Re: [BULK] - RE: Is evolution really the central theory for all of biology?

From: <>
Date: Wed Sep 14 2005 - 08:27:19 EDT


Meaningful biology research cannot be reduced to the the short-term
experimental level because most of the relevant processes that influence
its variation take place over long time frames. Past evolutionary history,
inferred from the fossil record and the comparative method (phylogenetic
reconstruction), are the only good experimental data we have for
understanding the effects of heredity and ecological interactions.
Evolution is experimental.

Describing how meiosis and point mutation occur is only the tip of the
iceberg for really comprehending and understanding descent with
modification - the processes that account for why we humans have fingers
and opposable thumbs instead of suction cups or magnets, or why birds
possess the genes necessary to make teeth but don't in fact have teeth. (I
think I'm remembering correctly that this is a true statement about birds,
but I could be wrong; even so, many other examples - every structure and
function in every living creature, in fact - exist).


                      Moorad" To: "D. F. Siemens, Jr." <>, <>
                      <alexanian@uncw.e cc: <>
                      du> Subject: [BULK] - RE: Is evolution really the central theory for all of biology?
                      Sent by:
                      09/14/05 06:18 AM

Evolutionary theory gives us a time development of life on earth. Your
example gives us a velocity dependence of how matter/energy behaves. The
former is history whereas the latter is experimental science.



From: on behalf of D. F. Siemens, Jr.
Sent: Tue 9/13/2005 10:55 PM
Subject: Re: Is evolution really the central theory for all of biology?

On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 13:24:20 -0400 "Ted Davis" <>
> One of the people who attends some of the events we run here on
> science and
> religion is Phil Skell. Phil is a retired professor of chemistry
> (he held
> an endowed chair) at Penn State. He's also a member of the NAS,
> thus a
> truly distinguished scientist.
> A couple of years ago, he told me about a large number of
> conversations he
> had had with scientists, esp biologists, concerning the role that
> evolution--historical thinking in general--played in their actual
> laboratory
> work. He kept hearing that it was either minimal or non-existent;
> in other
> words, that evolution was largely or entirely irrelevant to them as
> laboratory scientists. I urged Phil to publish his observations
> somewhere,
> and this past month they did appear in "The Scientist" (29 August,
> p. 10),
> under the title, "Why Do We Invoke Darwin?"
> I am interested to hear what ASAers think of this provocative little
> piece.
> I've placed it below.
> Ted
> ******
I think I have a parallel demonstration that Einstein's special theory of
relativity is not relevant to physics. None of the physicists involved in
sending objects into orbit bring the (1-v^2/c^2)^1/2 correction factor
into their computations. The mere fact that escape velocity is about
0.0015 % of c has nothing to do with it. Since the special theory is
irrelevant, the more difficult general theory surely counts for even
less. Of course the academic eggheads will protest my proof, but they'll
also defend cosmology and quantum physics.
Received on Wed Sep 14 08:31:28 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Sep 14 2005 - 08:31:28 EDT