-----Original Message----- From: Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Killer Bs Discussion <[email protected]> Sent: Fri, 12 May 2006 10:29:18 -0700 Subject: Re: Elegant science (was Re: Scientific methodology)
On 5/12/06, Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I'll try again: "Direct evidence" and "observation" are not always > the same. > > You seem to be saying that the only direct evidence is actually > observing an event. You seem very hung up on this word "direct". Is a > film of evolution happening, rather than a collection of bodies with > time stamps, all you'd accept as "direct evidence" for the evolution > of life on earth? > Direct evidence, to me, means directly observing, measuring, etc. It does not mean directly observing the results or aftermath of something. A mechanism other than evolution as we presently understand it could be responsible for the historical evidence that we find in the fossil record. Nanomachines devised by evil overlords, whose purpose is to confuse us, may have assembled the whole thing, to give a silly example. This is like the difference between watching a building burn and looking at a burnt building. The former is direct evidence of a fire, the latter is indirect. But there is even direct evidence of the type you describe for evoluton. One can watch a bacterial culture become resistant to an antibiotic. One can test the genetic makeup of the culture before during and after resistance becomes wide spread watch the gene responsible for resistenc increase in prevelance. One can run computer models that document the power of selection. I'm not hung up on the word. It is the word I meant, but you don't seem to agree on what it means, which is your privilege, but I'm done explaining what I mean by it. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
