RE: [asa] historical versus experimental sciences

George,

I grant you that evolutionary theory has been proven correct. Then, why do any further experiments? You know that in physics we do experiments to falsify theory and thus advance knowledge. Is that what we are doing with the fruit flies? Is that the intent of such experiments? People interested in applications in medicine and so on make sense of the data by the usefulness of the data for medical purposes. Their interest is not in using their results to fit it into the general scheme of a theory. For instance, there are those doing research in quantum optics to investigate fundamental questions in quantum mechanics and others that direct their research for practical applications. This is common in science.

Moorad
________________________________________
From: George Murphy [GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 7:40 PM
To: Alexanian, Moorad; Dennis Venema; Cameron Wybrow; asa
Subject: Re: [asa] historical versus experimental sciences

Without the "historical science" the fact that different organisms "use many
of the same proteins ... for the same tasks" would be just a brute fact with
no underlying rationale & therefore would provide a questionable basis for
the type of research Dennis describes. It's the fact that those proteins
are "inherited through common descent" that allows scientists to make sense
of the data.

Moorad, your pattern here has been to take a brief shot like the one below &
then not respond when someone points out its weakness. It would be more
helpful if you'd engage in a real discussion of your sharp "experimental"
vs. "historical" science distinction. Of course doing that would open the
possibility that you might eventually see that your position isn't really
defensible.

Shalom
George
http://home.roadrunner.com/~scitheologyglm

----- Original Message -----
From: "Alexanian, Moorad" <alexanian@uncw.edu>
To: "Dennis Venema" <Dennis.Venema@twu.ca>; "Cameron Wybrow"
<wybrowc@sympatico.ca>; "asa" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 3:39 PM
Subject: RE: [asa] historical versus experimental sciences

