You have to choose which theory you could endorse, would it be Gravity or Evolution?

Question

This is purely hypo-ethetical.

Now that you have chosen, explain why:

Hint - This is a trick question.

Hint 2: While Gravity is a theory, scientist are having tremendous difficulty quantifying what is gravity. While it is easy to observe it's affect on objects (what goes up must come down) that in fact is not gravity but rather it is the affect of gravity on that object.

Answer 1

I choose logical scientific truth as opposed to insanity any day.

Answer 2

Evolution is not a science Evolution defies mathematical probability. Evolution defies laws of physics (second law of thermodynamics.)

It’s a hypothesis that has never been proved.

We have still yet to see any evidence of one species becoming another. Variations in the same species doesn't equate to evolution. For all we know at this stage is that those variations are preprogrammed in the DNA as possible variations. Mixing of DNA may make a new type of dog, but it is still a dog. So, even if a complex single cell organism managed to spontaneously form with perfect parts one time or even a thousand times, it wouldn't account for the wonderful variety of life here on Earth.

Answer 3

Evolution.

The fact of gravity and the fact of evolution are equally well established, but the theory of gravity is more difficult than the theory of evolution (which is just about the most solid thing in science apart from basic chemistry and Newtonian mechanics).

Answer 4

Evolution. Here's why.

Gravity needs no defending. People accept it, because there is no option. You can't just pretend gravity doesn't exist. You see around you every single day.

Evolution, however, is a slow process and is not immediately evident. Plus, there's all these crazy fundamentalists trying to prove that the earth was created in seven days a couple thousand years ago. Evolution needs to be defended.

So I pick evolution.

Answer 5

Which theory of gravity are you offering up? The Newtonian version where the Earth sucks everything towards it, or the Einstien version where the Earth distorts the fabric of space/time?

Which theory of evolution are you putting forward? Macro-evolution, explaining how large groups of species appeared and evolved, or micro-evolution which attempts to explain how an individual species changes over time?

Answer 6

Hmm, actually I don't believe in either. Evolution has too many holes in it to be plausible. Examples: The human eye has many independantly developed components which would all have had to spontaneously mutate into being simultaneously or all had to evolve accidentally in unison and "oops" they matched in form and function! Also the zebra evolved a camouflage which was developed in order to blend in with other zebras? Whatever.

As for gravity. Current theory is swaying toward the opposite. Instead of masses pulling, space is expanding or pushing things into each other.

Answer 7

The theory of gravity has taught us much about the universe and how physics works...But evolution has tangible results, which are more beneficial to us biological beings...

Answer 8

I would endorse gravity, evolution doesn't readily affect me. I agree gravity is theory, so are physics, they work pretty darn good for theories, don't they.

Answer 9

I'll choose gravity, for the pure and simple reason that it is scientifically provable.
Gravity is no longer a theory. Having been proven, it is scientific fact.
Evolution remains an unproven theory.

Answer 10

i know gravity exists-if i jump i fall down, i dont need to know how it exists.
same with evolution, i know animals change, but i dont really need to know how everything got here.
but if i could endorse one it would be a correct theory for gravity, because then i would get a noble prize