Largest-Known Planet Befuddles Scientists

langelgjm writes to mention that scientists are quite puzzled over the discovery of the largest planet yet. According to study-leader Georgi Mandushev it should theoretically not even be able to exist. 'Dubbed TrES-4, the planet is about 1.7 times the size of Jupiter and belongs to a small subclass of "puffy" planets that have extremely low densities. The finding will be detailed in an upcoming issue of Astrophysical Journal. [...] "TrES-4 is way bigger than it's supposed to be," Mandushev told Space.com. "For its mass, it should be much smaller. It basically should be about the size of Jupiter and instead it's almost twice as big." "TrES-4 appears to be something of a theoretical problem," said study team member Edward Dunham, also of the Lowell Observatory. "Problems are good, though, since we learn new things by solving them."'"

Comments

Re:I have a theory...

[E 99]

Evolution is a theory that has so much evidence in its favor that the IDers are essentially nutcases who can't read or reason properly.

You either don't know the claims of ID, or you are a nutcase yourself.

It is the IDers that try to equivocate the position by using the common parlance flavor of the word "theory" when discussing science.

No, what they do is to point out that the "random mutation" aspect of the neodarwinian theory of evolution is unsupported, and in fact unsupportable, by the evidence presented in actual biological systems. They don't necessarily argue against evolution in general, but present evidence that precludes evolution from being driven by the forces accepted to be its cause in the more widely-held theory.