From: Dawsonzhu@aol.com
Date: Sun Oct 12 2003 - 08:29:27 EDT
Walter Hicks wrote:
> I have often said that evolution (of mankind) is nowhere near obvious to me
> from all that I hear. The rhetoric is so high on both sides that it is hard
> to
> separate out fact from emotion. Unfortunately, I do NOT have qualifications
> in
> biological matters.
>
> From all that I gather so far, both sides are absolutely right about the
> other
> side's closed mindedness.
>
As I remotely recall, I think we share some common a history in
having wondered around in various areas and interests but eventually
gravitating into physics.
Being a physicist, and by God's grace still able to make a living as a
scientist, I am wondering what your strongest objections are. Is it
the fact that it is difficult to construct an experiment to directly
show that an organism has "evolved"? Is it because it is difficult to
directly construct a reproducible experiment? Is it that biologist
often find themselves relying on rather the weak statistics (student
p values, roughly 2 times the error bar, etc.)?
I suppose that calling evolution "fact" could be questioned particularly
because a lot of details are not so clear. But I find for example, in trying
to discern the structure of a protein, the homology of a given protein
(the similarity of amino acid sequence after accounting for mutations,
and the often accompanying similarity in 3D structure) is extremely helpful
for discerning its structure. So I suppose I could say that there is some
other reason than evolution for the amino acid sequence of the protein,
but the evolutionary reasoning is certainly a very helpful model to use
in helping me confirm the structure of that protein.
So in many respects, I really use evolutionary model to help me to discern
the structure of the protein. I finally depend on thermodynamics, but
the evolutionary models help provide me with an independent source of
information to ferret out that structure. It also teaches me insights about
what amino acids are likely to occupy certain parts of a protein structure.
So I am inclined to even resist the assertion from some people that
evolution does not predict anything either. It does, or at least, let's
say that it is a reliable model to use for making predictions, if it be
wrong.
So I think maybe I can understand your objection with some people
about calling evolution a "fact", but at least in my mind, I have come
to see it is as a rather persuasive model.
By Grace alone we proceed,
Wayne
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Oct 12 2003 - 08:30:15 EDT