> > All I am
> >saying is that as soon as there is a reasonably high probability that
one
> >biological system did not evolve from simpler systems, then our
attention
> >is called to the fact that it may well be true that at least one system
did
> >not evolve.
>
> How was it decided that there is "reasonably high probability that one
> biological system did not evolve from simpler systems?"
>
> Steve
> ____________________________________________________________
> Steven S. Clark, Ph.D . Phone:
608/263-9137
> Associate Professor FAX:
608/263-4226
> Dept. of Human Oncology and Email:
ssclark@facstaff.wisc.edu
> UW Comprehensive Cancer Center
> CSC K4-432
> 600 Highland Ave.
> Madison, WI 53792
How do we ever decide "reasonably high probability" in science? Let me
approach it from the other direction. When do we decide inductively that so
many systems obey a certain natural law, that the law is actually
universal, and that it applies to as-yet-uninvestigated systems? Example:
by the early part of this century, the law of the conservation of momentum
seemed written in stone. But eventually certain nuclear phenomena led to
the postulate that a "neutrino" existed. There was a real problem, because
it seemed as if some momentum was lost. Some physicists actually toyed with
the idea that perhaps the law of the conservation of momentum was not
actually universal. But in the 1950s experimental evidence revealed the
existence of the neutrino and, to make a long story short, there was no
further worry about the validity of momentum conservation. So why can't we
hold off a bit on the universality of the law of evolution in biological
systems when there seem to be some anomalies? That is, why can't we adopt
the tentative attitude some physicists had for a while concerning momentum
conservation?
In the Lord,
Russell Maatman
e-mail: rmaat@mtcnet.net