Re: Evolution and Observation Gap

On 19 Mar 2006 20:58:42 -0800, in talk.origins
"topmind" <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
<1142830722.352790.271580@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

Zachriel wrote:
"topmind" <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1142809388.071800.68000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Mark VandeWettering wrote:
On 2006-03-19, topmind <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Anyone wanna comment on this new write-up of mine?:

'Why Evolution is a "Theory" and not a "Fact"'

http://www.geocities.com/tablizer/observe.htm

It's not very good. In particular, it's basic premise, that facts need
to be "fully observed" to be called "fact" is an arbitrary and not
particularly useful definition, and directly at odds with how science
normally defines "fact". Nobody has ever observed Pluto complete an
orbit of the sun, but it is entirely irrational to claim that it is not
a fact that it does.

Perhaps a brown dwarf or small black hole comes around every few
hundred years and changes the orbit of Pluto or steels it away. Low
probability, but not zero.


Um, Pluto orbits the Sun. What we observe is a small speck of light moving
across the stellar field. We use inference to determine that Pluto is
gravitationally bound to the Sun.

You ignored the point, of course.

"The scientific method: hypothesis, prediction, observation, validation,
repeat."
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/08/scientific-method.html

Where is the "repeat" in evolution if there is no full observation?

We can observe the process repeatedly. Your question shows a lack of
understanding of the problem.

The rest of your essay does precisely what your previous essay on
ID did: argue irrelevencies. In general, genetic algorithms and
evolutionary computation aren't biological evolution, and nobody claims
that they are. Therefore, nothing abut these topics is at all
useful in deciding if evolution is a fact, just as you are incapable
of showing that ID is science by talking about SETI.

I think I did a pretty good job on that. You guys could not find a
consistent divider between SETI and ID-DNA-hunts. You couldn't, so
don't pretend you did. You only had waffling personal opinions.


Start with what is known:
* Life exists on at least one planet, Earth.
* That life is based on carbon and (liquid) water.
* That life has developed radio technology.
* Radio waves travel through interplanetary space.
* Carbon and water are common in the near universe.
* Complex organic chemicals spontaneously form in a variety of conditions
and have been found in deep space.
* There are billions of stars other than the Sun, and there are planets in
orbit about those stars.

Hypothesis:
* Life is not unique, and life on other planets may develop radio
technology.
* Drake Equation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation

Observation:
* Scan the stellar neighborhood for narrow-band radio transmissions.
http://www.seti.org/

Result:
* No such signal has been found so far, which puts certain measurable limits
of certain parameters of the Drake Equation.

One could suppose that DNA could have a hidden message. One could suppose
you could read the entrails of chickens for clues to the future. However,
there is no evidence of either assertion. If aliens used DNA for sending
messages, there is no known mechanism for transmittal.

Wrong:

http://www.forbes.com/2005/10/21/genetics-dna-computing-comm05-cx_mh_1024herper.html

We generate radio signals, and we also have stuffed messages into DNA.

DNA does not contain messages.

What would be the
Drake Equation for the Search for ID-DNA-Messages?

The Drake Equation is merely a tool for speculation. A DNA message
stuffing guestimate would probably look pretty similar.

DNA does not contain messages.

However, as I have repeated to you many times; there is nothing stopping you
from analyzing the data in DNA for hidden messages. You have a computer. I'm
not really sure you have the mathematical background to distinguish a real
message from background noise, but hey, have at it.

Irrelavent. I am here to classify things, not perform science.

What?

Observation *should* be a requirement for "fact".


Direct observation of the Earth's movement was not required for scientists
to determine that the Earth does, in fact, move. Here's a really neat
prediction by Newton:

The Earth rotates, so it should bulge in the center. As the surface of the
Earth in the tropics is further from the Earth's center, it has less
gravity. Hence, a pendulum should move more slowly.

Sir Edmond Halley made a voyage to an island in the tropical South Atlantic
Ocean. During the voyage "he improved the sextant, collected a number of
valuable facts relative to the ocean and atmosphere, noted the equatorial
retardation of the pendulum, and made at St Helena on 7th November, 1677,
the first complete observation of a transit of Mercury. "

On a related note, the observation of the transit of Mercury across the
surface of the Sun by multiple observers would allow scientists to measure
the size of the Solar System, another profound inference. Halley's
measurement would lead to Captain Cook's voyage to Tahiti a century later to
observe the transit of Mercury and so compass the Universe.

Halley: "We therefore recommend again and again, to the curious
investigators of the stars to whom, when our lives are over, these
observations are entrusted, that they, mindful of our advice, apply
themselves to the undertaking of these observations vigorously. And for them
we desire and pray for all good luck, especially that they be not deprived
of this coveted spectacle by the unfortunate obscuration of cloudy heavens,
and that the immensities of the celestial spheres, compelled to more precise
boundaries, may at last yield to their glory and eternal fame."

I am sorry. Nice stories, but I don't see how this relates to the
issues at hand. The earth has been observed from many angles in space
(by both manned and unmanned missions). Voyager observed it from near
Neptune's orbit.



If you have a formal
consensus definition of "fact", then let's see the damned thing.


fact, a piece of information presented as having objective reality
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/fact

Which presumes full observation.


theory, a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body
of principles offered to explain phenomena
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/theory


-T-

.

Relevant Pages

  • [sci.astro] ET Life (Astronomy Frequently Asked Questions) (6/9)
    ... Subject: F.00 Extraterrestrial Life ... F.02 Life in the Solar System ... F.09 Why search for extraterrestrial intelligence using radio? ... Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Science). ...
    (sci.answers)
  • [sci.astro] ET Life (Astronomy Frequently Asked Questions) (6/9)
    ... Subject: F.00 Extraterrestrial Life ... F.02 Life in the Solar System ... F.09 Why search for extraterrestrial intelligence using radio? ... Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Science). ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: Evolution and Observation Gap
    ... Life exists on at least one planet, Earth. ... That life is based on carbon and water. ... Radio waves travel through interplanetary space. ... One could suppose that DNA could have a hidden message. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Chez Wat: "If DNA is created, so is life"
    ... SETI does not make DNA. ... in both DNA and radio signals. ... deliberate natural processes can produce radio signals in various ... contained in a radio wave is the same as information in life itself. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: OT: We Are a Fluke of the Universe
    ... Consider that the first 'Radio' broadcast occurred in 1906 and that the first commercial radio broadcast occurred in 1920. ... Also accept that radio and television transmissions leak from earth into space so we have at most a 89 to 103 light year 'bubble' of communication that has left earth. ... As such we've not really made any headway in communicating to alien life. ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)