> Isn’t this work on fruit flies actually experimental rather than”
> historical”?
> Moorad
> ________________________________
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of
> Dennis Venema [Dennis.Venema@twu.ca]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 3:15 PM
> To: Cameron Wybrow; asa
> Subject: Re: [asa] historical versus experimental sciences
>
> Cameron,
>
> Evolutionary biology is essential for many aspects of modern biology: for
> example developmental biology / medical research on model organisms. The
> reason that model organisms (such as fruit flies and nematodes, and even
> bacteria) are useful for medical biology is because they use many of the
> same proteins inherited through common descent for the same tasks. For
> example, insulin signaling in fruit flies is very similar to the same
> process in humans. Using sequence data from flies (and closer relatives
> such as mice) allows one to predict structural properties of the various
> proteins and test those hypotheses on the model organism in question.
> Evolutionary biology is essential for this type of work. Please stop
> misrepresenting modern biology – it is clear that you do not understand
> what you are criticizing. That’s not intended to be harsh, just
> forthright.
>
> Best,
>
> Dennis
>
>
> On 29/07/09 11:56 AM, "Cameron Wybrow"
> <wybrowc@sympatico.ca<UrlBlockedError.aspx>> wrote:
>
> David, I have strong reasons for sympathizing with out-of-work academics.
> But I did not realize there were any on the Darwinian side. I thought
> they
> were all on the ID side. :-)
>
> I continue to maintain that if it could suddenly be proved that there were
> no such things as atoms -- not just that we cannot fully comprehend the
> nature of the atom, or that atoms have some as yet unaccounted-for
> property,
> but that there are literally no such entities as atoms (composed of
> protons,
> neutrons, electrons, having mass, etc.) -- almost all theoretical work in
> modern science would be brought to a standstill. Industrial machines
> could
> still
> be operated by routine and habit, and would still keep generating
> electricity and widgets and peanut butter if fed the same mathematical
> formulas, but no new science (as opposed to mere technique) would be
> possible until some conception were found that could fill the place of
> "atoms" in physics, chemistry, biology, etc. It would be as if someone
> were
> to appear in the 13th century and prove to physicians that there was no
> such
> thing as the four humours. All the medical books would have to be thrown
> out, and the physicians would not know where to begin to look for a
> replacement for their foundational doctrine. They might still be able to
> carry on with bleeding and purging their patients, and hacking off
> gangrenous limbs, as usual; but medical schools would have to cancel all
> theory courses and offer only practicums.
>
> On the other hand, if the Darwinian mechanism were entirely falsified,
> most
> of embryology, genetics, etc. would remain intact, not just in practice
> but
> even in theory. We don't have to know where chimp DNA came from in order
> to
> understand how it codes for proteins. We don't have to know whether or
> not
> ontology recapitulates phylogeny to investigate the detailed stages of the
> embryological process in a chicken, its biochemical triggers, etc. We
> don't
> have to be able to reconstruct the ecology of the Precambrian oceans in
> order to generate elaborate mathematical models of the food chains
> affecting
> the Atlantic cod fishery.
>
> I am not saying that Darwinian theory should cease to be studied merely
> because it is (mostly) useless. I think it is good for scientists to
> study
> nature purely for the love of knowledge. It does me no good to know that
> the elements on earth were formed in the hearts of extinct stars, but I
> find
> it fascinating and worth knowing nonetheless. But it is important for
> everyone to know that, despite the bluster of Darwinists, Darwinian theory
> is not the backbone of biology *in the same sense* that atomic theory is
> the
> backbone of much of modern science. Darwinian theory, rather, is the main
> interpretive gloss put on the results of the various indepdendent
> subsciences of modern biology. Most of those subsciences (paleontology
> and
> evolutionary biology obviously being the two main exceptions) could live
> without it.
>
> This is especially true in an age where biology is increasingly becoming
> interpreted in terms of biochemistry. Biochemistry is an intrinsically
> a-historical science. It deals with eternal geometrical and physical
> truths
> about the structure and function of molecules, not with historical
> reconstructions. There is of course nothing wrong with scientists trying
> to
> make historical reconstructions, but there is no reason whatever why some
> scientists should be able to impose their historical reconstructions upon
> others, who do not need them to do their work.
>
> Cameron.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Campbell" <pleuronaia@gmail.com<UrlBlockedError.aspx>>
> To: "asa" <asa@calvin.edu<UrlBlockedError.aspx>>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 6:10 PM
> Subject: Re: [asa] historical versus experimental sciences
>
>
>> Regarding the general acceptance of historical science, YEC and ID
>> advocates are generally quite ready to accept historical science
>> assertions from YEC or ID sources, respectively; the problem is more
>> one of not applying the same standards for accepting historical
>> science that doesn't match up with what they want to hear. ID has not
>> produced any 500 page books detailing exactly when and how God has
>> intervened in the course of evolution, but that does not invalidate ID
>> in my opinion.
>>
>>> The point is that in science what is "boss" is not the historical
>>> reconstruction but the empirical data, and that all historical
>>> reconstructions must fall in line with the (verified) empirical data.
>>> "Cooking" the data, or even just ignoring it, to sustain a favoured
>>> historical reconstruction, is out of line. This applies equally to
>>> sacrosanct theories like the Big Bang -- which at one time was sneered
>>> at
>>> by the majority of advanced theoretical physicists -- and
>>> macroevolutionary theory. <
>>
>> Very true. However, there's a huge loophole in that we must decide
>> the difference between data and noise. One odd result is not enough
>> reason to reject a generally very well-supported model, though it may
>> be worth checking out the odd result to see what's up. For example,
>> there were the reports of seasonal variation in radiometric decay
>> getting a bit of publicity within the past year or so (I think Science
>> News had it.) Given how much work has been done on nuclear decay, and
>> the number of ways in which seasonal changes in weather and in human
>> behavior might subtly affect the sensors (cf. high water use at class
>> change affecting some lab equipment in the same building), not to
>> mention the failure to report the obvious control experiment of
>> simultaneously monitoring apparent background radioactivity with no
>> sample, I'm not going to take the claims too seriously.
>> Unfortunately, there's a lot of cooking or ignoring data in YEC and ID
>> arguments about the past, and a lot of work cleaning that up is needed
>> on the part of serious ID advocates.
>>
>>> The point Dr. Skell -- one of America's elite scientists -- is making,
>>> is
>>> not that Darwinian theorizing cannot serve as an overarching theory, or
>>> even
>>> that Darwinian theory is false. Rather, it is that Darwinian theorizing
>>> has
>>> been of little practical use in the major biological breakthroughs, that
>>> it
>>> is largely an 'after the fact' gloss on empirical discoveries.
>>
>> Rather, it provides a framework for making sense of the empirical
>> discoveries. Evolutionary models help us know where to look for
>> something and how to understand it, but they generally give more than
>> one possibility for a specific situation.
>>
>>> This is very odd for a scientific theory. In atomic theory, nuclear
>>> theory,
>>> electromagnetic theory, wave theory, etc. the theoretical perspective
>>> has
>>> generated massive amounts of new data, countless confirmed or at least
>>> viable explanations for what actually happens in nature, countless
>>> technological applications, etc.
>>
>> Check on the volume of data generated by evolutionary studies. It's
>> not small. Evolution provides a viable explanation for what actually
>> happens in nature. Historically, the applications tended to be more
>> agricultural than technological, but the advent of biotech has changed
>> that.
>>
>>> The task of sequencing the vast majority of genomes still lies before
>>> us,
>>> and can be
>>> accomplished by well-trained technicians who believe the earth was
>>> created in six days.
>>
>> But they won't be able to make sense of the data, nor will they be
>> able to predict which genomes will be most informative, without
>> evolutionary considerations. (E.g., we need better sampling of
>> invertebrate genomes, especially lophotrochozoans, to understand
>> animals generally, not to mention the usefulness of this for my work
>> on mollusks.)
>>
>>> The mysteries of embryology will continue to be probed via microscopes,
>>> inter-uterine cameras, biochemistry, etc., and will continue to be
>>> uncovered, no matter what the fate of Darwin's theory.<
>>
>> Again, evolution lets us make sense of the patterns observed in
>> embryology.
>>
>>> If Darwinism were to fall, only Coyne and Dawkins and Orr and Eugenie
>>> Scott and their ilk -- the small number of biologists and
>>> anthropologists
>>> whose scientific activity depends entirely on the truth of Darwinian
>>> theory -- would be out of work. <
>>
>> This would be true of any theory. In reality even those folks when
>> they're doing science are trying to generate data on empirical
>> reality, which would be relevant even if some significant modification
>> of current evolutionary models seemed necessary.
>>
>>> The same could *not* be said of atomic theory, electromagnetic theory,
>>> the theory of stresses in materials, aerodynamic theory, etc. A
>>> refutation of any of these would bring vast areas of physics, chemistry
>>> and engineering to a complete standstill.<
>>
>> No. Whether for evolution or any of these, a new model would have to
>> explain the successes as well as the failures of the previous model.
>> If a major flaw were found in aerodynamic theory, airplanes would not
>> immediately fall out of the sky. The existing work would be gone
>> through to integrate it with the new results.
>>
>>> Biology is unique among the natural sciences in that the theory it
>>> claims as its most vital and overarching conception is virtually
>>> irrelevant for further advances in most branches of the science.<
>>
>> Biology and geology have a much larger component of empirical data
>> generation relative to physics or chemistry-not that all four do not
>> have a lot of both empirical data and theoretical modeling, but that
>> the relative proportions differ. Anyone dealing primarily with
>> empirical work is not going to be as directly affected by changes in
>> the overall theory.
>>
>> Just as electroweak theory is probably not what I need in trying to
>> build a simple circuit, you don't need evolution to answer "how does
>> the human body work", which probably constitutes the majority of
>> biological investigation. However, you do need evolution to address
>> "why does it work this way and not that way?" or "why is it similar to
>> other organisms to varying degrees?" or "where did this function come
>> from and what might be unexpected side effects from messing with it?"
>>
>> (NB-Given that a) my research interest is pretty much in the field of
>> evolution and b) jobs and funding for basic research in the field are
>> scarce, I am somewhat disgruntled with regard to this topic.)
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dr. David Campbell
>> 425 Scientific Collections
>> University of Alabama
>> "I think of my happy condition, surrounded by acres of clams"
>>
>>
>> To unsubscribe, send a message to
>> majordomo@calvin.edu<UrlBlockedError.aspx> with
>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to
> majordomo@calvin.edu<UrlBlockedError.aspx> with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Jul 29 22:20:45 2009