NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/k12/ed/science/1781

Text File | 1992-12-23 | 5.2 KB | 115 lines

Newsgroups: k12.ed.science
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!malgudi.oar.net!chemabs!jem26
From: [e-mail] (Jay E. Martin)
Subject: Re: Evolution
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Chemical Abstracts Service, Columbus, Ohio
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 12:26:16 GMT
Lines: 103


To a limited extent I agree with all of your comments (some more than
others).  Thanks for the input.

- Jay


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Daniel A Ashlock) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jay E. Martin)
>writes:
>>>  Science is in the business of finding facts, not truth.  If you want
>>>to know something about the truth, go to Doug Arner's philosophy
>>>course down the hall. (The names have been changed to protect the
>>>innocent :-)  It is a fact that we share common ancestry with all
>>>other known species on this planet.  That's the best a scientist can
>>>say about the subject.
>>>
>>
>> I disagree with with your statement.  It is not a "fact" that we share
>> a common ancestry with all other known species on this planet.  It is
>> a fact with we share DNA sequences , and in many cases similiar (to
>> varying degrees) DNA with all other known species, but that doesn't
>> "prove" that we have a common ancestry (although is does imply it).
>
>   You disagreement is too hasty.  Almost all work in science is split
>between finding facts and trying to explain them.  Science dug up the
>very fact you cite above, that we share DNA in common with the other
>living species on the planet.  In fact science dug up a whole raft
>of facts about the patterns (including junk) in that DNA that do far
>more than imply common ancestry.  They support common ancestry so
>strongly that no other theory to explain the facts is given any weight.
>I agree common ancestry is not proved; it just so wildly unlikely that
>we are not descended from one or a few common ancestors that its not
>worth worrying about unless new data come along.  So, as far as science
>is concerned it is accepted as a fact we share common descent.
>
>   You can't make progress in science unless you accept as facts those bodies
>of knowledge so well supported that there is not even a shadow of doubt at
>present that they are correct.  If those bodies of knowledge are in need of
>substantial revision that will come out later.  People will do experiments or
>make observations and find the existing theory cannot explain them.  Until such
>time as those observations or experiments are done it is acceptable to treat
>them as fact.  When writing a biology paper a scientist need not hedge his
>words by saying "if common descent is correct then..." he just act like it is
>true.
>
>In response to your request for qualification, I am
>
>Daniel Ashlock
>Assistant Professor of Mathematics
>(Mathematical Biology Group)
>Iowa State University,
>Department of Mathematics.
>
>   I work on mathematical models of evolution and study evolution in order to
>find ideas to rip off for use in computer searches.  The buzzwords for these
>two fields of study are Artificial Life and Genetic Algorithms.
>
>> A good researcher
>> will question everything (creationism, evolution, ...).
>
>   Sorry, that is incorrect.  Good researchers do not question evolution at
>all.  They accept it as generally correct and will continue to do so until an
>observation or experiment requires them to stop.  Questioning evolution is
>like questioning the use of Newtonian Dynamics in spacecraft navigation.
>Researchers do argue about the implications of evolution and constantly refine
>the details of the theory.
>
>   In addition good researchers do not question creationism.  They are aware
>that it is an nonscientific belief and take congnizance only when annoyed by
>a creationist.
>
>   You seem to have a rather obsolete and idealized notion of scientific
>research.  People in science uncover new facts and try to explain them.  There
>is a lot of more-or-less friendly argument while hashing out an explaination
>and all explainations are open to revision when needed.  Scientists do not
>constantly question well settled explanations that have stood for decades; they
>question them when they fail to explain something they ought to explain.
>
>
>> In time all the things
>> duscussed in this thread will seem obsolete, so stop being so
>> belligerent about what you "know".
>
>   This is also not true.  Solid work does not become obsolete.  You seem to
>think because much work becomes obsolete all work must?  Darwin postulated
>common descent.  Discoveries since then have shown he was almost certianly
>right.  Where did the obsolecence come in?
>
>> Thank you for your attention.  I sincerely hope that somebody reading
>> this news group learns something from all this discussion.
>
>   Second!  (all of the above are, of course, the opinion of one scientist).
>
>Dan
>[e-mail]


--
=====================================================================
                       ###### ###### ###### #     #
                       #= #    = #    = ##   #=
Jay E. Martin                             #== #   == #   == # # #==