Darwin Proven Wrong?

[Chas]

While we're on the the topic of genes, I have a question that will admittedly probably sound naive.

---

When biologists talk about an "evolutionary arms-race," do they in any sense mean that otherwise generally random gene mutations somehow directly respond to the competition? Like, say, an organism develops an eye spot that would give it such a hunting advantage so as to prospectively eliminate all its competitors; in an "arms-race," would its competitors' offspring also mutate the genes necessary for the allowance of an eye spot or...? How exactly does that work?

No.

It is the effect of selection on random mutation. It just looks like an arms race.

[sswhateverlove]

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?

There isn't a dichotomy between genetic and epigenetic effects.

Epigenetics is the mechanisms of embryology acting on the genetics.

---

I guess I don't have any context in which I have ever observed "laws" or "rules" to exist without them being written, created, or imposed by some being with some intelligence.

You don't understand what is meant by a scientific law.

From my research I've found that micro array analysis of the epigenetic expression of organism's genes suggest evidence that methylation and histone status change regularly throughout the life of the organism, not just in the embryo.

[Chas]

So, my observations have been that my experience always moves with forward motion, wherefore, if I jump, splat. Physicists, however, say that the laws do not say that it has to happen that way. In fact, they said that according to the laws, I'm just as likely to experience in reverse time than forward time, the calculations work the same. Although I assume that I will continue to experience time in a forward moving direction in the future, I do not rule out the possibility that sometime there may be more information, new technology, etc, that would allow me to experience reality differently.

Once again, no.

The current mathematical models are symmetric with respect to time - that doesn't mean the universe is.

More data and evidence may give us better models.

[Alex K]

So, my observations have been that my experience always moves with forward motion, wherefore, if I jump, splat. Physicists, however, say that the laws do not say that it has to happen that way. In fact, they said that according to the laws, I'm just as likely to experience in reverse time than forward time, the calculations work the same. Although I assume that I will continue to experience time in a forward moving direction in the future, I do not rule out the possibility that sometime there may be more information, new technology, etc, that would allow me to experience reality differently.

Once again, no.

The current mathematical models are symmetric with respect to time - that doesn't mean the universe is.

More data and evidence may give us better models.

Exactly. The whole point of the second law (and statistics in general) is precisely that xe is NOT equally likely to experience both forward and backwards events, almost by definition.

Small correction: there is some CP and T violation in the weak interactions. It just isn't responsible for the arrow of time.

[LostLocke]

Ok, interesting. Can you direct me to where I would find info on "properties" of dark matter an dark energy that have been observed?

Gravitational lensing (when there isn't an 'actual' object there to cause the lensing), and the persistent structural integrity of a spinning galaxy.
These two things alone, ignoring any other things "observed" as dark matter, says that there is something there. Something that causes these effects.

It's simply called 'dark matter' because we don't know what this 'stuff' is yet. But there is sufficient evidence to tell us that this 'stuff' is there.

[sswhateverlove]

Ok, interesting. Can you direct me to where I would find info on "properties" of dark matter an dark energy that have been observed?

Gravitational lensing (when there isn't an 'actual' object there to cause the lensing), and the persistent structural integrity of a spinning galaxy.
These two things alone, ignoring any other things "observed" as dark matter, says that there is something there. Something that causes these effects.

It's simply called 'dark matter' because we don't know what this 'stuff' is yet. But there is sufficient evidence to tell us that this 'stuff' is there.

I agree that astrophysicists claim that gravity has been observed to bend light in certain areas, wherefore they have concluded that as evidence of the 23% of reality being "dark matter". "Dark energy", however, as far as I know, has not been evidenced by any observations and that is supposedly 73% of reality.

[LostLocke]

I agree that astrophysicists claim that gravity has been observed to bend light in certain areas, wherefore they have concluded that as evidence of the 23% of reality being "dark matter". "Dark energy", however, as far as I know, has not been evidenced by any observations and that is supposedly 73% of reality.

"Dark energy" does have an effect that can be observed: The fact that not only is the universe still expanding, it's accelerating.
To accelerate, an 'energy' or 'force' of some type must be placed on it.
The name given to this yet unknown force, "dark energy".

No one is saying, "This is what dark energy is."
They're just giving that name to whatever the force is that is causing the universe to accelerate.

[Alex K]

Gravitational lensing (when there isn't an 'actual' object there to cause the lensing), and the persistent structural integrity of a spinning galaxy.
These two things alone, ignoring any other things "observed" as dark matter, says that there is something there. Something that causes these effects.

It's simply called 'dark matter' because we don't know what this 'stuff' is yet. But there is sufficient evidence to tell us that this 'stuff' is there.

I agree that astrophysicists claim that gravity has been observed to bend light in certain areas, wherefore they have concluded that as evidence of the 23% of reality being "dark matter". "Dark energy", however, as far as I know, has not been evidenced by any observations and that is supposedly 73% of reality.

Dark energy is basically just a parametet in the Einstein field equation. It doesnt have much effect except accelerated expansion.
Re dark matter evidence:That, and CMB anisotropies and structure formation.

Saying 73% of reality sounds a bit theatrical. "73% of the energy density" is more like it

[Anomalocaris]

Gravitational lensing (when there isn't an 'actual' object there to cause the lensing), and the persistent structural integrity of a spinning galaxy.
These two things alone, ignoring any other things "observed" as dark matter, says that there is something there. Something that causes these effects.

It's simply called 'dark matter' because we don't know what this 'stuff' is yet. But there is sufficient evidence to tell us that this 'stuff' is there.

I agree that astrophysicists claim that gravity has been observed to bend light in certain areas, wherefore they have concluded that as evidence of the 23% of reality being "dark matter". "Dark energy", however, as far as I know, has not been evidenced by any observations and that is supposedly 73% of reality.

Astrophysicists are not in the habit of stuffing the notional universe with thing unevidenced by any observation.

All things talked about in physics are evidenced by some observation. They differ in how much observation, and how comprehensively observational specifies or constrain their properties and behavior. Observational evidence of dark energy constrain its property to a significant degree. For example, it exists because it excerts a force that can be measured and can be distinguished from all other known forces. Its magnitude appears to be proportional to the volume of space on a very large scale, but it's density per unit volume of space is very low. It appears to be rather more uniformly distributed that dark matter or normal matter.

So only evidence allows anything at all to be contineneced in physics. The thing may yet be wrong, because misinterpretation of evidence. But if there were no evidence at all, It won't in physics, it would be in theology.

[sswhateverlove]

I agree that astrophysicists claim that gravity has been observed to bend light in certain areas, wherefore they have concluded that as evidence of the 23% of reality being "dark matter". "Dark energy", however, as far as I know, has not been evidenced by any observations and that is supposedly 73% of reality.

"Dark energy" does have an effect that can be observed: The fact that not only is the universe still expanding, it's accelerating.
To accelerate, an 'energy' or 'force' of some type must be placed on it.
The name given to this yet unknown force, "dark energy".

No one is saying, "This is what dark energy is."
They're just giving that name to whatever the force is that is causing the universe to accelerate.

Ok, so "The Force" (haha Yoda) is causing the acceleration of the expansion of the universe. Wow, calling it that makes me uncomfortable. Almost as uncomfortable as calling it "God" Let's go back to calling it "dark energy"...

---

Astrophysicists are not in the habit of stuffing the notional universe with thing unevidenced by any observation.

All things talked about in physics are evidenced by some observation. Otherwise they won't in physics, they would be in theology.

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/