Don’t Call it “Darwinism” [religiously defended as "science" by Godless Darwinists]

springerlink ^ | 16 January 2009 | Eugenie C. Scott and Glenn Branch

[Coyoteman]

We will see and hear the term “Darwinism” a lot during 2009, a year during which scientists, teachers, and others who delight in the accomplishments of modern biology will commemorate the 200th anniversary of Darwin’s birth and the 150th anniversary of the publication of On the Origin of Species. But what does “Darwinism” mean? And how is it used? At best, the phrase is ambiguous and misleading about science. At worst, its use echoes a creationist strategy to demonize evolution.

snip...

In summary, then, “Darwinism” is an ambiguous term that impairs communication even about Darwin’s own ideas. It fails to convey the full panoply of modern evolutionary biology accurately, and it fosters the inaccurate perception that the field stagnated for 150 years after Darwin’s day. Moreover, creationists use “Darwinism” to frame evolutionary biology as an ism or ideology, and the public understanding of evolution and science suffers as a result. True, in science, we do not shape our research because of what creationists claim about our subject matter. But when we are in the classroom or otherwise dealing with the public understanding of science, it is entirely appropriate to consider whether what we say may be misunderstood. We cannot expect to change preconceptions if we are not willing to avoid exacerbating them. A first step is eschewing the careless use of “Darwinism.”

[LeGrande]

Triangulation is the use of two angles to determine distance. Most stars are too far away for that technique to work.

For the record, I seem to recall that we have the earth orbiting the Sun (close enough for govt. work, anyway,

Yes indeed. We have Copernicus to thank for that : )

To say that "the sun is also orbiting the earth" is misleading: this is not a two-body system of equivalent masses, the error introduced by treating the Sun as the center of mass is very small.

You misunderstood me. Let me make it clearer, the two models are equivalent, as illustrated by the merry go round animation, or the two people floating in space. It is understood that models are a gross simplification. The point that I am trying to make with mrjesse is that for a person standing on the equator of a large ball, there is no difference to him when he observes another ball, whether his ball is spinning or the other ball is orbiting his, or combination of spinning and orbiting. His observations will be the same.

It is essentially the same as two people floating in space with radar guns approaching each other. It is impossible for them to determine absolutely who is approaching whom. Either persons frame of reference is equivalent. It is only when you add something else for reference (like a space ship) that you can arbitrarily determine who is approaching whom.

I think LG is confusion the aberration of light issue with the (approximate) two-body problem.

I regret ever pointing out the aberration of light to mrjesse : (

It is also a two-body problem in an Einstein universe not a Galilean universe, because we are dealing with the speed of light, where time is also a variable.

[GourmetDan]

"[ECO] Indeed, every astronomy book is, as you say, careful to point out that 'the earth goes around the sun' can never be proven."

"[allmendream] it is still called the Heliocentric Theory, not the Heliocentric Truth"

Hypocrisy is one of allmendream's best qualities.

Without it, he wouldn't have anything to say...

[allmendream]

That you think such a stance is hypocritical shows that you have no real understanding of science.

And once again in all your blather you cannot name a force sufficient to accomplish the motion described by the coordinate system you prefer.

Meanwhile the Heliocentric model is ‘equally valid as a coordinate system’ while being superior in that it is easily explainable by the known and measurable force of gravity.

[GourmetDan]

"That you think such a stance is hypocritical shows that you have no real understanding of science."

Not at all. Real science and real scientists have been quoted with statements that show that geocentrism and geokineticism are physically indistinguishable. Only people who have a philosophical problem rant and rave about things they know can't be proven. That doesn't stop you, however.

"And once again in all your blather you cannot name a force sufficient to accomplish the motion described by the coordinate system you prefer."

Now you know that geocentrism within GR doesn't use any force that you don't use in your own preferred coordinate system. You also know that you can't prove your preferred coordinate system, yet you rant and rave as though I am the only one who can't prove their position. That's where the hypocrisy comes in.

"Meanwhile the Heliocentric model is ‘equally valid as a coordinate system’ while being superior in that it is easily explainable by the known and measurable force of gravity."

