Theory of Evolution is about to change a bit

[Reforged]

"What a bunch of Hooey."

"It was not until some weeks later that I realized there is no need to restrict oneself to 2 by 2 matrices. One could go on to 4 by 4 matrices, and the problem is then easily soluable. In retrospect, it seems strange that one can be so much held up over such an elementary point. The resulting wave equation for the electron turned out to be very successful. It led to correct values for the spin and the magnetic moment. This was quite unexpected. The work all followed from a study of pretty mathematics, without any thought being given to these physical properties of the electron."

P.A.M. Dirac


Science doesn't so much follow the metaphysics as it follows the mathematics. The last century of science has repeatedly shown that metaphysics is a poor guide to reality. The metaphysics of quantum theory is secondary to the mathematics, and the current incarnation of T.O.E.'s is almost wholly driven by the mathematics. The idea that metaphysics is the point guard for science is ridiculous. This also explains your mystery about Einstein and black holes: the mathematics of Einstein's model predicted them. He didn't just pull it out of his ass. (And a quick check of Wikipedia indicates it wasn't even his ass — Karl Schwarzschild derived a solution to Einstein's equations for a point mass which was refined over time by several physicists until it was recognized for what it was; again, the mathematics drove the discovery. Metaphysics played almost no role whatsoever.) And if there hadn't been an Einstein, somebody else would have discovered relativity, because the conflict between Maxwell's equations and the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment were lying there on the surface, just waiting for someone to reconcile them.

And we've already noticed your inability to distinguish between theory (evolution) and the data that supports it (physical and biological specimens). I'm guessing you're more open to divergent ideas because you lack the discrimination to separate the wheat from the chaff.


"We tend to scoff at the beliefs of the ancients. But we can't scoff at them personally, to their faces, and this is what annoys me."

Jack Handey

So before Galileo when scientist and astronomers believed that this world was in the center of the universe they used math too to prove their theories but they lacked an open mind and the astronomers at that time in order to keep their stuff straight ran to the church to complain about Galileo because they had to be right and Galileo a magician.

I am not against evolution that was not the purpose of the post. There is no fallacy to keep an open mind to new frontiers of science. There is a lot of things we discovered throughout history accidentally, without testing, without using the scientific method. I believe we should start opening our boundaries a bit more rather than to keep it close, that is my personal opinion. That makes me wrong or full of fallacies I guess.

Math is established as being a working system that reaps many rewards and can be demonstrably recreated to yield the same benefits, you cannot say the same about religion.
Alot of the time we depended on serendipity to make our discoveries and it is very obviously not the best way but its what we depended on when we were essentially fumbling in the dark.
It would be a really stupid idea to choose that over the now perfected and informed techniques of making discoveries we have obtained over hundreds of years.
What next? Should we go back to using candles instead of lightbulbs?