on 12/7/01 10:15 PM, Keith B Miller at email@example.com 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.
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?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Dec 08 2001 - 12:06:10 EST