It's not as if the mathematics don't exist in evolutinoary theories,
they do. The problem with "rigorous" extentions of evolutionary theories
is that the number of possible interactions quickly overwhelm the
ability to model an outcome. Meterology and accurate weather prediction
provide relevant examples of similar difficulties arising from much
simpler physical systems. But it's not as if people have given up and are
no longer trying to extend the theories as far as possible. They are,
but this also requires a much better understanding of biological systems.
Here's another example of modelling difficulties in biology. Most of us
agree that the functioning of cell metabolism is governed by physical
"laws" -- That there is nothing "extranatural" happening in cells on a
regular basis. Yet nobody has ever been able to accurately model the
metabolism of a cell -- Parts, certainly, but never large interacting
systems. We have no idea whether a model could exist that makes precise
predictions about integrated cell functions. In short, we have no proof
that a cell, by itself, could live. Sure, we could watch a cell under
a microscope but can never rule out "invisible extranatural intervention"
which makes the pieces work together. I'm convinced this isn't the case,
though I've got no model or direct evidence to counter the claim.
Can we still consider the study of metabolism a science? Is such a study
at all comparable to the applications of Newton's laws or is there so much
wiggle room that metabolic models are nothing more scientific than hand-
waving? (Trust me on this: There can be a lot of wiggle room in metabolic
modelling)
I suppose one could try to exploit the gaps of understanding in meteorology,
evolution and cell metabolism to claim that an extranatural intervention
occurs regularly in all these systems. However, if we're to suppose that
one of these systems is probably governed by "natural" mechanisms, can
one reasonably exclude the possibility that the others would not be?
> Darwin had an important concept, but hardly a theory. There is enough
> wiggle room and stretch in it, that no matter what observations one
> brings to it, an evolutionist can assert, 'It's consistent with the
> Darwin's theory.'"
Pure altruism that persists over many generations is not consistent with
Darwin's theory. Watching a new species of animal being dropped off by
an "extranatural assembler" is not terribly consistent either...
There certainly is "wiggle room" in many theories of evolution. However,
evolution definitely has some "rooms" it can't get into.
Regards,
Tim Ikeda
tikeda@sprintmail.hormel.com (despam address before use)