In Reply to: one of many examples of evolution in action posted by moonshiner on July 20, 2005 at 18:09:07:
"We understand the mechanisms by which evolution operates, and these mechanisms have actually been observed on short time scales. This establishes evolution as a more successful theory than the theory of gravitation. The theory of gravitation is also consistent with evidence, but we don’t yet know how it works.”
I "like" your logic...let's see:Who would argue in a time, where the fields of mathematics, chemistry & physics merge more & more with that of the science of biology, to form new interdisciplinarian types of research, that so much of physics ... if not all...has also to do with "life"=bio-logy...certainly with the force of gravity.Shouldn't we assume (fairly safe??), that that force was already in existence in the bygone, old days...as I like to call them.
According to you, we don't understand gravity really, which I claimed is part of chemistry, physics & also biology.We aren't really living in outer space, aren't we...free of any gravitational pull, plus, where matter is, there is also gravitation...isn't it?
So we don't really understand gravitation and that force being part of biology, it would seem, that it'd have something also to do with "evolution", if it ever really happened (hypothesis...let's assume it)...Now as it is seemingly an intricate part of biology/evolution, but not really understood by us...gravitation that is...how come, you understand the even more complex thing, as biology in general would seem to be?Quite strange.
By the way, we used to talk about the law of gravity in school, which can be expressed in mathematical terms and can be veryfied all over the world.A law is not a law anymore...of physics...if you can find only one instance, where it doesn't work as it is postulated.
Much has been talked about evolution, postuled, but it's not really a law of evolution.Why?Because we can't travel back & forth in time to verify it...it cannot be redone("the evolving of all the species") as you could simply let an apple fall down.
I think you're false "(a)postulator"...