Then you don't understand what Einstein, Hoyle, Born and Ellis have said and are just blabbering.

[grey_whiskers]

I'll reply tomorrow, but it looks like you misunderstood the thrust of my statements...maybe I should have been more explicit.

Have a wonderful day!

And this is *why* I'll reply tomorrow...

It's my wife's birthday, and the kids are out on sleepovers and school dances until much later.

So a good day is pretty likely, despite my insomnia.

Cheers!

[GourmetDan]

"I'll reply tomorrow, but it looks like you misunderstood the thrust of my statements...maybe I should have been more explicit."

I would suggest that you do a bit more study of the geocentric position within GR before replying.

Einstein, Hoyle, Born and Ellis have all said (and I have posted those statements) that the two models (geokinetic and geocentric) are mathematically, observationally and physically indistinguishable.

Now, I assume that you know what 'indistinguishable' means and I don't see a way for you to be 'more explicit' under those circumstances.

[muawiyah]

When I was in college decades back we had these Saudi Arabian students who'd grown up out near the Rub'al'Khalid chasing sheep and goats around.

Real basic sort of lifestyle.

The King set up a fund to send them to a prepschool, and then on to Indiana University.

Occasionally they'd get into tiffs about what a word in the English language actually meant in a given context, and next thing you know they'd have their footlong daggers out taking pokes at each other.

At the time I thought that was such a barbaric thing to do. Over the years I've softened my judgment ~ how refreshing, direct and honest of them!

Time for you guys to get civilized regarding the meanings commonly accepted for words ~ first rule, if it's not a commonly accepted meaning and you aren't a made member of the nomenklatura (such as I am), give it up!

You can "give it up" for the sake of comity, or you can "give it up" for Jesus, or maybe even "give it up" for Buddha's sake ~ I don't particularly care, but eternal debates over definitions without the use of knives is so ignorant and primitive ~ tiresome even.

[mrjesse]

Said tacticalogic:I won't join you because I simply don't think it's worth the animosity.

Huh? In other words you wouldn't confront somebody for lying and teaching untruth because they might have animosity against you for it? Like I said, it is no wonder science education is in such shambles - everybody knows the students are being lied to and nobody says a thing because they don't want to cause discord.

Why is it the only reason you think two people can simply agree to disagree, and part company amicably on an issue can only mean there is some tacit religiously motivated conspiracy against you involved?

Agree to disagree on a scientific fact? Very sad that truth means so little. Like I said, this is the problem.

-Jesse

[tacticalogic]

Like I said, this is the problem.

Yes, you did. And I don't believe you.

[mrjesse]

Said MrJesse:If I tilted my merry go around so the top pointed to the north star and I set my merry go around with me on it rotating 180 degrees per 8.3 minutes, would the sun appear in the east at the point in time that its gravity pulled to the west?

Replied LeGrande: Which frame of reference are you using when you say East and West? If the Earth is your frame of reference the answer is no, it will still be the old 2.1 degrees.

Alright, maybe I didn't state my question clearly enough. By "East and West" I really meant "Opposite directions." And I am not talking about any frame of reference involving the earth, and since your only answer addressed the case of the earth being my frame of reference, you did not answer the question I meant to ask because you were confused by my wording, so here is what I meant to ask:

The Lavender question: (I'm color coding them now.)

Let us say that I tilted up my merry go around so that it's top pointed directly at the north star (Polaris to be specific) and furthermore let us say that I got it spinning at exactly 180 degrees per 8.3 minutes with reference to the position of the sun -- at the instant that the sun appeared almost exactly in my face, would it really be behind my head? In other words, would the light be coming from almost the exact opposite direction where the sun's gravity would be pulling - at any instant in time?

So please answer that! It is a simple "Yes" or "No" or "I don't know"

(Of course you can also say "Yes but... or No but..." but hopefully I've specified enough variables that it's a simple yes or no.)

Thanks and sorry for the confusion,

-Jesse

[mrjesse]

How many times do you want me to try and explain this answer to you? You keep claiming that I haven't answered this question but by my recollection this is about the 6th or seventh time.

