Darwin Proven Wrong?

[Cato]

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

You are demonstrating a habit of not understanding NDT. All he is saying is that we know it exists. We see its effects, but we don't yet know what it is. This is what science does, and off we go to discover what dark matter and dark energy are.

You invoking dark matter and dark energy and their contributions to universal matter and energy as an attempt to nullify confidence in what we do know is disingenuous. Perhaps you would do well to review this article about belief from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Pay particular attention to the section rearding belief and knowledge and what justified true belief means.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/belief/

[sswhateverlove]

I think you're confusing "dark matter and energy" with something else...
Einstein’s general relativity is currently “the law” of gravitational acceleration in the universe. This, however, predicted that the attractive force of gravity pulls all matter together, wherefore subsequent to the “Bang” the expansion of the universe should be observed to slow. This has not been observed, however, and instead, recent evidence confirms the expansion of the universe appears to be accelerating. To explain this, another revision is now necessary and a few theories have been proposed. What seems to be the common opinion now is that 96% of reality is actually unknown and undetectable substances called “dark matter” and “dark energy”. Making this assumption is said to be the only way to confirm general relativity is still a “scientific fact”.

So you are full of shit. What a surprise. I wish I had called it befo- Oh, wait, I did.
Dark matter has nothing to do with the expansion of the Universe. In addition, dark energy is not an assumption; it's a placeholder name for whatever is causing the expansion to accelerate.
Anyway, I'm now done with your posts. Gonna try to find an "ignore" button. See ya!

Umm... I think this person is confused. May want to check your source. Both "darks" are assumed to explain why the expansion is accelerating and not slowing down. Yes, I agree about them both being "placeholder" names because they have not actually been observed, so they cannot claim them to be "matter" or "energy". Neil Degrasse Tyson actually said they would be better off labeled "Fred" and "Wilma" because we know nothing about what theyactually are.

[Bibliofagus]

That damned Darwin and his theory of dark matter!

Oh wait wut???

[Esquilax]

As far as know, scientists have also not been able to change one species into another by mutating any particular genes, but if you have a source that conflicts I would like to see it.

You need to promise me that when I bring up fruit fly speciation, or what have you, that you won't say anything like "yes, but they're still fruit flies."

You have to promise. Because to do otherwise will put the lie to all your apparent interest in science.

[sswhateverlove]

That damned Darwin and his theory of dark matter!

Oh wait wut???

Umm... yeah, I know it's getting confusing. I think "darks" were added to this conversation because of epigenetic expression being influenced by environmental factors and "the darks" (as claimed) making up a majority (96%) of our reality. The question I was putting out there was if others think this mysterious stuff (we don't know anything about) could possibly influence how species have evolved? If your answer is no, why not?

[Mister Agenda]

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?

It's had over 150 years of further development and new discoveries, so the current theory is much more nuanced.

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.

Now you're no longer even talking about Darwin's theory, since he was not aware of the existence of genes when he published. All he knew on the mechanism of heredity was that organisms vary from generation to generation, and that those variations are heritable.

That said, 'seems to negate the assumed 'truth' that gene mutations are responsble for evolution of life and the differentiation of species' does not follow from 'evidence suggests that gene mutations can either be expressed to some degree or silenced based on the specific circumstances of each individual organism'.

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).

And 'seems to negate the assumed 'truth' that gene mutations are responsble for evolution of life and the differentiation of species' doesn't follow from that, either.

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".

There is no atheist perspective on this. An individual atheist's opinion on it will be based on what they find plausible. Most Western atheists will defer to the experts in the relevant fields precisely because they don't view their atheism as impinging on the facts of the matter.

a·the·ism/ˈāTHēˌizəm/
noun
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

What in that definition leads you to believe that atheism seems to be 'very' absolute?

[TaraJo]

As far as know, scientists have also not been able to change one species into another by mutating any particular genes, but if you have a source that conflicts I would like to see it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibiotic_resistance

Of course, this is only on a very small scale. To see the kind of evolution it takes for a race of chimps to become a race of humans, you would have to live for millions of years. Which is why we rely on the fossil record and a solid understanding of biology, genetics and geography to fill in the gaps.

I find this interesting, especially when there are many species that share so many of our genes that they should be so similar, but they are not. The most significant factor that seems to be diverse amongst different species (and even within same species) is methylation/histone protein status that is "epigenomic", not "genetic".

Just the fact that every living thing on earth has genetic code argues that all life on earth has a common ancestor. Those similarities are kinda what happens there.

[sswhateverlove]

As far as know, scientists have also not been able to change one species into another by mutating any particular genes, but if you have a source that conflicts I would like to see it.

You need to promise me that when I bring up fruit fly speciation, or what have you, that you won't say anything like "yes, but they're still fruit flies."

You have to promise. Because to do otherwise will put the lie to all your apparent interest in science.

I'm not familiar with what you're referring to. So, you're saying that they have changed one species to another and have controlled the variables in such a way that only gene code modification occurred and there were no differences in epigenetic expression?

[FatAndFaithless]

The question I was putting out there was if others think this mysterious stuff (we don't know anything about) could possibly influence how species have evolved? If your answer is no, why not?

Then why didn't you start by asking that question, which is completely irrelevant to atheism and your habitual strawmen you create? If you want to discuss science in that way, or want to hear what other people have to say about it, then ask us. Your question has nothing to do with atheism, and there is no 'atheist viewpoint' on it.

[Mister Agenda]

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...

I suppose many of us are rude, but it seems to be in reaction to the way you present yourself. You're making a LOT of assumptions about your audience. Some may consider that being a jerk.

It's not too late to do an intro thread so we can get to know you in a way different from 'the guy who starts a lot of new threads in a short time and thinks he knows what atheism is better than atheists'.