing about epigenetics that implies evolution is not natural selection acting on genetic mutations. Genes are what we inherit. Epigenetics is amazing, but it doesn't directly cause speciation.

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?

Yes. But it's not unnoticeable. We noticed it.

[sswhateverlove]

---

Um... you may want to check your facts. Dark energy has not been observed, only it's assumed effects.

http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/foc...rk-energy/

Let me illustrate by way of an analogy why this sort of hair-splitting is absurdly foolish.

Have you ever visually observed(*) wind directly? No, and nor has anyone else. We observe it only by it's interaction with other things that we can observe. Certainly today we know that wind is the movement of air, which is comprised of molecular oxygen and nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and a host of trace gases. Yet, there once was a time when we did *not* know this, and yet we still knew *something* caused the effects we observed, something we could not see. Only by making observations of the effects did we learn about wind.

We are now in the early stages of learning about what thing causes the expansion of space to accelerate against the force of gravity. That we don't know the exact nature of this thing in no way invalidates it's existence. The force exists, we can observe what it does, even if we can't directly observe it or currently know what causes it. Nonetheless, we can and have learned some of the constraints on the properties this "thing" has.

A hundred years ago, we were in largely the same situation with respect to gravity - and in many ways, still are.

---

Fair enough.

---

---

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.

It may be picking a nit, but if it were undetectable, we wouldn't be aware of it. Detecting pretty much anything is a matter of observing its effects on the environment. Dark energy has been detected, we just don't know much about it yet.

There is at least one very interesting hypothesis, though: virtual pressure, the idea that in the vast distances between galaxies, the pressure of the virtual particles in the space between them grows greater the farther apart they get.

---

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.

There's nothing about epigenetics that implies evolution is not natural selection acting on genetic mutations. Genes are what we inherit. Epigenetics is amazing, but it doesn't directly cause speciation.

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?

Yes. But it's not unnoticeable. We noticed it.

---

Fair enough.

[Chas]

Evolution of Life
Despite the lack of concrete evidence with regard to the nature and origin of the universe, for the sake of further exploring truth, we can assume the absolute nature of material reality as a given in order to delve deeper. From here, we will explore the truth about what has been called “life”, or the “origin of species”. Darwin’s “theory of evolution” is based on the fact that all species that exist (at least on planet earth) are genetically similar. This “truth” assumes that all forms of life have a common ancestor and that differentiation has occurred due to “natural selection”. There seems to be little as to theory of how non-living matter and energy originally became that first life form, however, again, for the sake of delving deeper, we will accept it as a given. “Natural selection” assumes that over great lengths of time genetic mutations, or changes to the genetic code, happened as a natural aspect of evolution, as expressed through the first organism’s subsequent offspring. It is claimed that the mutations that were beneficial to the organism in it’s environment allowed the organism to be fruitful in reproduction, whereby encouraging the transmission of that mutation in that environment. It is further claimed that the mutations that were harmful to the organism in it’s environment interfered with reproduction, preventing the transmission of that mutation in that environment. This is referred to as “survival of the fittest” and is said to explain how very small differences in genetic code resulted in the extreme diversity of species. This seems to be the public opinion with regard to evolution that has existed over the past hundred years. It seems to be widely accepted because of it’s simplicity.

This is not really the 'public opinion'. Most either deny evolution or utterly misunderstand it.

But is it actually true?

The massive amount of evidence shows that it is true beyond any reasonable doubt.

The new science of Epigenetics

There is no new science of Epigenetics. There is genetics.

now has researchers digging deeper into the mechanisms of genetic expression and inheritance than was previously possible. What they report finding seems to imply that the truth of evolution may not be so simple.

The problem here is that you are mixing up levels of explanation.
There is no doubt that all organisms have a common ancestor, that natural selection and sexual selection are the sieves through which pass genetic change, and that it is a mindless algorithm.

Epigenetics is the study of detailed processes of genetic expression.