It is possible that you tried to answer my question about the merry go around pointing at the north star - I'm waiting to see on that one. But you still haven't answered the 12 hour planet, or pluto, or lots of others. Please answer the following:

The Purple question: 17 minute merry go around on north pole

Let us say that I had a merry go around on the North Pole furthermore let us say that I got it spinning at exactly 180 degrees per 8.3 minutes with reference to the position of the sun -- at the instant that the sun appeared almost exactly in my face, would it really be behind my head? In other words, would the light be coming from about the exact opposite direction from where the sun's gravity would be pulling - at any instant in time?

Thanks,

-Jesse

[mrjesse]

Said LeGrande: You are contradicting yourself mrjesse. You have already said that if the light from the sun stops, that you will continue to see the sun move across the sky for 8.3 minutes and 2.1 degrees (in an Earth spinning model). mrjesse - Of course the sun will still appear to move at 2.1 degrees per 8.3 minutes after it is shut off. (LG I added the last part 'after it is shut off' for clarification.

No, I'm not contradicting myself I'm contradiction your misquote of me - I did NOT say that you will continue to SEE the sun move - but that the sun will appear to move (And I went on to explain that it was simply because the earth was rotating.)

I am confused. I have answered the question many times. You even refer to my answer in your next paragraph.

You have answered many questions that I did not ask, but you have not actually answered the question as I asked:

For an observer on earth who is looking at a bright and stationary planet that is 12 light hours away and is above the earth's equator, at the instant that said planet appears in the east will it really be in the west? Will its gravity be pulling in the opposite direction of where the light appears to come from at that instant?

You haven't answered that question that I have asked even though you answer tons of others that I never asked.

It's actually pretty funny, you say that you have answered my question and that I refer to your answer in the next paragraph, which reads: (and this is a quote of me writing)

You see, since he's said that the sun will (per the above scenario) appear 2.1 degrees behind its actual position since the earth rotates 2.1 degrees in the 8.3 minutes it takes sunlight to reach the earth, and since he's said that if it was farther the angle would be greater, the only answer he can say to my question is that "Yes, the 12-light hour away planet would appear in the east at the moment it was really in the west."

Continues LeGrande:First, as you clearly state, I put it in bold, I have answered your 12 light hours away planet question and yet you insist that I haven't.

That part you put in bold was me talking! You didn't say it! It wasn't even you talking! You never actually said that! I was just applying your own (faulty) reasoning to a 12-light hour planet.

You never actually said "Yes, the 12-light hour away planet would appear in the east at the moment it was really in the west." ! That was me explaining that if you were to honestly apply your logic to a 12-light hour planet, that you'd have to respond as by saying "Yes, the 12-light hour away planet would appear in the east at the moment it was really in the west." - but you never actually said that! (But if you'd like to say it then please be my guest! I've been asking for you to say that if you believe it is true -- for months now!)

As for your astronomy question, the simple answer is that Astronomers don't generally use the Earth as a frame of reference, they use the Stars.

Again, all besides the point. The fact is that there is scientific reason for the sun to appear 20 arcseconds displaced from its actual position due to Stellar Aberration - and regardless of what frame of reference anyone uses, the internet is full of articles about stellar aberration which describe the 20 arcseconds of apparent displacement for observers on earth. But such is not the case for your alleged 2.1 degrees! Do you really think there would be so much todo about 20 arcseconds when it was also displaced by 2.1 degrees at any point in time for an observer on earth?

I have now started a file on my computer and even color coded some of my outstanding (as in unanswered) questions. When you actually answer them as I asked them (rather then giving an answer to a similar sounding but different question that I didn't ask) then I will also write in my file what your answer was and a link to where you answered it. That way you can be assured that if you actually do answer the question that I ask as I asked it, then I won't forget. And if you think I'll forget too, you can do the same - just run notepad and record the URLs of where you answered my questions, and then if I ever forget you can just refer me to your previous answer!

Below are my newly color coded questions which you still have not answered.

-Jesse

The Red question - 12 light hour away planet:

For an observer on earth who is looking at a bright and stationary planet that is 12 light hours away and is above the earth's equator, at the instant that said planet appears in the east will it really be in the west? Will its gravity be pulling in the opposite direction of where the light appears to come from at that instant?
LeGrande's Answer: None yet to this question.

