Re: tree-climbing hominids

H. M. Hubey (hubey@pegasus.montclair.edu)
15 Oct 1995 21:29:27 -0400

David Froehlich <eohippus@moe.cc.utexas.edu> writes:

>But you assume that the conditions are the same. Are they? I wouldn't

We're discussing whether evolution is deterministic.

>disagree that given the same conditions and the same starting point
>similar results are likely.

It's good that you agree.

But by your statements, we should be able to
>predict the weather (similar starting conditions, similar results
>correct?)

We can (for a while)..

As near as I can find out, weather prediction is pretty good
>for tommorow, and absolute crap for next week or next month.

Error growth.

This doesn't mean that the process (i.e. weather) is not
deterministic.

It's like asking if a falling tree makes a sound if nobody
hears it. It makes a sound, but nobody hears it. Simple.

It's deterministic. We don't know all we need to know.

That means we still have great ignorance.

>Geology?

This is close to physics (or is a branch of physics) and
is definitely a science. The fact that physicists make
predictions back to the big bang doesn't make it history.

>Paleontology?

I pass :-)..

>Astrophysics?

Physics.

>Not too big, there is a temporal component. When you design your time

Lots of sciences deal with temporal components. Do you think
time freezes in physics?

>or smaller than you? Once again you misinterpret (probably on purpose to
>make your rhetorical point). Are any of these observations of biological
>systems?

I don't misinterpret anything. If you make sweeping generalizations
to take cheap shots at your favorite pet peeve I feel compelled to
show you what you are doing wrong.

Here is a good one, what will the average temperature of the
>Earth?, how thick will the ozone layer?,

If we knew more, we'd be able to make better predictions. We don't,
so that's all there's to it. Maybe one day we will; that's
what science is about.

-- 





				Regards, Mark

				http://www.smns.montclair.edu/~hubey