Re: Frosted Popper-Tarts (was Re: Underlying basis...)

["Matthew Bonnan" <mbonnan@hotmail.com>]

Hi Brian:

Long time, no talkie.  Hey, I don't have a lot of time on my hands lately, 
so if I don't respond immediately (and this goes for everyone I'm currently 
in a thread with), please don't take offense.  But thought I'd address this:

You said:
">To use some big type from a source:
> PAST EVENTS CANNOT BE TESTED!!"

Not true.  And it depends on what you're referring to.  No one on this list 
would argue that we can re-run evolution, but past events can be tested.  
Take the asteroid-impact hypothesis: first, all we had was high 
concentrations of iridum around the world at K/T boundary.  Since asteroids 
and/or comets tend to have high concentrations it was argued that an 
asteroid/comet hit about 65 MYA.  But this evidence alone was not enough to 
convince many skeptics (rightly so) who pointed out that volcanism can also 
produce large amounts of iridium, and that the Deccan Traps of India (a 
large lava flow dating to about 65 MYA) could have caused a similar amount 
of iridium ash.

However, more evidence began to mount for a bolide impact, including the 
presence of shocked-quartz.  Shocked quartz is only known to form at impact 
sites.  Furthermore, large tsunami (tidal wave) deposits were known from the 
Gulf of Mexico region, some of these up into central Texas.  But this was 
still not enough to convince skeptics who argued that under certain 
circumstances volcanoes can also produce shocked quartz.

Finally in 1992, a crater approximately 150 km across was found off the 
Yucatan penninsula in Mexico.  The age of the crater has been dated to 65 
MYA, the islands around it have what appear to be ejecta (rock glass and 
boulders formed during the impact), and the Texas tsunami deposits would gel 
with the location of the crater.

Thus, this past event was testable long after it happened, and we know for 
certain that an asteroid or comet collided with the earth 65 MYA.  Whether 
this spelled the end for the dinosaurs, or whether they were already on 
their way out, is still debated because the evidence for that is less clear.

Futhermore, when do experimental scientists account for every molecule, 
every quark, every quark flavor, etc. when doing their experiments?  As 
pointed out by Dr. Holtz, no one can see the whole universe.  Even 
statisticians working with everyday things like the stock market or crime 
rate have to take a sample of the given universe of people or money or 
whatever.

Past events ARE testable, just not re-runable.

Oh, yes, finally:
"If you have
> carefully designed your hypothesis to be sure it is falsifiable, then you
> know precisely what to predict. The prediction has three parts:
> If my hypothesis is true...
> Then _____ should happen
> When _____ is manipulated
> The manipulation is what you knew would likely falsify your hypothesis.>>"

If my hypothesis is true that two families of North American sauropods, 
Diplodocidae and Camarasauridae, had different terrain preferences (i.e., 
tending to stick to certain areas of land, dry or wet), then I should find 
differing degrees of phalangeal, metatarsal, and claw mobility in the feet 
(pes).

First, I physically MANIPULATED the feet of various sauropods, and my 
observations seemed to suggest that Diplodocids had more mobile feet and 
ankles than Camarasaurids.  However, I have my biases.  If there really is a 
different in foot mobility, this should be reflected in the shapes of the 
articular surfaces and the bones themselves.  My null hypothesis was that 
the shapes of the feet between the two families should not have been 
different (the "what would likely falsify" part).

Using a shape analysis program, I acquired statistical data.  Using ANOVA 
(Analysis of Variance) to test for statistically significant differences 
between the two families, I found that my alternative hypothesis 
(differences in mobility between the two families) was statistically viable 
in the sense that I statistically rejected my null at an error level of 5%.  
In other words, by physical manipulation and statistical manipulation, I 
have determined that, for now (until new evidence comes to light), these two 
families differed in their foot mobility.  This empirical data suggests 
(although does not prove) that these two sauropod families may have 
preferred to walk on differing terrains, which in turn may have implications 
for paleoecology.  This is what I am scrambling to get a paper out on.

But I use this to point out that I was able to test a past event, i.e., the 
terrain these large herbivores may have preferred, by actually physically 
and statistically manipulating bones -- a manipulation that, to quote your 
source, "would likely falsify my [alternative] hypothesis."

Enough said for now.  I'm sure you'll be responding shortly.  Don't know if 
I will, but please write.

Matt Bonnan


_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com