From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Real issues for Antti
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 14:08:17 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.155205.29809@cs.joensuu.fi>, asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti
Siivonen) writes:
> adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters) writes:
> >So what's your opinion of quantum mechanics?  Empirical, or not?
> 
> 	It's difficult for me to say when I don't know the subject very well.  I
> 	would guess that physics is more reliable when quantum mechanics is    
> 	quite mathematical. I can't say more with my knowledge. 

  Now math, is that Empirical or not?  None of the concepts expressed in math
allows any kind of direct observation until it is applied to the real world.  On
the other hand, mathematics is probably the only field where one can prove
things in the strictest sense of the word prove.

  It seems your definition needs work.

> >Interesting.  You are completely ignoring mounds and mounds of evidence
> >because you say the question cannot be approached by science. Your
> >definition of science is off.  Science requires a predictive, falsifiable
> >theory, and it requires that evidence be gathered to support or falsify
> >that theory.  Do you disagree with that definition?  Or do you think
> >that evolution does not fit it?  Why or why not?
> 
> 	Science usually gives probabilities. I know people that claim that 
> 	it's not 100% sure that smoking causes lung-cancer, and thatswhy it's
> 	probable that it doesn't. The probability is 99 %. They are right: It's
> 	not 100 %, but I think it's ridiculous to grab to that 1 %. The same is
> 	with evolution: some people here say that the small possibility is still
> 	existing. No, I think that evolution isn't simply possible, the value of
> 	probability approaches zero. 

  No, some people say there is a small chance of it not being true.  There are
enormous mounds of evidence _for_ evolution, while I have yet to see even a
single piece of evidence against evolution which stood up to analysis.  It is
you who are grasoping at the 1%.

> 	I don't understand why you find it so important... But I wanted just 
> 	to point that there are more properties than the nature demands, why
> 	do we have that luxury ? (I think it's not so importaqnt to discuss,
> 	why or whether the fitness function is truncated or not).

  I think my previous response was sufficient, but just as a reminder: it is
wrong to look at the genome of a single creature.  When analizing evolution one
must consider the genetic varience in the _whole population_.  The reason your
example didn't make sense was because you were assuming the entire population
were exact clones.

  I simulate evolution on the computer all the time, and I assure you that it
does work, even with multiple factors being selected for.  If you want, I can
mail you a few programs that simulate natural selection (since this is what your
complaints are about, do not change the subject by discussing abiogeneesis as
you did last time computer simulations were brought up).

 |  __L__   *******************************
-|-  ___    * Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub   *
 |  | o |   * kv07@iastate.edu            *
 |/ `---'   * Iowa State University       *
/|   ___    * Math Department             *
 |  |___|   * 400 Carver Hall             *
 |  |___|   * Ames, IA  50011             *
 J  _____   *******************************
Newsgroups: talk.origins