Re: Re: Re: Evolution is alive and well

Glenn R. Morton (grmorton@waymark.net)
Mon, 19 Oct 1998 19:47:44 -0500

At 12:45 PM 10/19/98 -0500, Moorad Alexanian wrote:
>At 03:50 PM 10/18/98 -0500, Glenn R. Morton wrote:
>>In complex systems, prediction is impossible. It is impossible to
>>accurately predict where the sun will be on its next orbit around the
>>galaxy because of the vast number (billions) of stellar gravitational
>>fields that the sun will encounter on the next orbit. Thus, Newtonian
>>gravitation (and indeed General Relativity) is unable to make predictions
>>about complex systems. So are we to conclude from this that gravity
>>doesn't exist?
>
>Dear Gregg,

Do you mean GLENN?
>
>Newton's theory of gravitation is a deterministic theory and as such can
>make short term predictions with the aid of computers. The men we sent to
>the moon did land on the moon, didn't they?
>

This is irrelevant as I didn't talk about the moon. I spoke about complex
systems like the gravitational field of the galaxy. Why you think a
discussion of the relatively simple (albeit still insolvable 3-body
problem) is a response to a point about the gravitational field of the
galaxy with several billion suns I don't know.

>>>Darwin had an important concept, but hardly a theory. There is enough
wiggle
>>>room and stretch in it, that no matter what observations one brings to
it, an
>>>evolutionist can assert, 'It's consistent with the Darwin's theory.'"
>>
>>I think one could say that Newton had an important concept, but hardly a
>>theory. There is enough wiggle room and stretch in it, that no matter what
>>observations one brings to it, a committed gravitationalist can assert
>>"It's consistent with the Newtonian (or Einsteinian) theory."
>>
>>glenn
>
>There is no wiggle room in Newtonian theory. In fact, it was shown to make
>wrong predication for the perihelion precession of Mercury. Einstein's
>theory gave the correct value for the motions of the perihelia.

You totally misunderstood the point of my post. I wasn't saying that GR
didn't work or even that Newtonian theory didn't work. I was pointing out
that the requirement that evolution yield EXACT predictions is inconsistent
with the FACT that GR can't give an exact prediction to the orbit of the
sun around the galaxy. It can only give approximations because the actual
mass distribution is too complex and so are the interactions of a
biological system. Shoot, physics can't predict the weather next week,
much less a year from now. If we say nothing is a science that can't give
accurate predictions, then physics is clearly NOT a science. And if we
should reject evolutin for its lack of exact predictions, then if we are
consistent, shouldn't we reject physics?
glenn

Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm