Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
2,947
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 17:
Line 17: + + + +
Fallacy of extrapolation (view source)
Revision as of 17:20, January 12, 2014
, 17:20, January 12, 2014→Microevolution and Macroevolution: Can microevolution be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution?
For two hundred years nobody could disprove this claim despite years of computer sifting. Lack of a [[counter-example]] was interpreted as strong evidence in favor of a theory until Naom Elkies of Harvard University discovered the solution in 1988.<ref>{{cite book |title=The True Marvel of Numbers: And How Fermat Proved His Last Theorem! |author=David Searle |publisher=AuthorHouse |year=2009 |pages=71 |url=http://books.google.sk/books?id=PQC8AQiFCSsC&pg=PA71&lpg=PA71&dq=Naom+Elkies+of+Harvard+University+1988&source=bl&ots=vtJbAgMJdI&sig=rGHNn8o_kiBJ9Vx9o5XpP41Ep2k&hl=en&sa=X&ei=8OBzUuPcLKi24ATAjYGwCw&ved=0CFYQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=Naom%20Elkies%20of%20Harvard%20University%201988&f=false |isbn=978-1-4389-4530-9}}</ref> Despite all the evidence, Euler's conjecture turned out to be false at the end. Extrapolating a theory to cover an infinity of numbers based on insufficient and limited amount of [[scientific evidence|evidence]] without absolute proof has shown to be an unacceptable gamble. The moral is that it is not possible to use evidence from first local set of million numbers to prove the theory or rather conjecture about global set of all numbers.<ref>{{cite book |title=Fermat's Last Theorem |author=Simon Singh |publisher=Fourth Estate |place=London |year=1997 |pages= 177-178|url=http://books.google.no/books?id=Ncrnn9hCn_kC&dq=simon+singh&hl=en&sa=X&ei=29NyUrXWEIGv4ASqzIDoAQ&redir_esc=y |isbn=1-85702-521-0}}</ref>
For two hundred years nobody could disprove this claim despite years of computer sifting. Lack of a [[counter-example]] was interpreted as strong evidence in favor of a theory until Naom Elkies of Harvard University discovered the solution in 1988.<ref>{{cite book |title=The True Marvel of Numbers: And How Fermat Proved His Last Theorem! |author=David Searle |publisher=AuthorHouse |year=2009 |pages=71 |url=http://books.google.sk/books?id=PQC8AQiFCSsC&pg=PA71&lpg=PA71&dq=Naom+Elkies+of+Harvard+University+1988&source=bl&ots=vtJbAgMJdI&sig=rGHNn8o_kiBJ9Vx9o5XpP41Ep2k&hl=en&sa=X&ei=8OBzUuPcLKi24ATAjYGwCw&ved=0CFYQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=Naom%20Elkies%20of%20Harvard%20University%201988&f=false |isbn=978-1-4389-4530-9}}</ref> Despite all the evidence, Euler's conjecture turned out to be false at the end. Extrapolating a theory to cover an infinity of numbers based on insufficient and limited amount of [[scientific evidence|evidence]] without absolute proof has shown to be an unacceptable gamble. The moral is that it is not possible to use evidence from first local set of million numbers to prove the theory or rather conjecture about global set of all numbers.<ref>{{cite book |title=Fermat's Last Theorem |author=Simon Singh |publisher=Fourth Estate |place=London |year=1997 |pages= 177-178|url=http://books.google.no/books?id=Ncrnn9hCn_kC&dq=simon+singh&hl=en&sa=X&ei=29NyUrXWEIGv4ASqzIDoAQ&redir_esc=y |isbn=1-85702-521-0}}</ref>
===[[Microevolution]] and [[Macroevolution]]===
In 1980 the scientists at the Chicago conference were trying to address the question whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. Despite the risk of doing violence to the positions of the some of the people at the meeting, the answer given was a clear "No".<ref>{{cite web |title=Evolutionary theory under fire: A historic conference in Chicago challenges the four-decade long dominance of the Modern Synthesis|author= |publisher=Science |date=November 21, 1980
|volume=210 |number=4472 |pages=883-887 |url=http://www.sciencemag.org/content/210/4472/883.extract |doi= 10.1126/science.610799|url=The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of the some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No.}}</ref>
== See Also ==
== See Also ==