![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
For those of you who haven't seen it yet, Fred passed along this link. Don't settle for the snippet I'm quoting; it's got gold in it all the way to the last line:
The Universal Theory of Gravity is often taught in schools as a "fact," when in fact it is not even a good theory. [...] The theory of gravity violates common sense in many ways. Adherents have a hard time explaining, for instance, why airplanes do not fall. Since anti-gravity is rejected by the scientific establishment, they resort to lots of hand-waving. The theory, if taken seriously, implies that the default position for all airplanes is on the ground. While this is obviously true for Northwest airplanes (relying on "A Wing and a Prayer"), it appears that Jet Blue and Southwest have a superior theory that effectively harnesses forces that overcome so-called gravity.
(no subject)
Scientific Laws are provable in the law... period.
Gravity, or at least the attraction between two bodies has been demostrated countless times in the lab. Other theories like the Big Bang or Evolution have not be demostrated in the lab and are at best geusses based of percieved links between seperate peaces of information. Worse still they are pointless to being a good scientist. Recognation of similarities is comon sense in since... the reason for these similarities is pointless if not provable in a lab.
Man is more similar to a monkey then a snail. That is needed information when determining genetics and links between genes and the physical form. Why they are similar is well pointless. Knowing that one star is brighter then another or they are collected indifferent types of gatherings is common sense. How this current state of things has occur is again pointless unless provable in a lab.. even if on a much smaller scale.
(no subject)
Science comes with the assumption that it will sometimes get things wrong, but where theories are sensible, consistent, reliable and useful, they get treated as fact until they break or something better comes along. This is only reasonable behaviour in a world of uncertainties, as the alternative is to hide in a darkened room with a blanket over your head.
I am pretty sure that evolution has in fact been both demonstrated in the lab and observed in nature (yes, as in happening today, not just in the fossil record). BTW I ought to ask to get a better idea of your position: What idea do you refer to when you say "evolution", that you claim is a theory that hasn't been demonstrated and is "at best geusses"?
ISTR the explanation for a theory is less dependent on evidence (supposing it is in fact based on consistent ideas, etc, much like evolution is) than the predictions it makes are. And I'm pretty sure the evidence does not have to be collected in a lab. A lab is merely a useful clean organised environment with equipment for carrying out various tests and experiments.
And more than that, the genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees (which I hope you weren't conflating with monkeys) is apparently less than the differences between different species of frog. Whilst that doesn't prove anything (see above statement on scientific proof), it would be hard to claim that the different types of frog are in no way related, would it not? *shrug* Perhaps you would, I don't know.
I won't say about the Big Bang theory, as despite being more interested in physics than biology, I know less about the evidence for that than I do about the reasoning for evolution. (but having no more compelling explanation as to where the stars and planets come from, I still accept the Big Bang as the most plausible explanation for the universe)
[corrections to any mistakes I made there are welcome from all quarters BTW, as I imagine I made some]
(no subject)
OK tell me the study that created a life form from non-living organic chemicals? Because I have yet the hear of such a experiment. Demonstrated in nature? Ok show me a genetically repeatable, mutation with major organ alterations? Or, show me the millions of blends between species that evolution would require? The fossal record simply show snap shots of animals and as such there relationship as in parent and child is simply conjecture.
"And more than that, the genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees (which I hope you weren't conflating with monkeys) is apparently less than the differences between different species of frog. Whilst that doesn't prove anything (see above statement on scientific proof), it would be hard to claim that the different types of frog are in no way related, would it not? *shrug* Perhaps you would, I don't know."
Similairities are need not be proof of relationship. I knew of people who looked just alike yet were not related in any way. It is possable that frogs need not have the same base ralative. This is only provable by track parent/child relationship and not but showing unknow connects between frogs and say well since they are frogs they must be related. When was the last time a bull frog birthed a arrow frog? or any thing greatly different then a Bull frog?
For evolution to work you have to assume millions of helpful mutantions occur on a daily bases. They don't. You also have to assume that these helpful mutations are genetic passable and passed. Very few mutations are genetically passable even should the animal find a mate and even then their is a much stronger likely hood of the mutation being blended out of the population the over coming it. Can you name one type of animal that with out cross breeding has changed greatly in recorded history? (recorded meaning we have examples of the the living animals in history books and within the last 2000-3000 years.
Did you know the dating systems of evolution.. carbon dating and such are not as accurate as you would hope they would be. Also consider that it makes assumptions about pre-history that we really don't know are true. Lastly as I have said before all a good scientist need recognize are the similarities of things, why they came to be similar is normally pointless in science.
(no subject)
Man. The alternative is that if man's existence (say yours for example) was facilitated by a crossbreeding, the question becomes one of a New York Yankee fan-
Whose your daddy?
Please quote source re: innacuracy of carbon dating techniques.