I Don't Believe in Gravity!

[SalixIncendium]

If both are fact then why is this thread even a thing?

Because even though both are facts, there are those that reject one and accept the other.

But what about the valve? There would be no need for the valve until the psi was enough to harm the animal. But if the psi was enough to kill the animal, it would not have time to adapt then pass this genetic adaption on to the next generaration.

"Darwin answered this claim in 1868 (206). The claim assumes that "gradually" must mean "one at a time." Not so. The different features could have (and almost certainly would have) evolved both simultaneously and gradually. Partial valves would have been useful for reducing blood pressure to a degree. An intermediate heart would have produced enough pressure for a shorter neck. A smaller net of blood vessels in the head could have handled the lesser pressure. As longer necks were selected for, all of the other components would have been modified bit by bit as well. In other words, for each inch that the neck grew, the giraffe's physiology would have evolved to support such growth before the next inch of neck growth."

CB325: Giraffe neck and blood pressure

 

[Enoch07]

Because even though both are facts, there are those that reject one and accept the other.



"Darwin answered this claim in 1868 (206). The claim assumes that "gradually" must mean "one at a time." Not so. The different features could have (and almost certainly would have) evolved both simultaneously and gradually. Partial valves would have been useful for reducing blood pressure to a degree. An intermediate heart would have produced enough pressure for a shorter neck. A smaller net of blood vessels in the head could have handled the lesser pressure. As longer necks were selected for, all of the other components would have been modified bit by bit as well. In other words, for each inch that the neck grew, the giraffe's physiology would have evolved to support such growth before the next inch of neck growth."

CB325: Giraffe neck and blood pressure

That didn't answer my question though.

How does a organism know to make the valve before it is actually needed? This means that the organism preemptively somehow knew to have this system in place before hand. So how does it know?

 

[shunyadragon]

gravity is a fact, evolution is a theory.

A canon ball fired into the air and falling to the ground is a fact. The Theory of gravity is the explanation for the relationship of the attraction of physical object in the macro universe. The theory is not proven to be true, and in fact gravity has yet to be fully explained.

The Theory of evolution has been repeatedly falsified by the objective verifiable evidence science Charles Darwin was the first to propose a coherent theory subject to falsification, and provide specific evidence to support the theory.

Careful referring to a layman's loosey goosey understanding of 'theory' as opposed to the scientific theory falsified and supported by objective falsifiable evidence.

The earth has gravity, so do other planets and stars.

 

[SalixIncendium]

That didn't answer my question though.

How does a organism know to make the valve before it is actually needed? This means that the organism preemptively somehow knew to have this system in place before hand. So how does it know?

It didn't necessarily make the valve before it was needed. As the neck lengthened gradually, the need for one or two smaller valves might have presented itself. As the lengthening continued, the valves grew larger and in number, as prescribed by the length of the next to accommodate appropriate blood flow.

 

[shunyadragon]

While that's an interesting excerpt, it hardly evidence that science doesn't prove anything.

There is no such evidence! Can you provide a coherent argument for this line of reasoning, which more resembles the Mad Hatter's Tea Party.

From: http://www.finchpark.com/drama/scripts-other/ALICE_SCRIPT.pdf

Hatter - (opening his eyes widely) Why is a raven like a writing-desk?
Alice - I believe I can guess that.

March Hare - Do you mean that you think you can find out the answer to it?

Alice - Exactly so March Hare Then you should say what you mean.

Alice - (hastily) I do. At least--at least I mean what I say--that’s the same thing, you know.

Hatter - Not the same thing a bit! You might just as well say that "I see what I eat" is the same thing as "I eat what I see"!

March Hare You might just as well say that "I like what I get" is the same thing as "I get what I like"!

Dormouse - (seems to be talking in his sleep) You might just as well say that "I breathe when I sleep" is the same thing as "I sleep when I breathe"!

 

[Enoch07]

It didn't necessarily make the valve before it was needed. As the neck lengthened gradually, the need for one or two smaller valves might have presented itself. As the lengthening continued, the valves grew larger and in number, as prescribed by the length of the next to accommodate appropriate blood flow.

I suppose thats possible. It is a bit of a "stretch" though. >insert drum roll <

Until a reasonable explanation as to why an organism would develop a function that is not currently needed, but will be needed thousands or ten thouands of years in the future (because giraffes necks didnt grow overnight), it will be doubt for evolution, and even possible evidence for creation.

There are a lot of animals I could use for examples. Though I would have to re-research to find them. It's been years since I read about this, but it is fascinating!

 

[Profound Realization]

Ill put this in layman terms.

Gravity is not considered a theory because.

Its easy to believe in gravity because you can test gravity in real time to see if it's true. Pick up a pebble. Drop the pebble. Gravity has been witnessed at work. Theory accepted as fact.

Evolution is still considered a theory because.

Evolution occurs gradually over thousands and tens of thousands of years. This is not something a normal person can easily replicate to understand the principle. So that is why 42% of people either don't accept it or reject it totally.

I picked up a pebble. Then I dropped the pebble. It simply fell because it is heavier than the air.

 

[David T]

Sounds like a silly statement, doesn't it?

So why do we buy into gravity? Is it because we buy into Newton's mathematical equation? Is it because of evidence presented through scientific method? Or is it because we know the earth spins at 1000 miles per hour (at the equator) and we have an understanding that without it, we would be flung into space like fleas being shaken off of a dog (until they hit the ground because of gravity)?

So is it fair to say that we buy into this scientific theory because we have subjective experience, and not because of evidence presented through scientific method?

