Posted by Walker on May 04, 1998 at 14:00:55:
In Reply to: mutation studies and prediction posted by Chris on May 02, 1998 at 05:38:27:
: The evolution of a complex organism deals with a dash of random mutation over a hugely complex system of interacting genes and environmental factors. Given the complexity of the problem, what level of prediction should you expect?
I was hoping that someone had designed an experiment which eliminates as much complexity (and other annoyances) as possible so that evolution in a simple form could be performed over and over. (similar to throwing a rock over and over which basically can ignore minuscule effects like gravitational force of non-earth bodies, etc.)
Perhaps the studies you mentioned (bacteriophages) are such experiments. I do thank you for pointing them out and I will study them when I get a chance.
Your points about other sciences (like earthquake study) not being predictable were well taken. I am reminded of the Mt Pinatubo eruption where scientists gathered, set up equipment and after a few days of rumblings, warned the villagers to flee the area. Then the mountain erupted and lives were saved. A triumph of science? or just a lucky guess.
My view is that some people commit too much faith into untested, immature theories simply because it claimed to be "scientific" and has some success stories and evidence to back it up.
Imagine as a youngster, my Dad throws a rock and says, "See the curved path that rock follows? That was Newton's laws in action. Then he says, "Remember when your mom left butter off the shopping list but I bought butter anyway?, That was ESP at work."
Due to my skeptical nature, I say:
"I don't believe that stuff Dad". So he says, "I'll prove it too you. Choose any speed and direction, I'll throw a rock using the parameters you choose and predict where it will land using Newton's laws." He then
performs the experiment as predicted. "Now, think of a number between 1 and 10 and I will tell you what you are thinking using ESP". I think of 5. My dad says, "You were thinking of 5. I say Wow! But I think, "That could have just been a lucky guess" Which in the case of ESP, it was, but in the case Newton’s laws, it wasn't.
How can I distinguish proof from lucky coincidences?
The answer is I must repeat the above experiments many, many times; each time the results should be similar to their predictions.
Evolution has a vast body of credible evidence. Perhaps I over stated my skepticism of it when I compared it to ESP – I certainly wouldn’t "haul him in for pseudoscience" who believes it (evolution). The question in my mind is, "Does evolution make sufficient verifiable predictions to distinguish it as hard fact?"
Can one list known cases of recent viable mutations and say, "This is proof of evolution at work, which is the explanation for the diversity of species?" Is that much better than a list of successful attempts at using ESP? I would want to compare that list with all the failed attempts at using ESP. Likewise I want to know the whys and wherefores of all the evolutionary failures – that is why did so many species fail to evolve when they should have and could have. I think there are other questions that evolution has not answered. (Granted: other sciences have unanswered questions too)
In the case of evolution, a simple repeatable, predictable experiment might help solidify it’s claims.
I tend to be skeptical of things even if they carry science’s stamp of approval or have evidence to back them up. Don’t get me wrong though, if a credible geologist told me a volcano was going to blow up the neighborhood, I wouldn’t insist on a verifiable experiment; I’d pack up and leave. If a prophet or psychic told me the same, I’d stand pat and look for neighborhood real-estate bargains.
--Alan