Platt et al, The most recent BBC "In Our Time" is about Microbes and Microbiology http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/inourtime.shtml
Covers many of the points being debated here about post-Darwinian evolution mechanisms now (and past) in microbes of all kinds. Worth a listen. Ian On 3/8/07, Platt Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Arlo: > > > [Platt] > > Since evolution is "impossible to observe" it does seem to be outside > > science which, if I'm not mistaken, requires observation to establish the > > validity of it's theories. > > > > [Arlo] > > Of course, we never "observe" quarks either, but our science posits that > > they are real. What we observe is small, micro-evolutionary movement that > > demonstrates that pattern adapt and change as they move towards > > "betterness". We can take snapshots of different moments in history and > > propose that changes between two and attributable to the same natural > > processes that we are able to observe. > > According to Wikipedia, quarks are a "theoretical construct." Darwinian > evolution appears to be in the same category. > > > For example, consider geological evolution. No one was there to "observe" > > the entirety of the process that moved our earth from swirling mass of gas > > and particles to the inter-glacial world we see around us. We infer (or > > abduct, if you will) that there was a process of change, a natural process, > > that was the cause of this transition. But, since at any given point in the > > timeline it would only ever be possible to view this retrospectively, at > > each moment, including our own, it "appears" evolution has stopped. But, as > > I've said, the same inference that allows us to rest comfortably knowing > > the sun will rise tomorrow guides us to see that this process has not > > stopped, it just always appears to be so from any temporal vantage point. > > > > If you think that "science" is without inference, hypothetical induction or > > abduction, you take a limited view of science that is largely incorrect. > > > > [Platt] > > Is Conant's description of science wrong? Or do we make an exception for > > evolution when we bill it as a 'scientific" theory? > > > > [Arlo] > > I'm not familiar with Conant, or what he may or may not have meant by what > > he said, but given the way you apply it here, Conant would say that Quantum > > Theory lies outside science. A strange this to say. > > >From Wikipedia:"James Bryant Conant (March 26, 1893 - February 11, 1978) > was a chemist, educational administrator, and government official. He was > born in Dorchester, Massachusetts in 1893 and graduated from the Roxbury > Latin School in Boston in 1910. He went on to study chemistry at Harvard > (B.A., 1914; Ph.D., 1917. As a Harvard professor, he worked on both > physical and organic chemistry. The American Chemical Society honored him > with its highest prize, the Priestley Medal, in 1944. In 1933, Conant > accepted an appointment as the President of Harvard University, a post he > held until 1953. Between 1941 and 1946, he also served as chairman of the > National Defense Research Committee; from that position he played a key > role, along with his close friend Vannevar Bush, in ramping up the > Manhattan Project which developed the first nuclear weapons. After World > War II he was an advisor to both the National Science Foundation and the > Atomic Energy Commission." > > I think he qualifies as an expert in describing science's methodology. As > for quantum theory, I believe there have many observations of particle > traces on oscilloscopes to confirm the theory, not to mention the utility > of the theory in computer science. But, I defer to Magnus and others on > observable aspects of quantum theory. > > > [Platt] > > Well, with all due respect to you and Mr. Pirsig, I consider his MOQ to be > > a macro-level evolutionary change in the intellectual level, so much so in > > fact that the intellectual level dominated by SOM is barely recognizable > > from the MOQ perspective. > > > > [Arlo] > > I'm sure the Japanese, who Pirsig informs us don't see the fuss we make, > > because they've gotten this all along, are happy to know that _WE_ have > > brought about evolutionary change to the intellectual level. > > Easy for the Japanese to say when the evidence since WW II points to > their adoption fo Western SOM metaphysics. Looks to me like they > are devolving. In any case, the Japanese idea of the MOQ is nicely > described by Pirsig in Lila. "Japanese Zen is attached to social > discipline so meticulous they make the Puritans look almost degenerate." > In view of your opinion of religious fundamentalists, I guess this is not > your idea of the MOQ in action. > > Platt > > moq_discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > moq_discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
