>Hamilton replies:
> I would dispute that macroevolution (as originally conceived anyway) is a
> mathematical model. The howls of some conventional biologists at the
> mathematical modeling approaches of people like Kauffman document that this
> is at least controversial. But this is a side issue.
Who says Quarks are mathematical constructs? They are at least as
observable as any other subatomic particle, since they can be
detected and studied by backscattering behavior, etc., and their
properties are readily obtainable from such experiments. Because they
cannot be studied ( and I guess thus do not exist) in isolation,
requires that we learn about them by studying the behavior of
protons, etc. Well, now, there are some similarities to the study of
the history of life there after all!
Art