Darwin Proven Wrong?

[sswhateverlove]

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".

[Anomalocaris]

False premise, with hint of desperate intentional misinterpretation, leading to false conclusions, with a hint of deliberate stretch even starting from the false premise.


Try again.

[Exian]

You're going to need to provide this new evidence that points to mutations and epigenetics as proof against evolution.

[Cato]

If there was any credible threat to the theory of evolution it would be front page news and scientists the world over would be involved in the discussion.

Please share your sources. Until then I conclude that your assertions are baseless.

[One Above All]

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.

[bladevalant546]

Face it evolution is true. What the real question is, what caused DNA to even be a code for life, what mechanics in physics allows for life, and do these laws of physics and origins of the universe have an origin point. Mind you the only thing about any of this to point to a deity would be a programmer who programmed a simulation and pressed play. Now that is where the discussion of metaphysics and speculations needs to reside. However, this notion that evolution is disproven is tiring. Also, to summarize the universe is vast and we are so tiny, I do not get the irrational drive to hold on to this feeling of significance. (Sorry if it sounds like rambling)

[TaraJo]

I don't think Darwin ever knew anything about genetics. Did we even know about genetics when he came up with the theory of natural selection? Or did we even have the tools necessary to see genes or chromosomes?

All Darwin said was that creatures change over time and that the creatures that change to best suit their environment survive and thrive while those who aren't as well suited die off. That's it. Whatever you want to call that process is fine with me, but most intelligent people call it evolution.

[Lucanus]

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.

Uhh... And how exactly would this negate that gene mutations are responsible for evolution? Gene expression is the expression of genes; namely, how much a gene is translated into a protein, and what happens to the product of the translation. It has nothing to do with the inheritance and the mutation of the gene.

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".

Also, epigenetic mechanisms like silencing etc. are influenced by other biochemical pathways of the organism which, guess what, always come from the organism's genome anyway. This is why whilst there may be some degrees of variation (which are in fact determined by the environment) in the expression of genes, the outcomes are still pretty much predictable.


I find your argumentations devoid of any content and your motives... questionable.

[Tonus]

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?

The Theory of Evolution is an explanation based the facts and knowledge that we have. It has probably been changed many times since Darwin introduced it. It may continue to change as scientists learn and discover more about the world and the organisms that did and do live on it.

It doesn't persist due to "public opinion in science" nor on how simple or complex it sounds. It persists because at present it does the best job of explaining how the facts we have explain the diversity of life on the planet. If someone has a better theory they are free to present it and have it scrutinized. Perhaps you can start by explaining how the information you offered affects the existing theory, and maybe even presenting an alternative of your own.

[Esquilax]

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.