Hi there,
I wondered if you could try to answer this for me. Basically, my thinking is that motion is fairly fundamental, what is more, we pretty much know a lot about it: Newtonian physics, Einsteinian Relativity. But Evolution says that it explains how these things came about, without actually manifesting them or anything like them. But that is disingenuous. If all it takes is mutation then it in principle it should be possible to identify a selection pressure that would change the theory of Evolution into a theory of motion - for which there is already a positive selection pressure that applies to many theories, namely the desirability of understanding motion in a way that is practical.
I don't think what I'm asking is too confusing. I'm just saying the theory of Evolution, has to evolve. Simple really.
The thing is I need to ask you guys, because I get the feeling that without a bit of argument to back it up, this concept would be dead in the water - something I've been trying to save Evolutionists from for some time, to no avail.
What is are the problems with trying to hold a theory to account, based on its own principle? That's not how any theory works? Really? (Reasoning does?)
I wondered if you could try to answer this for me. Basically, my thinking is that motion is fairly fundamental, what is more, we pretty much know a lot about it: Newtonian physics, Einsteinian Relativity. But Evolution says that it explains how these things came about, without actually manifesting them or anything like them. But that is disingenuous. If all it takes is mutation then it in principle it should be possible to identify a selection pressure that would change the theory of Evolution into a theory of motion - for which there is already a positive selection pressure that applies to many theories, namely the desirability of understanding motion in a way that is practical.
I don't think what I'm asking is too confusing. I'm just saying the theory of Evolution, has to evolve. Simple really.
The thing is I need to ask you guys, because I get the feeling that without a bit of argument to back it up, this concept would be dead in the water - something I've been trying to save Evolutionists from for some time, to no avail.
What is are the problems with trying to hold a theory to account, based on its own principle? That's not how any theory works? Really? (Reasoning does?)
