[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
OK, here's a new thread on this subject. We've (almost) all been
talking as if there is a direct causal correlation between the K-T
extinction event and the species that were NOT wiped out. That is,
somewhere (people seem to differ about whether we have found it or not),
there is a coherent explanation about WHY the species that survived did
so, even if that explanation differes from species to species...
Now, a (new?) tack. Have there been any studies done on the
possibility that species which survived did so because of simple random
distribution? Even proof by induction (that is, you assume a non-causal
survival and thatn DISPROVE it, thereby forcing a causal explanation,
which may or may not be discovered yet)?
Two problems: 1) proof by induction works in the artificially
constructed mathematical world, but seldom in the natural scientific
world; there simply are too many alternative proofs for "disproved"
ideas. 2) Most people are unwilling to accept non-causal events in the
macro world because it goes against the grain of scientific methodology,
orthodoxy,--non-causal macro world events are scientifically icky.
Just throwing some chaos into the order,
As you travel through life, don't forget to stop and eat the insects.