Evolution a theory?

[DarkReality]

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/7037bc7fcaf682bd

This was one of the coolest articles I've read in a while. I know, I know, no one wants to read the world evolution ever again, but this rather short article is the best explanation of why evolution is "only" a theory that I've read. And quite incidentally, it never explains evolution in itself, meaning no one's views will be shattered.

Just figured something for your general education wouldn't hurt. I mean, if you're going to waste time posting here XD

[taymaster]

Nice, it had a couple jokes about the shoe thing too. nice job!

[Vagrant]

I like that. "We don't know how it happens."

[The Prodigal]

That's a great article. I love it.

[Tanktunker]

Heh, probably most worthy thing I've done with my time all week.

[JoeyG]

It's interesting to note that the big bang is just a theory as well. And the theories of evolution, gravity, and the big bang all have gaping flaws in them. (I'm considering "it behaves very differently from all other forces" a flaw here).

Great article, though.

[Karl]

All science is a flat out lie. All of everything is the fleeting daydream of an intergalactic space beetle with ADD.

[JoeyG]

There's a difference between "lie" and "theory".

[theryman]

What most people fail to realize is that evolution and the Bible are not radically different. They just focus in on different points.

[justwords]

:)


It's interesting to note that the big bang is just a theory as well. And the theories of evolution, gravity, and the big bang all have gaping flaws in them. (I'm considering "it behaves very differently from all other forces" a flaw here).

Great article, though.

You could state that because of the foundations of science, the technological advancements we have met via science are only successful because they follow the criteria of the foundation of the practice.
If you follow the rules,everything should work.

This kind of stuff is really ambiguous. You could say that those flaws are only apparent because our logic is flawed. Or because logic itself is flawed. Or because all things that are true must be equally as untrue.

These are observations based on our perception of the information provided.
Whether our perceptions are complete, whether the information provided is complete, you really don't know.

God I should be sleeping.

[DarkReality]

It's interesting to note that the big bang is just a theory as well. And the theories of evolution, gravity, and the big bang all have gaping flaws in them. (I'm considering "it behaves very differently from all other forces" a flaw here).

Considering neither you nor I understand the modern big bang theory, I don't think we can claim that it has flaws with much credibility :-) At least not while physicists such as Steven Hawking are STILL refining it. And how is it interesting? of course it's a theory. No one can explain how that load of energy got here in the first place without some sort of supernatural being simply placing it there.

And where the hell do you find a flaw in the theory of gravity? Has your shoe ever not fallwn?

[Vagrant]

The one problem with the theory of gravity is that we have no idea where gravity comes from -- just that it exists and we can observe its effects. Also that larger masses means more gravity. It's perhaps the strangest force to explain, and yet the most prevalent.

But I'm not saying gravity doesn't exist. >_>

Four Fundamental Interactions of Physics! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction)

[DarkReality]

The one problem with the theory of gravity is that we have no idea where gravity comes from -- just that it exists and we can observe its effects. Also that larger masses means more gravity. It's perhaps the strangest force to explain, and yet the most prevalent.

How is that a "problem"? It's simply an incomplete theory. That's why it's called a theory. That's the point I was trying to make. I'm well aware that there are several dozen attempts at explaining gravity, one more confusing than the next.

[JoeyG]

Considering neither you nor I understand the modern big bang theory, I don't think we can claim that it has flaws with much credibility :-) At least not while physicists such as Steven Hawking are STILL refining it. And how is it interesting? of course it's a theory. No one can explain how that load of energy got here in the first place without some sort of supernatural being simply placing it there.

In every book I've read on String Theory, or Varying Speed of Light Theory, or Inflation Theory, they go over a lot of the flaws in the Big Bang model. They also mention them every time there's a new theory of the origin of the universe. I'm pretty sure those flaws were even mentioned in A Brief History of Time.

I'm also pretty sure that I'd be more credible if I could remember any of those flaws...

And where the hell do you find a flaw in the theory of gravity? Has your shoe ever not fallwn?
Yeah, but it fell pretty slowly. Take a metal shoe and it'd suck pretty quickly to an equivilant amount of magnetism. Gravity is unexplainably weak, such that many people don't even consider it a force.

[justwords]

Joey: Gravity is a weak force?

[theryman]

Look at the link Vagrant posted. It is horribly small. At least, mass for mass. After all, you do not see anything orbiting around me. The item would have to be pretty large to have any noticeable gravity at all.

EDIT: Here's what I am trying to say. Pound for pound, gravity has much less effect than any other force.

[DeathIncarnated]

Gravity is a "bend" in time and space caused by matter distorting it. Imagine a bowling ball on a giant trampoline, the depression in the trampoline represents the bowling balls gravitational pull, the bowling ball represents a body in space, and the fabric of the trampoline represents time and space.

I think I've already heard of those four interactions of physics, one is the "weak force" which is the force that seeks to break apart the nuclii of atoms, the "strong force" is the force holding atoms together, you should all know what "electromagnetic force" is by now, and the final and weakest is "gravity." Gravity is the weakest because if you feel from a 10 story building, the electromagnetic force would stop you upon impact with the ground. And gravity has no influence in keeping atoms from decaying, meaning it is weaker than the weak force, which means they gave them some pretty funny names.

I didn't get that from the link vagrant posted, that right there is prior knowledge.

[Tanktunker]

Gravity bends time...?

[DeathIncarnated]

No, matter bends time AND space. Gravity is the BEND itself.

[Vagrant]

Joey: Gravity is a weak force?

Yes it is. Gravity is actually fairly easy to resist. You can counter gravity simply by jumping. You resist gravity by sitting up and standing on two legs. A good magnet is EXTREMELY hard to resist. It doesn't even have to be that massive -- just as long as it had a good charge, it can have an extreme pull. Nuclear force is, well, nuclear force. It takes several pounds of lead to resist weak nuclear force (radiation), and strong nuclear force is impossible to stop (Nuclear Fission and Fusion).

All in all, gravity is by far the weakest force. But it's also the most prevalent, and has the farthest reaching effects of any of the forces, which is why it's considered so important.






On the chart on the link I provided, the relative strengths are indicated as follows:

Gravitational Force = 1


Weak Nuclear Force = 10^25

Electromagnetism = 10^36

Strong Nuclear Force = 10^38

As you can see, gravity is pretty damn weak in comparison.

[Choft]

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm this reminds me of one of my physics lessons. In fact my physics teacher said basically the same thing as that guy in the article. :). Good job.