Re: Evolution Statement

From: James W Stark (stark2301@voyager.net)
Date: Sat Dec 08 2001 - 12:05:28 EST

  • Next message: Michael Roberts: "Re: Evolution Statement"

    on 12/7/01 10:15 PM, Keith B Miller at kbmill@ksu.edu wrote:

    > I have stated this several times in previous posts -- historical science IS
    > predictive. Hypotheses are continually being tested by comparing
    > expectations of the hypotheses with future observations. It doesn't matter
    > that the events being reconstructed are in the past, only that the specific
    > observation or data was unknown to the investigator previous to the
    > prediction. This is done all the time. In my own research I am
    > continually testing my expectation against new observations. If they prove
    > out, my confidence in my hypothesis increases, if they don't that
    > confidence is weakened. If expectation are frequently not met, the
    > hypothesis is abandoned. That is the way all scientific theorizing works.
    >
    > The recent discovery of the walking whales from Pakistan are a great
    > example within the field of paleontology.
    >
    > Keith
    >
    If our hypothesis is a common ancestry for humans, how well does historical
    prediction confirm that hypothesis? Could an alternate hypothesis of a
    specific number of origins, such as 3, give a better statistical fit of the
    evidence? Is the statistical fit for a single origin stronger than some
    other number? Then again, what number would give the best fit?

    Jim Stark
    >
    >



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Dec 08 2001 - 12:06:10 EST