Hard science of evolution
- From: geoproc@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 07:26:37 -0700
Occasionally Bimms makes the claim that evolution is not a rigorous
mathematical subject like, for example, physics, for which every
principle has a cool equation with squares and divides and stuff. I of
course have never believed him on this, since creationists are well
known for making pronouncements about the theory of evolution without
actually having looked at it. Nonetheless, I myself could not point to
any mathematics either. So just out of curiosity, I looked up
population genetics on wikipedia and was immediately confronted with
statistical equations and models of exactly the kind Bimms claims is
lacking.
What I want to know is, why isn't any of this stuff ever mentioned
much when people ask for the hard science behind evolution? I've
always wanted to know if there was mathematics that can be used to
model evolution, and it seems this is it (although I failed to notice
before because in theory, population genetics is merely the study of
populations rather than evolution). Is it because it's so difficult
and specialised that most people don't know it, or maybe because
creationists don't ask very hard questions? It seems that the subject
of evolution would appear much more respectable and, as oxymoronic as
it sounds, real, if it looked like it was something people can
actually study.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Hard science of evolution
- From: Desertphile
- Re: Hard science of evolution
- From: Perplexed in Peoria
- Re: Hard science of evolution
- From: John Harshman
- Re: Hard science of evolution
- From: LloydBrown
- Re: Hard science of evolution
- From: UC
- Re: Hard science of evolution
- From: Vend
- Re: Hard science of evolution
- Prev by Date: Re: Conservapedia: The study of rocks is called "geometry"
- Next by Date: Re: For UC: a fun, fun thread about "bird"
- Previous by thread: News: Entombed microbes flourish again in lab.
- Next by thread: Re: Hard science of evolution
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|