One Of These Sciences Is Not Like The Other

Gil Dodgen:

Brownian Motion, Reynolds Number, Supersonic Flight, and the Danger of Mindless Extrapolation

At very small scales, the disturbances caused by the random motion of molecules in a liquid is called Brownian motion. This is why bacterial flagella must spin at such high RsPM (Revolutions Per Minute, not Revolution Per Minutes). They must overcome the random motion of the particles in their watery environment. The propeller on the back of a motor boat does not have to deal with Brownian motion.

In fluid dynamics there is Reynolds number, with which we must deal in aerospace R&D. What this basically says is that we cannot make small models of an aircraft flying at low altitudes and extrapolate this to large aircraft flying at high altitudes, or vice versa.

The leading edge of an aircraft wing produces a compression wave that travels at the speed of sound. This gives the air molecules time to diverge and flow around the wing. At the speed of sound, all the rules change. The innocent air molecules are struck by the wing structure with no warning, and the fluid properties of the air become much more solid-like. This can cause catastrophic results, such as the control surfaces (e.g., ailerons) acting like the trim tabs do on the ailerons, warping the wings and causing control reversal due to aeroelastic effects. This caused many deaths during the early days of the exploration of supersonic flight.

The bottom line concerning Darwinism is this: The mindless extrapolation of bacterial antibiotic resistance to explain all of life’s complexity, information content, and virtually everything else, is just plain stupid and has nothing to do with science. Experience has demonstrated that nothing in the well-understood, mathematically modeled physical sciences can be extrapolated forever without the rules changing, often quickly and without warning.

He adds in a follow-up comment:

This is yet another area in which Darwinian theory is given a free pass that is not tolerated in any other science: unverified extrapolation. In the physical sciences things don’t work at large scales like they do at small scales, or at high speeds like they do at low speeds, or at low viscosity like they do at high viscosity. Essentially nothing can be extrapolated forever as an explanation.

Only in Darwinian theory is it acceptable to talk about finch beak variation, dog breeding, and insect pesticide resistance, and then claim with full assurance that these phenomena can be extrapolated to explain the origin of everything in biology. And the bizarre thing is that these theorists are almost never called on this unsubstantiated extrapolation, even by their colleagues in the hard sciences.

If a physicist, chemist, or engineer engaged in this kind thing he would be challenged immediately to provide empirical evidence that the extrapolation was justified. Of course, those who make such challenges in real scientific disciplines need not fear losing their jobs or reputations, as do those who challenge the Darwinists.

A comment I added:

But extrapolation is so easy and fun!

Let’s call the evident flatness of a table top or a farmer’s field "microflatearthism". Isn’t it then just a simple extrapolation (and also self-evident to anyone who isn’t a moron) that "macroflatearthism" must also trivially be the case?

Why, yes, I think it is! In fact, the whole bogus distinction between microflatearthism and macroflatearthism is just something invented by the roundtards and spheridiots!