My Gravolution Challenge

[AV1611VET]

I was inspired to make this challenge by someone who said: If you accept gravity as a fact you should by the same standards accept evolution as a fact.

I accept "microgravity" as a term that has replaced "zero gravity."

I also accept "microevolution," but I do not accept "macroevolution;" two terms that some say aren't valid terms.

Concerning "macrogravity," WikiDiff says:

Macrogravity is a related term of microgravity.

But then it goes on to say:

Not English - Macrogravity has no English definition. It may be misspelled.

SOURCE

Thoughts?

 

[VirOptimus]

I was inspired to make this challenge by someone who said: If you accept gravity as a fact you should by the same standards accept evolution as a fact.

I accept "microgravity" as a term that has replaced "zero gravity."

I also accept "microevolution," but I do not accept "macroevolution;" two terms that some say aren't valid terms.

Concerning "macrogravity," WikiDiff says:

Macrogravity is a related term of microgravity.

But then it goes on to say:

Not English - Macrogravity has no English definition. It may be misspelled.

SOURCE

Thoughts?

My thoughts are that you dont understand evolution, the theory of evolution, gravity, the theory of gravity or science in general.

Your challenge is a fail.

 

[jacks]

I only checked Microevolution. I find Macroevolution hard to swallow and of course we really have no idea what gravity is. BTW I think the term for "macrogravity" is "regular ol' gravity".

 

[HitchSlap]

Thoughts?

I think the extent Christians are willing to go so they can square the circle is fascinating from an observer's perspective.

 

[AV1611VET]

I only checked Microevolution. I find Macroevolution hard to swallow and of course we really have no idea what gravity is. BTW I think the term for "macrogravity" is "regular ol' gravity".

As I understand it, it used to be called "zero gravity" and "weightlessness."

But according to the formula for gravity, which is gravity = Gm₁m₂/r², an electron on one side of the universe exerts a pull on an electron on the opposite side, however minuscule.

Zero gravity has the connotation of no gravitational pull.

8 out of 10 dentists prefer it!

 

[renniks]

Well we can see the effects of gravity but we could be mistaken about how it works. So gravity isn't a fact.

 

[Yttrium]

Frankly, I don't like any of those terms. Gravity is just gravity, and evolution is just evolution.

 

[Yttrium]

Zero gravity has the connotation of no gravitational pull.

Zero gravity is like centrifugal force. Imaginary. If you're inside a space station going around in orbit, you're being pulled by Earth's gravity. It's just that both you and the space station are falling toward the Earth at the same acceleration.

 

[AV1611VET]

Frankly, I don't like any of those terms. Gravity is just gravity, and evolution is just evolution.

It is what it is!

 

[sjastro]

I misread this as the Graviola challenge.
How much graviola one can digest before it starts destroying your brain cells.

 

[Bradskii]

I was inspired to make this challenge by someone who said: If you accept gravity as a fact you should by the same standards accept evolution as a fact.

I accept "microgravity" as a term that has replaced "zero gravity."

I also accept "microevolution," but I do not accept "macroevolution;" two terms that some say aren't valid terms.

Concerning "macrogravity," WikiDiff says:

Macrogravity is a related term of microgravity.

But then it goes on to say:

Not English - Macrogravity has no English definition. It may be misspelled.

SOURCE

Thoughts?

When does microevolution stop?

 

[Frank Robert]

When does microevolution stop?

The last bastion for creationists is that de novo genes are not possible.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

Do I believe in "macrogravity," a term you have told us has no definition? I mean, let me think about that for a bit.

 

[AV1611VET]

Do I believe in "macrogravity," a term you have told us has no definition? I mean, let me think about that for a bit.

I'm glad you caught that, Gene.

"Macrogravity" is not an acceptable word in the scientific realm; neither is "microevolution."

What prompted this challenge was the remark:

"If you accept gravity as a fact you should by the same standards accept evolution as a fact."

Well ... I accept evolution as a fact, but only to a point. I draw the line at [the unacceptable term] macroevolution.

I'd like to know:

1. Why microevolution is acceptable, while macroevolution is not.
2. If you want me to stop using "macroevolution," are you willing to stop using "microgravity"?

 

[VirOptimus]

I'm glad you caught that, Gene.

"Macrogravity" is not an acceptable word in the scientific realm; neither is "microevolution."

What prompted this challenge was the remark:

"If you accept gravity as a fact you should by the same standards accept evolution as a fact."

Well ... I accept evolution as a fact, but only to a point. I draw the line at [the unacceptable term] macroevolution.

I'd like to know:

1. Why microevolution is acceptable, while macroevolution is not.
2. If you want me to stop using "macroevolution," are you willing to stop using "microgravity"?

Do all species evolve?

 

[Gene Parmesan]

I'm glad you caught that, Gene.

"Macrogravity" is not an acceptable word in the scientific realm; neither is "microevolution."

What prompted this challenge was the remark:

"If you accept gravity as a fact you should by the same standards accept evolution as a fact."

Well ... I accept evolution as a fact, but only to a point. I draw the line at [the unacceptable term] macroevolution.

I'd like to know:

1. Why microevolution is acceptable, while macroevolution is not.
2. If you want me to stop using "macroevolution," are you willing to stop using "microgravity"?

Sounds good to me. There is just gravity and there is just evolution.

 

[AV1611VET]

Do all species evolve?

As far as I know they do.

 

[AV1611VET]

Sounds good to me. There is just gravity and there is just evolution.

No argument there.

 

[essentialsaltes]

To make a better analogy, I would offer the following definitions:

Microgravity: gravity on the human-scale. Rocks falling, water flowing downhill, car keys stay put on the table, car keys never found bumping against the ceiling. Acceleration of 9.8 m/s^2 plus or minus a little.

Macrogravity: gravity on a much-bigger-than-human scale. The moon orbiting the earth.

One of Newton's aha moments was hypothesizing that microgravity and macrogravity were the same thing. That gravity was universal. And then determining that his law of universal gravity gave the correct results for the accelerations observed for a falling rock (microgravity) and the moon's orbit (macrogravity).

He was unable to drop a rock from 250,000 miles high in the sky, but the natural experiment of the moon allowed him to test and confirm his hypothesis in a location inaccessible to him.

Similarly, the natural experiments of fossils allow us to test and confirm evolution in a time span inaccessible to us.

 

[VirOptimus]

As far as I know they do.

Then you accept ”macroevolution”.