From: sg04@ploni.gte.com (Yechezkal Shimon Gutfreund)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Tanya and Secular Knowledge
Date: 16 Oct 92 14:19:39 GMT
Reply-To: sgutfreund@gte.com
Organization: GTE Laboratories, Waltham MA

In article <RLK.92Oct15172708@underprize.think.com>, rlk@underprize.think.com (Robert Krawitz) writes:
|> 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.

On re-reading my note, I see that I appear to be more absolute than
I meant. I apologize, I did not mean to give the impression that
there were no mechanisms. 

However, there is a great deal of uncomfortability with the experiments
that one can do with SMALL-SCALE mutation (via radiation, selection
of resistant strains of bacteria, etc). One may be able to induce
changes that are viable for a few generations, or one might be
able to select for a new trait (which might have been present before),
or one is dealing on the scale of microbes. 

Some are pretty content to extrapolate this in their minds to
the kind of large scale evolution involved in the creation of
new species. Let's ignore for the moment what the precise definition
of species is. Let's just say, for example, that evolution from
baboon to homo sapien is an example of large-scale evolution.
An example of mega-scale evolution is from invertabrate to vertabrate.
An example of tera-scale evolution is from microbe to primate.

Now some seem to find no discomfort in using examples of inducing
new traits in microbes and EXTRAPOLATING to mega-scale evolution.
However, I feel that evolution would be on much more solid ground
if experimentaly testable models/mechanisms were suggested for
mega-scale evolution. (or even if there were current observations
of such change occuring). 

To me this is very similiar to the situation in pre-Gallilean
Aristotelian cosmology or in Pre-Einstinean physics. Some were pretty
content with the model as it existed. A little cracked but still quite
workable. I am not content and would really like to see
Biologists meet the same standard of rigor that a chemist has
to meet when suggesting a mechanism for chemical reactions (experimental
duplication of results). And by results I mean results on the
same scale, without the trust that everying scales up perfectly.
[Even in software we know things don't scale up perfectly].

BTW: I do not find anything in Torah that is innimical to evolution.
I thought I would bring up this issue as an example of a issue
which is accepted by many outside a the biological proffesion as
dogma, but from within is realized as being a good place for
clarification and PhD research.


|> 
|> 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.


Again, in both cases you seem to feel it is adequate to TRUST that
the experiments and environment available today can be extrapolated
backwards in time. You are saying that their is not evidence to
think that:

1. The backround cosmic ray fluxes varies over time
2. The radioactive decay rate varies over time

I would say, there is precious little that one can do to prove
that it does not. It would involve carrying out experiments 
under those conditions that applied in previous times, and we
can only extrapolate to then.

[BTW: I find changes in 1 much more likely than in 2]
[BTW: there have been changes in the cosmic ray flux rate,
hence the need for correlation]

As for techniques for correlating C-14 dating. This is usually done
with tree rings. However, tree ring data only is good to about 
5000 - 6000 years ago (there are not many trees much older than
this and the claims for trees with more rings are debatable).
This number is suspiciously close to the current age of the
Universe according to Torah of 5753 [L'shana Tova, and thanks
for the opportunity to discuss this, it is always a pleasure
to find opportunities for intelligent conversation in SCJ]


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Yechezkal Shimon Gutfreund		 		  sgutfreund@gte.com
GTE Laboratories, Waltham MA			    harvard!bunny!sgutfreund
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=