RE: MD Darwinisn in dispute ?

From: Ian Glendinning (ian@psybertron.org)
Date: Mon Sep 15 2003 - 16:22:15 BST

  • Next message: Jonathan B. Marder: "RE: MD Darwinisn in dispute ?"

    Steve, this is where I cry foul ...

    Darwinian evolution could certainly predict future states (if this, and
    this, then that, kind of stuff ...)
    The trouble is verifiability / testability / repeatability. Timescales and
    environmental effects, make controlled experiments close to impossible, so
    anyone who believes Popper is the last word in "real scientific theories" is
    never going to accept Darwinism. (This BTW is another corollary of the
    Catch22 I keep banging on about.) By definition evolution is going to tend
    to outcomes driven by environmental and stochastic effects, rather than
    those pre-planned by any exernal controller / experimenter.

    Having said "close to impossible" I'm sure in the realm of organisms with
    very short reproduction cycles, I wouldn't be surprised if experimental work
    must have been done which could conclude the truth of Darwinism
    scientifically - for those minded to believe it. (Antibiotic-resistant
    bacteria spring to mind ?)

    Anyway, I think we're on another circular argument. "Science" isn't
    everything. Traditional science and dialectic is a very bad test of
    Darwinism, just like it is of the MoQ, and any other "chaotic" or "fractal"
    system. Common sense (pragmatism) is much better IMHO.

    Ian

    -----Original Message-----
    From: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
    [mailto:owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk]On Behalf Of Steve Peterson
    Sent: 15 September 2003 15:43
    To: moq_discuss@moq.org
    Subject: Re: MD Darwinisn in dispute ?

    Hi all,

    Scientific theories generally make verifiable predictions and can be judged
    on how well predictions match measurements. Evolution seems to be different.
    Can anyone tell me what does evolution predict?

    It's usefulness/trueness as a theory seems much harder to justify than, say,
    F=ma. It seems to me that the controversy surrounding evolution is not
    completely due to religion. Once it was demonstrated that a heliocentric
    theory could make better predictions of the movements of stars and planets
    than a geocentric one, the church could not deny it. I think the same would
    be true of evolution.

    Am I right that evolution is different than other scientific theories? What
    does evolution predict?

    Thanks,
    Steve

    > Hi Ian,
    >
    > I'm right with you on this one. I think Darwinism(evolution) explains
    many
    > things quite well.
    >
    > Andy
    >
    >
    > MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    > Mail Archives:
    > Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    > Nov '02 Onward -
    http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    > MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
    >
    > To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    > http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
    >

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Sep 15 2003 - 16:23:12 BST