While it is observed that the genetic codes of all earth’s species are similarly structured, it is said that the actual expression of genes are observed to be very different between species and even among members of the same species.

That is quite inaccurate. The genetic code is identical for all life forms. The same base pairs, the same three-pair coding for the same 20 amino acids.

There are homologous genes across many species, some of which do exactly the same things, some of which do slightly different things, and some of which are unexpressed in some species.

This suggests that it is not simply mutations that result in differentiation, but the dynamic nature of the expression of each gene in the code sequence.

Again, you are confusing levels.

For example, a comparative analysis of gene expression between humans and primates found that there were more than 800 genes that varied in their methylation patterns among orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees, and bonobos. Despite these apes having the same genes, methylation differences are said to account for their phenotypic variation. Further, although humans and the great apes share 99% of their DNA, so far, there are known to be 171 genes that are uniquely methylated in humans which have directly correlated with advanced cognitive abilities. This evidence suggests that similar gene sequences can actually be expressed in very different ways. Further, the 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.

This looks like copy/paste. Do you even understand 'methylation patterns'?.

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. Additionally, the epigenetic markers are said to be transmitted between generations. 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).

There are no 'epigeneticists'. There are geneticists studying the mechanisms.

I warned you what I had to say about truth was likely to make you uncomfortable.

No, it doesn't make me uncomfortable, largely because it is not "The Truth".

[ShaMan]

Last warning about the name calling. I really have no interest in it and there's nothing that says I have to continue acknowledging you.

That was the same incident - quoted twice. You asking for respect after entering the way you did, while continuing to make assertions, is a joke.

You're correct - you needn't respond to me any further. At this point my posts to your frazzled threads are in support of members who've earned the respect they receive.

[Cato]

I would say the scientific method gives us the ability to learn pieces of the "truth", but without omniscience we don't know for sure that we're not missing some valuable piece that's causing us to misunderstand our data.

All in all, knowing pieces helps us greatly, but to know the total of "truth", well... That's pretty much the point of each of the threads that I've posted, we don't know.

Let me get this straight. The purpose of all your threads is to claim that we don't know everything?

Our lack of omniscience does not invalidate what we do claim as knowledge. The whole point of scientific inquiry is to discover and understand our universe, big and small. Science starts with the premise that something is unknown and then goes about attempting to provide a reasonable explanation based on observation.

Our imprecise faculties do not invalidate our current body of knowledge. Limitations of perception are well understood and accounted for. Science goes out of its way to mitigate the effects of errors of direct perception. Your argument along these lines suggests that our knowledge of infrared and ultraviolet electromagnetic phenomenon can't be trusted because we only see in the visible spectrum (and even this is to be doubted). Science and philosophy have come a long way since Descartes.

No scientific fact comes stamped with a label "100% guaranteed"; everything is subject to revision based on new evidence. Your attempt to discredit our ability to know combined with citing specific unknowns at the boundary of our understanding in an attempt to give plausibility to wild unsupported assertions is so incoherent it isn't even wrong.

[sswhateverlove]

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 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'.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this as it's simply speculation.

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.
Why are you asking us to justify their opinion when we aren't them and we don't hold that opinion?

If you read back, when I make claims about my friend's opinions, I follow it with "do you also have this opinion, why or why not"? Those are clarifying questions that seem reasonable (and respectful) to ask to determine how to proceed with the conversation.

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.

Such as the "constant" Big G?
http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl...lide-show/

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?

A simple one would with regard to the "geocentric universe", man, did that throw people for a loop...

---

Evolution of Life

These resources describe a lot of the information I'm relying upon.

http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/e...pi_learns/

http://www.ohio.edu/plantbio/staff/showa...20TIME.pdf

---

Ok friends

It's been fun, but I have other things to do. Maybe I'll be back after the weekend is over (if you're lucky). I know I've probably been quite entertaining- boredom sucks. Don't miss me too much...

[Mudhammam]

Good riddance.

[Cyberman]

The geocentric universe wasn't a misunderstanding of data so much as a lack of it.