Darwin Proven Wrong?

[sswhateverlove]

Darwin's theory is true as much as Newton's laws of motion are. That is to say, they're not. We know Newton's laws can only make accurate predictions with light objects moving at small speeds. Darwin's theory doesn't mention anything about genes or mutations because there were no such concepts at the time (or, if there were, he didn't even consider them). The theory of evolution we have now is different than Darwin's.

We know enough about dark matter and energy, as well as cosmic rays, to know that they don't affect anything on Earth. Supernatural concepts are BS, as they have no evidence for their existence. They're not "mysterious unknowns" because they don't exist.

I have no idea what the last sentence of your post means.

Please show me where you have received confirmation that we know anything at all about dark matter and dark energy... I think you are mistaken.

[Minimalist]

Please share your sources.

I suspect some creatard web site!

[sswhateverlove]

Given that the OP provided no citations for his claims he should count himself lucky he's gotten the length of responses he has. Without citations, he sounds like yet another person who mistakes their wild assertions for evidence.

Well, first I would encourage you simply to research epigenetics a bit more... Further, 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.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19923923

[Esquilax]

Please show me where you have received confirmation that we know anything at all about dark matter and dark energy... I think you are mistaken.

For someone who refuses to post any sources of their own, this is pretty rich.

Edited to add: way to make me look bad, OP.

[sswhateverlove]

Please share your sources.

I suspect some creatard web site!

Wow, many of you seem to be very rude. I'm simply asking you to give your perspective based on information I have been exploring. No need to be a jerk...

---

Please show me where you have received confirmation that we know anything at all about dark matter and dark energy... I think you are mistaken.

For someone who refuses to post any sources of their own, this is pretty rich.

Edited to add: way to make me look bad, OP.

According to Neil deGrasse Tyson, "dark matter" and "dark energy" could just as well be called "without a clue A" and "without a clue B."
http://www.haydenplanetarium.org/tyson/w...ark-energy

[Simon Moon]

Wow, many of you seem to be very rude. I'm simply asking you to give your perspective based on information I have been exploring. No need to be a jerk...

Yeah, we're the rude ones

You come here, fail to open an instruction thread, then proceed to tell us what we believe.

Are you trying to be purposely ironic?

[Mudhammam]

"The atheist perspective..." LOL.

In contrast to what other perspective? Genesis 1 and 2?

[Esquilax]

Well, first I would encourage you simply to research epigenetics a bit more... Further, 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.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19923923

Alternately, it shows that we don't know everything about genetics yet, a position that isn't terribly controversial. However, when we observe mutations causing evolution in both laboratory and natural settings, it would be entirely foolish to discard all of those observations based on the mere existence of something that is, as yet, not fully understood.

Evolutionary theory changes to fit the evidence. Darwin had no concept of genetics, and yet genes were perfectly suitable to be integrated into the theory of evolution when the evidence was found. That's why your thread title is rather laughable, and hints at a somewhat limited understanding of what evolution is and does. Your rehashing of the "junkyard 747" argument in another thread does nothing to alleviate my suspicions, there.

[Esquilax]

According to Neil deGrasse Tyson, "dark matter" and "dark energy" could just as well be called "without a clue A" and "without a clue B."
http://www.haydenplanetarium.org/tyson/w...ark-energy

What the hell does that have to do with either my post, or the topic of the thread?

[StealthySkeptic]

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".

Last time I checked, oh, I don't know, the dictionary, all atheism was was a disbelief or lack of beliefs in gods. I know an atheist friend of mine who believes that Area 51 covered up Roswell, for crying out loud. However, I think the majority of us, due to our skeptical thinking on the existence of gods, would call ourselves skeptics on a variety of other issues such as Bigfoot and the Bermuda Triangle.

From what I understand (anybody who is more knowledgeable in biology, please feel free to correct me) genetic mutations are made to the base code of an organism's DNA and cannot be changed within an organism's lifetime, but can be passed on at least in part to offspring. Gene expression is already understood as the way that genetic information is interpreted by RNA so that functional proteins can be created. This absolutely can be influenced by the environment.

However, gene expression is only interpreting the blueprints (mutations). So natural selection pressures bears down on an organism and if their mutation and its expression is disadvantageous in their environment, then they'll die and not pass that on. This is basically what the modern theory of evolution is. What you seem to be saying is that just because mutations can be expressed dynamically in the environment by an individual organism, that mutations don't matter (yeah...). The best of Lamarckism combined with the best of intelligent design and pseudoscientific woo, but it's not at all going to derail the modern theory of evolution.