The Green question: Pluto

For an observer on earth who looks up and sees Pluto when it is overhead and when it is 6.8 light hours away, at that instant in time, will Pluto really be about 102 degrees away from where it appears? Will it really appear directly overhead at the moment it is really below the horizon?
LeGrande's Answer: None yet to this question.

The Blue question: What if the sun were 10 light days away and the earth was stopped

If the sun were 10 light days away, and the earth was suddenly stopped, do you believe that the sun would continue to appear to rise and set for another 10 days?
LeGrande's Answer: None yet to this question.

The Yellow question: What if there was a turntable on the north pole that was tracking the suns actual position:

Let's say that you are standing on a turntable at the North Pole. Lets also say that the turntable is tracking the Suns gravity field (its actual position). Will the pointer on the turntable be pointing at* the light that you see or will it be leading or lagging that light by 2.1 degrees? (*Note: by "at" I mean "within about 20 arcseconds")
LeGrande's Answer: None yet to this question.

[grey_whiskers]

I'm back.

Courtesy mention and ping to allmendream, Fichori, LeGrane, mrjesse, as you are mentioned below.

I would suggest that you do a bit more study of the geocentric position within GR before replying.

I did better than that. I studied the thread.

Your quotes from Boyle, Einstein, Born, and Ellis appear in post 1187, while you were disputing with allmendream, who was responding to Fichori in 1155.

LeGrande and others (Fichori, LeGrande, mrjesse) were talking about the aberration of light, and you and allmendream were duking it out about GR and geocentrism.

I had not read your post 1187 when I wrote, and was not attempting to refute GR. My post actually said:

Depends a little on what we're trying to predict, eh? : Retrograde motion, epicycles, and all that. Some coordinate systems are chosen to simply the calculations *greatly*.

--This part of the post explicitly said, that the coordinate system was chosen for ease of use, not because one was "true" and the other "false".

Then I wrote:

And, if we are talking the orbit of Mercury, classical mechanics won't cut it to more than an approximation. This was an explicit statement that GR could account for things which classical physics could not.

So my beef wasn't with GR.

That being said --

regarding your quotes in post 1187...

I downloaded Einstein and Infeld from gigapedia, and searched for your quote. For some reason, I could not find the quote. I couldn't even find the names 'Ptolemy', or 'Copernicus', which should have survived translation. Do you have a link to another online source which contains this quote?

The reason I am asking, is that the closest parts of the discussion I could find in that text, were to the description of fixed vs. moving or accelerating systems, and the requirement that all laws of motion be invariant. It did not seem to be a discussion of which coordinate system would be the cleanest or easiest to manipulate in any given situation.

I have been unable to find a copy of Hoyle's work online for verification of context.

I have spent an hour trying to download Born's work, as I could not find it online for browsing, and I didn't want to wait for Amazon to deliver it :-)

And I could not find online a copy of the article by Ellis, only references to it: and most of those seemed to say that he was not talking about Ptolemaic or Copernican models, but about the expansion of the Universe. If you could point me to a copy of the complete text, I'd be grateful.

Sorry for the delay, but it was my wife's birthday. Lunch at The Good Earth was *very* nice and what followed was even better :-)

Cheers!

[LeGrande]

mrjesse - No, I'm not contradicting myself I'm contradiction your misquote of me - I did NOT say that you will continue to SEE the sun move - but that the sun will APPEAR to move (And I went on to explain that it was simply because the earth was rotating.)

I think I 'SEE' the problem. How can the sun 'appear' to be moving without you 'seeing' it move? You do know that apparent position is where you 'see' it don't you?

Previously you stated that you would only go on 'seeing' the sun moving, only if the Sun was orbiting the earth. Now do you agree that both situations (Sun orbiting vs Earth spinning) are equivalent?

My work is done : ) You have admitted that you were wrong and I am not going to argue over the definition of 'SEE' versus 'appear', they are the same. You can pretend to be Clinton and parse the definition of what is is, but I weary of that game.

