Re: Evolution is alive and well
Moorad Alexanian (alexanian@UNCWIL.EDU)
Tue, 20 Oct 1998 09:51:42 -0500 (EST)
At 01:29 PM 10/19/98 -0400, George Murphy wrote:
>Moorad Alexanian wrote:
> ....................
>> 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.
>
> This is not quite correct.
> First, you can change the exponent in the law of gravitation from -2 to -(2 +
>a), where a is a small number. Secondly, there's the possibility of
previously
>unobserved masses which might cause the perihelion precession, in the way
that Neptune
>caused the previously unexplained departures of Uranus from its theoretical
orbit.
>Leverrier, one of those who predicted Neptune, suggested that there might
be a planet
>"Vulcan" inside the orbit of Mercury to cause the latter's perihelion
precession. The
>possibility that there might be a continuous distribution of dust (such as
that which
>causes the Zodiacal light) of sufficient density to have the necessary
gravitational
>effect, was also considered.
> There's always wiggle room. The real question is whether or not the wiggles
>that are needed to save a theory have any plausibility. That's partly a
matter of
>taste. Changing the exponent in Newton's law with no other justification
is just ugly.
>But - especially with the succesful prediction of Neptune - the Vulcan or dust
>hypotheses had to be, & were, taken very seriously. Of course their
plausibility
>declined as people made observational searches for these things & didn't
find them.
>
>George L. Murphy
>gmurphy@raex.com
>http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
It is true that one can correct any theory by adding corrections to the
basic mathematical model. Witness the Ptolemaic geocentric model of the
kinematics of the solar system. The basic circular orbit of planets where
modified with the addition of epicycles to bring the theory into agreement
with observational data. Of course, the theory was superseded by the
heliocentric model of Copernicus. Therefore, explaining data is not the only
purpose of science--prediction is fundamental. There is an inherent sense in
the human of what the theory ought to look like--is this a manifestation of
being created in the image of God? Einstein said it was the beauty or
simplicity of the mathematical model. It is interesting that in Genesis God
did not see beauty in the creation as much as goodness. The qualm I have
with evolution is that at this stage of its development the "theory" sounds
as mere words to my ears.
Moorad