Hi Bob,
On Mon, 27 Jan 2003 17:39:01 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Jan 2003 "Ron Clarke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> An observed fact is still a fact. Not to be confused with a
>> reproduceable experimental result.
> If it is actually a valid observation and not a mistaken conclusion.
Aha ! I think I see what is happening. It is the meaning of the
word "observation".
To me, this means what one can see, measure, hear, smell or otherwise
detect. In other words, WHAT IS. That does not include any inference,
theory, suggested reason why.
e.g. I stand outside.
I observe I am getting wet.
I observe drops of water falling onto me from above.
I observe a dark cloud high above me.
I hypothesise that the water is coming from the cloud, that it is
raining.
This is the difference between a scientific observation and a
suggested hypothesis.
> Since Darwin didn't actually stick around to replicate the changes, his
> observations were not based upon the *scientific method* (of developing
> and testing a hypothesis). I wouldn't personally make observations and
> call them *facts*, because that implies (to some people) something that
> isn't technically correct. Unless, of course, I included my research data
> or quoted references. <grin>
Science also uses hypotheses/theories to predict results for things
not yet OBSERVED. If the prediction is later found to to be incorrect,
the the hypothesis is also deemed to be at least incomplete. If the
prediction is found to be correct, then this adds more weight to the
hypothesis.
In a situation where replication of proposed processes are out of the
question because of the excessive time scale, then this sort of
predictive method is also valid.
> I'm not implying that Darwin's observations about adaptation were
> incorrect. ^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is where we are talking at cross-purposes. You are using the
word "observation" as a synonym for "remarks". I use it in the
scientific sense of "recordable fact".
> Mendelian Genetics is strictly mathematical. Genetic diversity (when
> environment is excluded, as in a lab) is strictly mathematical.
> Variability follows statistical probability pretty closely.
This refers to ordinary genetic inheritance.
Mutation is quite another matter.
> I would only interject that, without reproducible experiments to
> demonstrate that mutation can produce positive change to the DNA (meaning
> a genetic change that produces a competitive advantage and can be
> sexually reproduced in subsequent generations), that position lacks the
> force of scientifically reproducible experimentation. In other words, it
> violates the requirements set forth in *the scientific method* (which is
> a hypothesis based upon experimentation, subjected to peer review, with
> cannot be disproved by subsequent experimentation).
> I'm not saying that the position is wrong, only that the experimentation
> required by the scientific method hasn't yet been provided.
You might want to have a look at the performance of the HIV virus.
This is a little beastie that does its mutations in real time - one of
the reasons it is so hard to control. And it's not the only one, the
flu' virus is another. The mutations to protect against different drugs
give each version an edge. This has to be at least considered as being a
"positive" mutation. At least as far as the virii are concerned.
And it is truly mutation - virii do not reproduce sexually, so there
is no question of the variations being due to Mendelian gene-shuffling.
> Not that I expect you to provide in your emails a reference that
> addresses all the secrets of the universe, but those who make a
> profession of teaching science should, as a matter of standard practice,
> provide a collection of references to validate their teachings.
Fair comment, but it seems to me that teachers, lecturers,
professors would would find it most onerous to give a reference for
every fact they tried to impart to their students. It would slow
lectures down to a point where the syllabus would never get covered.
But they should be in a position to suggest further reading when a
student specifically requests more information - which is what you were
refering to in a previous email.
And I am not a teacher - never wanted to be. I am a scientist
(chemistry), with an interest most other branches of science.
When writing on science for my scientific peers, I do include
references where appropriate, but on a discussion list (and especially
where this is a very off-topic subject), a solid reference section
and/or bibliography would seem out of place, not to say pretentious.
I have no need to try to change the views of others on matters as
weighty as evolution vs creationism. If it makes folks happy, it would
be unkind of me to spoil it for them. I only get irritated when science
is misquoted, misrepresented or simply misunderstood. As I am sure
others would if the Bible, Koran, Tora, Lord of the Rings was abused in
the same way.
Did I get to offend everybody yet ? :)
Regards,
Ron
Ron Clarke
http://homepages.valylink.net.au/~ausreg/index.html
http://tadpole.aus.as
-- This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser - http://arachne.cz/
