Rate of Change

[X99Lynx at aol.com]

In a message dated 6/13/2001 11:20:36 PM, rao.3 at osu.edu writes:

<< The point is that such similarities and resemblances are considered to
be coincidences till systematic correspondences have been established.
The difference is between collection of discrete facts and establishment
of general laws. Only the latter is (nowadays) considered science. >>

I have no problem with this.  My  point that there is that the "general laws"
should not go further than the facts permit.  It's one thing to say that a
systematic pattern shows the absence of coincidence -- which is all that you
have said in the statement above. It's another to say that that pattern
proves a single ancestor, which was Prof Trask's point.  That's where we
leave science behind.

If I looked at your personal genetic chart assuming you would had only one
parent, it would most likely affect my selection "of discrete facts."  And
there would a good chance that I could "prove" you only had one parent by
those facts.  When you collect facts, it's important to remember that your
criteria of selection can affect the outcome.

Regards,
Steve Long