>We in the reflector tend to think in terms of one acceptable description of
reality - and view ideas that sound different as fundamentally different. Is
this really the case? For instance, when Glenn is insisting on a TE model and
Stephen a PC model for describing and interpreting a piece of data, is it
possible that both are correct - in that no amount of effort is going to
demonstrate that one view is correct and the other is wrong? Sounds weird,
doesn't it? But how weird is this? <<
If there were no observational or theoretical expectation differences between
PC and TE I would agree with you, Gordie. But I think there is a different
expectation. Under PC God is free to create whatever He wants Under TE there
are limits. Thus in PC we would not expect constraints on the form of the
new species in the same sense that constraints are expected under TE.
For example, phyla represent the basic body plans of various plants and
animals. In the Cambrian Explosion, all but one of the 20-30(depending on
the taxonomist) modern phyla are represented. But there are also fifteen to
20 other phyla represented in the Burgess shale. (See Stephen J. Gould,
Wonderful Life, p. 100.) Thus the Cambrian had between 35 to 50 phyla.
15-20 of them went extinct in the Cambrian.
After this period of time, only the Bryozoa first appear in the Ordovician.
Since that time absolutely no new phyla have been created on earth. Why?
Certainly it can not be claimed that God is incapable of creating a new
phylum but is it reasonable to assume that after an initial creative period,
God got boring and stayed with the same limited repertoire?
It would seem to me that the data here fits better with TE than with PC
because the subsequent forms were limited in organizational body plan which
would be expected within modern views of evolution. (But not within the
older views)
Gordie wrote:
>>2. The usual interpretation of the Michelson-Morley experiment, that there
is no ether, is not essential and can be replaced by an interpretation that
our speed with respect to an ether is zero. <<
Agreed, but to say it is zero requires then that the larger object, the sun
have a velocity through the ether. A Micelson-Morely experiment on the sun,
Mars or Pluto or the moon, should show motion. Is this not correct? I doubt
if a MM experiment has been done in orbit but it should give a different
result from an earth borne experiment.
If I recall correctly, there was some discussion last century about the need
for the ether to rotate around the earth with the same period as the earth's
rotation. Since a satellite would not do this, a null result in orbit would
invalidate this suggestion.
Is my reasoning correct? I am not very good in relativity. Does anyone know
if a Michelson-Morley experiment has been performed on the shuttle?
glenn