[LeGrande]

--This part of the post explicitly said, that the coordinate system was chosen for ease of use, not because one was "true" and the other "false".

That is correct. They are equivalent. There is no absolute frame of reference. The only thing that is fixed is the speed of light. Time and distance are variables.

[grey_whiskers]

That is correct. They are equivalent. There is no absolute frame of reference. The only thing that is fixed is the speed of light. Time and distance are variables.

Yes: but some reference frames make setting up and solving the equations of motion *much* simpler than others.

Cheers!

[mrjesse]

Said LeGrande: I think I 'SEE' the problem. How can the sun 'appear' to be moving without you 'seeing' it move? You do know that apparent position is where you 'see' it don't you?

The same way I can look out the car window and observer that the light pole appears to move. I know I'm not seeing the light pole itself move but rather the affects of my car moving. The reason I clarified that was because you were building your case on a misquote of me, and there is a slightly different meaning between "see" and "appear" because "see" has a stronger implication that something actually did happen ("I saw it with my own eyes!") whereas "appear" implies that the thing only appears so but it is known that it well may not be so. If you can't pick apart my agruments without changing the words in them then there's a problem with your defense :-)

Previously you stated that you would only go on 'seeing' the sun moving, only if the Sun was orbiting the earth.

I still maintain that I have not contradicted myself. If you're going to convince any thinking person that I have, you're going to have to do more then some vague references and grumble about "see" vs "appear" -- Provide links to the two contradicting things I said and quote them in context -- in other words, actually demonstrate that I contradicted myself. The fact is that you have told me many times that I was a lier and never once provided a single point in case where I said anything untrue - so a claim that I contradicted myself is certainly going to require some careful and ample evidence if it is to carry any weight.

Now do you agree that both situations (Sun orbiting vs Earth spinning) are equivalent?

Not when there is a third body (light) in motion.

My work is done : )

How can your work be done when you still haven't answered some simple questions? How can your work be done with you refuse to apply your reasoning to Pluto, for example?

You have admitted that you were wrong

I have not admitted that I was wrong. If so show us where! I still maintain that the sun is actually within about 20 arc seconds of where appears for an observer on earth at any point in time.

and I am not going to argue over the definition of 'SEE' versus 'appear', they are the same.

"See" and "appear" are not the same thing! I checked the dictionary. They are different! Of course you're the one who claimed that "mating and breeding are the same thing" - but again check the dictionary and they are not the same thing.



You can pretend to be Clinton and parse the definition of what is is, but I weary of that game.

If it was that game that you weary of, then how come you refuse to answer simple scientific questions for months, and then grumble about "see" vs "appear" ? The fact is that you'd rather fuss about any little thing you might contrive rather then answer the simple questions below! (And by the way, one of them is one you asked me but it's such a good one now I want you to answer it if your claims are true!)

So, please, just answer the following questions to show us that your work is indeed done!

Thanks,

-Jesse

The Red question - 12 light hour away planet:

For an observer on earth who is looking at a bright and stationary planet that is 12 light hours away and is above the earth's equator, at the instant that said planet appears in the east will it really be in the west? Will its gravity be pulling in the opposite direction of where the light appears to come from at that instant?
LeGrande's Answer: None yet to this question.

The Green question: Pluto

For an observer on earth who looks up and sees Pluto when it is overhead and when it is 6.8 light hours away, at that instant in time, will Pluto really be about 102 degrees away from where it appears? Will it really appear directly overhead at the moment it is really below the horizon?
LeGrande's Answer: None yet to this question.

The Blue question: if the sun were 10 light days away

If the sun were 10 light days away, and the earth was suddenly stopped, do you believe that the sun would continue to appear to rise and set for another 10 days?
LeGrande's Answer: None yet to this question.

The Yellow question: Turntable at north pole tracking the sun

Let's say that you are standing on a turntable at the North Pole. Lets also say that the turntable (and its pointer) is tracking and pointing at the Suns gravity field (its actual position). Will the pointer on the turntable be pointing at* the light that you see or will it be leading or lagging that light by 2.1 degrees? (*Note: by "at" I mean "within about 20 arcseconds")
LeGrande's Answer: None yet to this question.

