parsimony/biology

[Zden�k Sk�la]

Zdenek Skala wrote:
>>Not exactly - what I have said apply to the historical data, where
gathering
>>new independent evidence is by definition impossible.
Kirk Fitzhugh wrote:
>It is not impossible to gather new independent evidence for the testing of
>causal events from the past. This is done all the time, e.g., criminal
>investigations; investigations of plane, train, car accidents
It is a subtle point, but I still feel that there *is* a difference between
the car accident and pre-cambrian phylogeny. At least, in car accidents we
have all necessary "things" in hand (car, people, road...), so can
"simulate" the situation again and again and so get the independent
information with a sufficient confidence (yes, strictly say it is inadequate
as well - any number of repetitions does not imply that the past event was
necessary the same). In the case of pre-cambrian evolution we have in hand
too little to repeat these events.
Moreover, the phylogenetic events are largely believed to be unique (in
contrast to car accidents); hence the impossibility to gather independent
information. It is not to say, that we can gather *no* information about the
course of phylogeny. I believe we can reconstruct the recent history of some
populations extrapolating the current population processes to the (not very
distant) history. The problem is, that confidence of such extrapolations
decreases with the increasing time scale. By the way, historicians fight
with the problem of history reconstruction for decades and are generally
much less optimistic about their results, regardless much narrower time
scale (for a nice overview see e.g. P. Ricoeur: Temps et récit; do not know
the title in English, but the translation very probably exists).
Best!
Zdenek Skala



---
Odchozí zpráva neobsahuje viry.
Zkontrolováno antivirovým systémem AVG (http://www.grisoft.cz).
Verze: 6.0.231 / Virová báze: 112 - datum vydání: 12.2.2001