Another scientific theory is Darwin's theory of evolution through natural selection. Like gravity, it is a scientific theory arrived at through use of the scientific method. Yet 42% of the population (according to a poll I made up for this thread) does not buy into evolution or natural selection even though it uses the same scientific method used to arrive at the theory of gravity (systematic observation, measurement, experimentation, formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses). One can hypothesize (as I do) that the only reason that one would not believe in evolution is because s/he lacks subjective experience.

So In this thread, I would like to hear from those that believe in gravity and do not believe in evolution through natural selection. Why is gravity more valid to you than evolution?


Edited for typos

Whether you believe, dont believe, or are agnostic, all three are insultingly stupid.

 

[Enoch07]

I picked up a pebble. Then I dropped the pebble. It simply fell because it is heavier than the air.

Put it in a sealed clear box them vacuum the air out. You can make a vacuum chamber for about $300 or maybe less if your resourceful.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Whether you believe, dont believe, or are agnostic, all three are insultingly stupid.

All three what?

 

[Ponder This]

So is it fair to say that we buy into this scientific theory because we have subjective experience, and not because of evidence presented through scientific method?

Sure.

People will ask "why is the sky blue?" or "why do things fall?" and not "Is the sky blue?" or "Do things fall?"

People don't really ask "Why do organisms evolve?'. Instead they ask "Do organisms evolve?"

It is fair to say that evolution is not part of the normal everyday subjective experience, but that gravity is part of the normal everyday subjective experience.

Moreover, there is an interest in self-identity in the question "Where did we come from?" that isn't present in questions such as "What shape is the Earth?" This makes the question of evolution more personal rather than impersonal in the sense that people think the answer more directly relates to them as individuals.

"Why is the sky blue?" is impersonal, but "Why is your hair blue?" is personal.
Answer a question about the sky and you are just talking about the sky. Answer a question about my hair and you are talking about me.

So it's also fair to say that people tend to view the question of evolution more personally than the question of gravity.

 

[Lester Tryon]

Whether you believe, dont believe, or are agnostic, all three are insultingly stupid.

So, everyone's beliefs, including your own, are "insultingly stupid"? Insulting to whom, may I ask?

 

[SalixIncendium]

There is no such evidence! Can you provide a coherent argument for this line of reasoning, which more resembles the Mad Hatter's Tea Party.

From: http://www.finchpark.com/drama/scripts-other/ALICE_SCRIPT.pdf

Hatter - (opening his eyes widely) Why is a raven like a writing-desk?
Alice - I believe I can guess that.

March Hare - Do you mean that you think you can find out the answer to it?

Alice - Exactly so March Hare Then you should say what you mean.

Alice - (hastily) I do. At least--at least I mean what I say--that’s the same thing, you know.

Hatter - Not the same thing a bit! You might just as well say that "I see what I eat" is the same thing as "I eat what I see"!

March Hare You might just as well say that "I like what I get" is the same thing as "I get what I like"!

Dormouse - (seems to be talking in his sleep) You might just as well say that "I breathe when I sleep" is the same thing as "I sleep when I breathe"!

Sure. As soon as you provide some evidence to back up your claim that science doesn't prove anything.

 

[shunyadragon]

Sure. As soon as you provide some evidence to back up your claim that science doesn't prove anything.

It is the philosophy of the nature of falsification, which Popper justifiably proposed that any claim of proof can be disproved by new evidence and experiment that finds the claim of proof false, which has factually indeed happened over the years.

 

[David T]

All three what?

Exactly

 

[David T]

So, everyone's beliefs, including your own, are "insultingly stupid"? Insulting to whom, may I ask?

I believe if I go down the road taking a right and then go 1 mile McDonald's will be on the left. But as soon as someone pulsl out the tired old broken nonsense "everyone" I just sing the old REM lyric ,, "life is, bigger than you and you are not me". Only the self deluded in harmony, with the self deluded delusionally believe everyone is like them!!! Like some mad chorus of kazoo players out of tune all playing different tunes pretending it's music. It's not, all it is, is just random squeaking geese noise pretending.

 

[Lester Tryon]

I believe if I go down the road taking a right and then go 1 mile McDonald's will be on the left. But as soon as someone pulsl out the tired old broken nonsense "everyone" I just sing the old REM lyric ,, "life is, bigger than you and you are not me". Only the self deluded in harmony, with the self deluded delusionally believe everyone is like them!!! Like some mad chorus of kazoo players out of tune all playing different tunes pretending it's music. It's not, all it is, is just random squeaking geese noise pretending.

If you don't believe, do believe, or are agnostic? If this does not cover the spectrum of everyone, pray tell, what other category is there in relation to beliefs? It seems to me, that this response was more a misdirection, than an answer to the questions. Although in light of this last post, they have changed to: a. What other category? and b. Insulting to whom?

 

[SalixIncendium]

Exactly

Oh, do tell. Which category do you belong to?

 

[Skwim]

Hmm...doesn't gravity explain how we held in place on the planet? How the earth stays in orbit around the sun? How our solar system stays in orbit around a black hole?

The mere identification of a theory, as "gravity" in this case, is not the same as the nature of the theory.

While it is a reality, it explains how modern day species descended from single celled microorganisms. It explains how it works.

Indeed, the theories that explain evolution are a reality: such theories do indeed exist; however, they are not a part of evolution itself. Before there was anyone around to propound its theories evolution was chugging along quite nicely.

No, it just means they, like those that don't believe in evolution, have their heads in the sand (which probably keeps them tethered to the ground in the absence of gravity.

.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I Don't Believe in Gravity!

Jump! Jump! Jump! Jump! Jump!