The Lavender question: 17 minute merry go around tilted toward Polaris

Let us say that I tilted up my merry go around so that it's top pointed directly at the north star (Polaris to be specific) and furthermore let us say that I got it spinning at exactly 180 degrees per 8.3 minutes with reference to the position of the sun -- at the instant that the sun appeared almost exactly in my face, would it really be behind my head? In other words, would the light be coming from about the exact opposite direction from where the sun's gravity would be pulling - at any instant in time?
LeGrande's Answer: Just asked, Awaiting answer....

The Purple question: 17 minute merry go around on north pole

Let us say that I had a merry go around on the North Pole furthermore let us say that I got it spinning at exactly 180 degrees per 8.3 minutes with reference to the position of the sun -- at the instant that the sun appeared almost exactly in my face, would it really be behind my head? In other words, would the light be coming from about the exact opposite direction from where the sun's gravity would be pulling - at any instant in time?
LeGrande's Answer: No answer yet.

The Aqua question: 17 minute day vs 17 minute merry go around revolution.

You said that If the earth were turning at the rate of 180 degrees per 8.5 minutes, the sun's optical image would be lagged 180 degrees from its real position.

But then you say that if I was on a merry go around that was turning at the rate of 180 degrees per 8.3 minutes, and the sun appeared on the horizon, the sun's apparent position would not be 180 degrees displaced from its actual position.

So how come, by your theory, would the earth's hypothetical rotational rate of 180 degrees per 8.3 minutes, for an observer on earth at an instant in time, cause the sun's gravitational pull and light to come from opposite directions from eachother, when for an observer on a merry go around turning at the same rate, it would not?
LeGrande's Answer: None yet.

[mrjesse]

Said grey_whiskers:--This part of the post explicitly said, that the coordinate system was chosen for ease of use, not because one was "true" and the other "false".

Replied LeGrande:That is correct. They are equivalent. There is no absolute frame of reference. The only thing that is fixed is the speed of light. Time and distance are variables.

But when there is a third body in motion (for example, light) then we can measure and calculate angles and distances between all three -- and now being orbited and spinning are no longer indistinguishable.

-Jesse

[GourmetDan]

"I downloaded Einstein and Infeld from gigapedia, and searched for your quote. For some reason, I could not find the quote. I couldn't even find the names 'Ptolemy', or 'Copernicus', which should have survived translation. Do you have a link to another online source which contains this quote?"

I used Google Books and searched for 'Ptolemy'. Google books finds that word on page 211 & 212 just as my quote says but says it's restricted.

Max Born's book is also available on google books and finds the word 'Thirring' on pg 344 just as the quote says. Also restricted.

Hoyle's book is available, don't know if you can still get a reprint of Ellis' SciAm article.

I guess you'll have to wait on Amazon.

Sorry for the delay, but it was my wife's birthday. Lunch at The Good Earth was *very* nice and what followed was even better :-)"

I can't imagine why you would think I would be interested in this info. I am not waiting expectantly for your return nor do I care what you and your wife do.

Please spare me.

[GourmetDan]

"That is correct. They are equivalent. There is no absolute frame of reference. The only thing that is fixed is the speed of light. Time and distance are variables."

No one ever said that the CS of geocentrism and geokineticism were shown to be either true or false. What is being said is that they are equivalent and there is no observational or physical way of distinguishing between them. The fact is that it could equally mean that the earth is not moving.

Also, saying there is 'no absolute frame of reference' is an assumption of GR not a demonstrated fact. And, GR does not require that the speed of light be fixed across time, only that it be the same throughout the entire universe at any point in time. That is a huge difference in meaning. If the speed of light is not fixed across time, then time and distance are not variables.

If you performed an experiment to detect the assumed motion of the earth about the sun, found no sign of said motion and then developed a theory that assumed that motion but had to be consistent with no evidence for it, you would have GR.

And again, let's not assume that ease of use represents reality because then you would have one reality within the earth-moon system and an opposite reality within the solar-system. That you choose to believe the solar-system CS is a philosophical choice, nothing more. That's what Ellis was saying.

What you guys fail to understand is that a huge number of things you accept as fact, are not.