Since Darwin wrote his book, many people have challenged his theory. Now this does not mean these scientsts resorted to supporting creationism. What they realised was, was that Darwins theory of evolution was either completey flawed, wrong, incomplete etc, evolution is not in question to these scientists but the process or mechanism which brought about the evolution is in question - And has actually never been solved!, there is still a huge debate amongst scientists today for example, did evolution occur gradually or by leaps? What are the mechanisms of evolution? Many evolutionists do not agree with eachother!. These scientists have all put forward there own evolutionary theories opposed to Darwin.

NONE of these scientists are creationists, NONE of them are religious in any shape or form. Most are agnostics and atheists. And yes they oppose Darwins theory of evolution!

Pierre- Paul Grasse

Views: 1483

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Are any of these scientists questioning the theory of gravity?  Can they explain what gravity is and where it comes from?  Does anyone doubt that that it would be unwise to throw a brick straight up in the air and stand under it?

Evolution is a fact, demonstrated by the fossil record, nested hierarchies of dna, stratigraphy, radiometric dating, and lab experiments.  Species now are classified according to dna, not their similarity to other species in physical appearance.

The theory is an explanation of how evolution works.  Darwin says natural selection, which functions like artificial selection, except the environment chooses which individuals in a species are allowed to mate rather than a farmer or breeder.  155 years of research have shown that the process is more complicated, more nuanced than Darwin, who knew little of genetic theory and nothing about dna, could have suspected.  He was, though, a pigeon fancier and breeder, and he practiced selective breeding to modify pigeons, just as all kinds of animal breeders do.  Why can't nature do the same, mindlessly?  A taller giraffe can reach more food, so is more likely to survive and pass on its gene for tallness.  A smaller elephant needs less food, so we have fossils of pygmy elephants on Mediterranean islands.  A fish that can leave the water might be better able to escape predators, or even to leave a drying lake for a viable one?  (Mud skippers can climb mangrove roots and stay out of water for several days.)  The Lenski experiments showed that one mutation can lie dormant, then combine with another mutation generations later, giving a species a decided advantage over other, similar species.

Newton didn't know everything, either; atomic theory, relativity, quantum mechanics, the big bang, and string theory were unknown to him, and he also held a few ideas that are now in the dustbin of history, but NASA uses Newtonian theory to land robots on Mars.

As others have said, Gould did not disagree with Darwin on natural selection, but on the progress of evolution.  Darwin assumed gradual, steady progress, but Gould argued for periods of relative stability interrupted by periods of rapid evolutionary development.  The core idea, evolution via random mutation and natural selection, has not been seriously challenged.

Can you explain what gravity is and where it comes from? I suspect that if the earth was to suddenly stop spinning we would have very little of it, and everything would come apart and all hell would break loose. End of earth and end of all life on it. Gravity is created by the spin.

No, this is not correct. You can see this easily. Rotational velocity decreases as you move away from the equator and at the two poles it is zero. If your notion was correct gravity near the poles would be less and right at the poles there would be no gravitation force at all. But gravity is the same everywhere.

Although much remains unknown about gravity, the way it works is actually well understood and can be calculated with great precision. It does not result from planetary rotation at all. Planetary rotation is not caused by the force of gravity nor does it cause gravity. It is simply the result of conservation of angular momentum.

You may be correct, Dr. Clark. I'm not a scientist. All I know for sure is that I wouldn't want to be on the earth if it was not spinning. I believe that would cause a disaster.

Newton hypothesized that between any two masses in the universe there is a force given as follows:

This hypothesis allowed him to derive Kepler's laws of planetary motion as a consequence and explained the Copernican model of the solar system.

Gravity is the smallest of the four fundamental forces and it was not possible for Newton to conduct experimental veritication—that was done by Henry Cavendish in 1798. Since then many experiments have repeated the verification. The universal gravitational constant has been meaured under many different conditions and the conclusion is that it really is constant.

Hm-mm, the earth's spinning causes the sun to appear to rise in the east.

I see no danger of it stopping, but if it were to do so:

1) Let's hope it slows gradually, or non-liquid stuff nearer the equator would slide or roll eastward.

2) Liquid stuff, like the oceans? Katie bar the doors and windows!

3) Near the equator, would centrifugal force decrease enough to increase everything's weight?

4) The 24-hour day would be history.

5) The sun-facing surface would get perpetual day and become hotter. The rest of the earth would get perpetual night and become colder.


Near the equator, would centrifugal force decrease enough to increase everything's weight?

Not noticeably. The centrifugal force due to Earth's rotation is 1/289 the force of gravity at the equator. 

No, it isn't caused by the earth's rotation.  But if the earth suddenly stopped its thousand-mile-per hour spin, pretty much everything on it would be thrown off like mud from a wheel.

One of the astronauts inadvertently confirmed Newton's theories with (IIRC) Tang by putting some of it in a plastic bag, expecting the particles to fly apart like water droplets in the very low gravity of space.  They clustered together, drawn by their own immeasurably small gravitational forces.  And despite Bill O'Reilly's prideful ignorance, the gravity of the moon causes tides on earth.

That's the theory, anyway.

But if the earth suddenly stopped its thousand-mile-per hour spin, pretty much everything on it would be thrown off like mud from a wheel.

Craig, what's on the earth and not tightly attached to it will be thrown if the earth starts spinning much faster.

You can see it happen if you put something on a multiple-speed phonograph turntable (one of those old 33-45-78 rpm models) that's turning at 33 rpm and then switch it to turn at 78 rpm.

BTW, if you have such a turntable, try this.

Attach a short candle inside a tall glass and tape them to a turntable so they won't be thrown off when you start the turntable.

Light the candle, and before you start the turntable, guess which way the flame will lean. (It will lean.)

Explain the result.

I've done it.

Yes, if the earth somehow doubles the speed of it's rotation, we will be in trouble.

if the earth suddenly stopped its thousand-mile-per hour spin, pretty much everything on it would be thrown off like mud from a wheel.

No, as I said just above, the centrifugal force at the equator is just 1/289 the force of gravity.
There would be huge tidal waves, though. The oceans would rearrange themselves as the earth assumes a more spherical shape. etc. etc.

I guess what I'm thinking is that a lot of what is attached will become detached in a sudden stop, even if it has roots.




Update Your Membership :



Nexus on Social Media:

© 2019   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service