From: rlk@underprize.think.com (Robert Krawitz)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Tanya and Secular Knowledge
Date: 16 Oct 92 00:27:08 GMT
Article-I.D.: underpri.RLK.92Oct15172708
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge Mass., USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: underprize.think.com
In-reply-to: sg04@ploni.gte.com's message of 15 Oct 92 15:59:29 GMT

In article <2946@ceylon.gte.com> sg04@ploni.gte.com (Yechezkal Shimon Gutfreund) writes:

   3. Those scientist working at the cutting edge of a field are quite
   aware of where the instability of scientific theory. What might
   appear as dogma from the outside is usually underdstood to be much
   less granite-solid from within. I can give you two examples:

   Evolution: It is well known within biological circles that a major
   problem is the lack of a mechanism for evolution
   and mutation is a major weakness in Darwin's theory. In most of 
   the other sciences a theory based on observation evidence alone
   is viewed as significantly weaker than one that has well understood
   mechanism that lends itself to reproduction by others researchers.
   While mechanisms for evolution have been suggested, their has not
   been any observed instances of naturally occuring creation of
   viable new species in nature, nor is their a way to reproduce
   such results in the laboratory.

You just might want to read talk.origins...your claim that there is a
lack of a mechansim for evolution and mutation is false.  There are
plenty of environmental mutagens (some chemical, some radiation, such as
cosmic rays and background radioactivity), and there is a background
mutation rate that differs in different species (exactly why that is I
don't know, but I suspect that people on talk.origins would know).

Mind you, the definition of a "species" is rather fuzzy, due to our
insistence on a taxonomic distinction rather than any particular
phenomenon of nature.  There are certainly clear cases of new strains of
bacteria emerging (e. g. antibiotic-resistant strains, with some serious
effects) in response to changing environmental conditions.  Experiments
of this nature most certainly are reproducible; simply take a colony of
bacteria and challenge it with a dose of antibiotic sufficient to kill
the large majority of them, and repeat this a number of times.

   Carbon-Dating: A major assumption in carbon dating is that the
   production of C-14 has always been at the same rate it is today.
   Most science relies on forward extrapolation. That is, I conduct
   an experiment today, and you, tomorrow reproduce it in your
   lab an confirm the result. In the case of C-14 dating we are backward
   extrapolating to a time where we cannot conduct experiments.
   The inherent weakness in backward extrapolation is known to those
   in the field, but frequently down-played. 

Presumably C-14 is generated either by cosmic rays acting on other atoms
or by radioactive decay of other, long-lived isotopes.  Inasmuch as
there is no reason to suppose that the cosmic ray flux changes
significantly over time, or that the decay rate of anything else changes
over time, there is no reason to suppose that this procedure is flawed
(indeed, there is plenty of experimental evidence that radioactive decay
rates do NOT change with different environmental conditions, and changes
is cosmic ray flux might be detectable by examining deep, ancient rocks
for whatever the telltale signs of cosmic ray flux may be, although I
don't know if anyone's done that).

Mind you, C-14 dating has been verified by comparison with other dating
methods, so it's just one tool used in dating an object.  The procedure
is not as incestuous as you imply.
--
ames >>>>>>>>>  |	Robert Krawitz <rlk@think.com>	245 First St.
bloom-beacon >  |think!rlk				Cambridge, MA  02142
harvard >>>>>>  .	Thinking Machines Corp.		(617)234-2116

Member of the League for Programming Freedom -- write league@prep.ai.mit.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish