Observations, laws and hypothesis

[Alexander Martynov]

Mon, 15 Nov 99 01:07 +0300 MSK Curtis Clark wrote to TAXACOM at USOBI.ORG:

> At 10:17 PM 11/14/99 +0300, Alexander Martynov wrote:
> > I am, mainly, want to speak, that often the concept of evolution
> >described in text-books and papers as if athours saw the
> >evolutionary process personally, like movie.
>
> Geologists reconstruct history that they have never seen. Even young-earth
> creationist geologists do it, although they come to different conclusions.
> If having personally witnessed something is a requirement for commenting on
> it, I think we can rule out newspapers and history books, as well as
> science.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Curtis Clark                  http://www.csupomona.edu/~jcclark/
> Biological Sciences Department             Voice: (909) 869-4062
> California State Polytechnic University      FAX: (909) 869-4078
> Pomona CA 91768-4032  USA                  jcclark at csupomona.edu
>
>
 I never saw many species that descriptions I use for the comparision .
However I believe that descriptions in the papers is reflected natural
phenomenons, and if I have some doubts in reality of taxa I try to see
it personally in (from) museum's collections. So, the descriptions of species
is like the experiments in nontaxonomical sciences - if experiments can repeated
by any other scientists, it's likely to reflected natural laws (with the all endless
exludings). If we can found species, that described WITHOUT OUR PERSONAL OBSERVATION
we can speak that this really exist in nature (with the all endless problems
that accompany biological systematics).
 Evolution, as term and conception, obviously radically different in
principial imossibility of checking by means of OBSERVATION of it describing
phenomenons, and therefore we can permanently remember about this and used only
in frames of conception, no more. Used Haeckel's the threefold parrallelism,
for ex., we can strongly argued that organisms have historical's continuity.
But it's only model. We can't compare our model with real  phaenomenon -
evolutionry process. And can compare only models with another models.
Hypothesis with another hypothesis - no more. Data for this models
we will obtain from relatively constant modern organisms, or correspondingly
constant for parcticular epoch - extinct organisms.
So, the phrase like " All this group of three genera evolved in full isolation on the
Hawaiian Islands and originated from single ancestor's plant, was brought from west
coast of North America" should, at least, started as " We have hypothesis, that...


Alexander
---
Alexander Martynov (doris at AM3963.spb.edu)
Zoological Institute, St. Petersburg
Thu, 18 Nov 99 00:16 +0300 MSK