From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Re: Evolution
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 18:46:24 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.174823.11972@cas.org>, jem26@cas.org (Jay E. Martin)
writes:
>>  Science is in the business of finding facts, not truth.  If you want
>>to know something about the truth, go to Doug Arner's philosophy
>>course down the hall. (The names have been changed to protect the
>>innocent :-)  It is a fact that we share common ancestry with all
>>other known species on this planet.  That's the best a scientist can
>>say about the subject.  
>>
> 
> I disagree with with your statement.  It is not a "fact" that we share
> a common ancestry with all other known species on this planet.  It is
> a fact with we share DNA sequences , and in many cases similiar (to
> varying degrees) DNA with all other known species, but that doesn't 
> "prove" that we have a common ancestry (although is does imply it).

   You disagreement is too hasty.  Almost all work in science is split
between finding facts and trying to explain them.  Science dug up the
very fact you cite above, that we share DNA in common with the other 
living species on the planet.  In fact science dug up a whole raft
of facts about the patterns (including junk) in that DNA that do far
more than imply common ancestry.  They support common ancestry so
strongly that no other theory to explain the facts is given any weight.
I agree common ancestry is not proved; it just so wildly unlikely that
we are not descended from one or a few common ancestors that its not
worth worrying about unless new data come along.  So, as far as science 
is concerned it is accepted as a fact we share common descent.

   You can't make progress in science unless you accept as facts those bodies
of knowledge so well supported that there is not even a shadow of doubt at
present that they are correct.  If those bodies of knowledge are in need of
substantial revision that will come out later.  People will do experiments or
make observations and find the existing theory cannot explain them.  Until such
time as those observations or experiments are done it is acceptable to treat
them as fact.  When writing a biology paper a scientist need not hedge his
words by saying "if common descent is correct then..." he just act like it is
true.

In response to your request for qualification, I am

Daniel Ashlock
Assistant Professor of Mathematics
(Mathematical Biology Group)
Iowa State University,
Department of Mathematics.

   I work on mathematical models of evolution and study evolution in order to
find ideas to rip off for use in computer searches.  The buzzwords for these
two fields of study are Artificial Life and Genetic Algorithms.

> A good researcher
> will question everything (creationism, evolution, ...).  

   Sorry, that is incorrect.  Good researchers do not question evolution at
all.  They accept it as generally correct and will continue to do so until an
observation or experiment requires them to stop.  Questioning evolution is
like questioning the use of Newtonian Dynamics in spacecraft navigation.  
Researchers do argue about the implications of evolution and constantly refine
the details of the theory.

   In addition good researchers do not question creationism.  They are aware
that it is an nonscientific belief and take congnizance only when annoyed by
a creationist.

   You seem to have a rather obsolete and idealized notion of scientific
research.  People in science uncover new facts and try to explain them.  There
is a lot of more-or-less friendly argument while hashing out an explaination
and all explainations are open to revision when needed.  Scientists do not
constantly question well settled explanations that have stood for decades; they
question them when they fail to explain something they ought to explain.

 
> In time all the things
> duscussed in this thread will seem obsolete, so stop being so
> belligerent about what you "know".

   This is also not true.  Solid work does not become obsolete.  You seem to
think because much work becomes obsolete all work must?  Darwin postulated 
common descent.  Discoveries since then have shown he was almost certianly 
right.  Where did the obsolecence come in?
 
> Thank you for your attention.  I sincerely hope that somebody reading
> this news group learns something from all this discussion.

   Second!  (all of the above are, of course, the opinion of one scientist).

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU