From: Walter Hicks (wallyshoes@mindspring.com)
Date: Sun Oct 12 2003 - 09:20:50 EDT
Dawsonzhu@aol.com wrote:
> 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.
My first objection is that evolution is called
both a fact and a theory. All that does is cause
one to be unable to tell what exactly one is
talking about. The two notions are smeared
together like no other science does. I tried to
illustrate by the difference of gravity as a fact
and Newton's (or Einstein's) theory of
gravitation.
The second objection is that the theory is never
given a name of it's own and then defined exactly
what it is. If it is a scientific theory, then
there should be things set down which allow it to
be tested in some fashion (falsifiable). Instead
people argue that one should not even attempt to
do such a thing --- or (at best) they define an
impossible set of conditions.
So, let me say that there is enough evidence to
support the contention that some types of
evolution seem to have occurred (like observing
gravity). Now we need a scientific theory (like a
gravitational theory). Darwin's was too simple and
is not completely supported by the fossil record.
People now talk about neo-Darwin. One should be
able to list the theory in a few simple steps and
then say what one might look for that could
potentially invalidate it. Can _you_ do this for
me, Wayne?
Walt
> 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
-- =================================== Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>In any consistent theory, there must exist true but not provable statements. (Godel's Theorem)
You can only find the truth with logic If you have already found the truth without it. (G.K. Chesterton) ===================================
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Oct 12 2003 - 09:21:21 EDT