Abstract: Most mathematical modeling in biology relies either implicitly or explicitly on the epistemology of physics. The underlying conception is that the historicity of biological objects would not matter to understand a situation here and now, or, at least, historicity would not impact the method of modeling. We analyze that it is not the case with concrete examples. Historicity forces a conceptual reconfiguration where equations no longer play a central role. We argue that all observations depend on objects defined by their historical origin instead of their relations as in physics. Therefore, we propose that biological variations and historicity come first, and regularities are constraints with limited validity in biology. Their proper theoretical and empirical use requires specific rationales. – Montévil, M. Historicity at the heart of biology. Theory Biosci. (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12064-020-00320-8 (paywall)
From the paper:
Name baring types are single specimens that define names in systematics. Names are extended theoretically to all the descent of a common ancestor. In this manner, if the classification requires a revision, the definition of names remains stable. It follows that names correspond to specific material objects in biology. By contrast, the speed of light in the vacuum is an invariant of relativistic theories. The International System of Units uses this invariant to define lengths. There is no need to specify which photon we are talking about; all photons will go at the same speed. In the vacuum physics is based on generic material objects, and not on specific material objects. This comparison shows the deep methodological and epistemological divide between biology and physics and how this divide shapes actual practices.
Modeling biology on physics is useful if the biologist wants to pretend to an august Darwinian certainty that is not really available and perhaps not even possible.
as to,,
First off, the author is conflating the science of biology with the Darwinian hypothesis of common descent, i.e. “all the descent of a common ancestor.”
Yet, Darwin’s theory has nothing to do with the science of biology. As Marc Kirschner stated,
,, Oh well, leaving aside the author’s conflating of the science of biology with the hypothesis of common descent, and focusing in on the author’s claim that there is a deep divide between the hypothesis of common descent and physics, ,,, in regards to physics itself, I thought evolution was suppose to be ‘as certain than gravity’? At least that is what I have been told on several occasions by Darwinists right here on UD,,, Shoot Le Conte claimed that evolution was “far more certain” than gravity,,,
Contrary to Darwinists often comparing their pseudoscience with the hard science of physics in order to try to give their ‘theory’ some semblance of respectability,,,,
,,, aside from that faux comparison of Darwin’s theory with physics,,, Darwinists simply have no right to compare their unfounded ‘just-so stories’ to the hard science of physics or to compare them to any of the other hard sciences either for that matter,
Darwinists simply have no hard experimental evidence to support their grandiose ‘just so stories’
As Franklin M. Harold honestly conceded,
In fact, experimental evidence is precisely where the ‘deep divide’ between physics and Darwin’s theory exists,,,
Thus, the author may muse that the ‘deep divide’ between physics and Darwin’s hypothesis of common decent is merely some sort of misunderstanding on our part, but the fact of the matter is that his self-admitted ‘deep divide’ between physics and Darwin’s hypothesis of common decent is another sure sign that, when it comes to Darwinism, we are not even dealing with a real science in the first place, but we are instead dealing with a pseudoscience, even a religion for atheists, rather than dealing with a real and testable hard science.
Along that line, in 1967 Stanford Professor Paul Ehrlich stated that the Theory of Evolution ‘cannot be refuted by any possible observations’ and is thus “outside empirical science.”
And as Denis Noble, President of International Union of Physiological Sciences, stated in 2015, “it is then incumbent on modern neo-Darwinists to specify what would now falsify the theory. If nothing can do this then it is not a scientific theory.”
Related quote:
Or as scriptures stated 2000 years ago