Re: Mathematics: art or science?
- From: Han de Bruijn <Han.deBruijn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2007 16:01:38 +0200
T.H. Ray wrote:
One has to be careful of what one is talking about
here. Evolution is a fact in evidence, observable
and observed. The explanation for evolution is Darwin's
theory of common ancestry.
What we actually _observe_ is kind of common "design".
Darwin's theory has been
much researched and refined in the last 150 years.
It has received so much criticism as well. Look, I can understand that
science should not allow God into its theories. But IF we are forced to
distort a theory, for the sole reason that kind of an intelligence would
be needed to proceed, are we still doing honest science then? (Mind the
"if" clause in the above)
One of the more striking models of evolution in recent
history is the Gould-Eldredge model of Punctuated
Equilibrium. This is yet one more case where a
mathematically complete theory adds to our knowledge in
large leaps (pun intended).
I vaguely remember some contributions from statisticians. But don't know
how much they are worth. Personally, I don't trust reasonings like "give
me another million years to make the improbable to happen". Knowing what
a combinatorial explosion is and knowing that such explosions can happen
within very simple configurations .. I mean, folding a _protein_ is much
much much .. more complicated than this:
http://groups.google.nl/group/sci.math/msg/2ae54ca6c2614027
Han de Bruijn
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Mathematics: art or science?
- From: Jesse F. Hughes
- Re: Mathematics: art or science?
- From: T.H. Ray
- Re: Mathematics: art or science?
- References:
- Re: Mathematics: art or science?
- From: Han de Bruijn
- Re: Mathematics: art or science?
- From: T.H. Ray
- Re: Mathematics: art or science?
- Prev by Date: Re: math typesetting freeware for windows
- Next by Date: Re: How to read ... math
- Previous by thread: Re: Mathematics: art or science?
- Next by thread: Re: Mathematics: art or science?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|