ordovician
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2007
- Messages
- 2,625
I'm not against science. Once again, post-modernism is in play here. You can NEVER get beyond your own existence to view yourself, your surroundings, your biases, etc. to view any set of data without first interpreting it.
The scientific method is great. I have no problems with it. I am not afraid of it. The problem is that scientists (in general) think that they can overcome this bias and observe, record, and interpret data without bias. This is not true.
In terms of evolution, I see a fossil record with nowhere near enough transitional forms to encompass Darwinism. You see enough. We are both looking at the same (or similar) data, but our presuppositions and biases are causing us to look differently at the same information. I see mathmatical probability being extremely unlikely/impossible that a single cell entity would develop into the billions of species on the earth today. You see the same data and come to a different conclusion.
See, I highly doubt that we've looked at the same information. I don't mean to sound pedantic and egotistical, but I have poured over thousands fossils and read thousands of pages of literature. If A. multiloculata didn't evolve from Th. greenhonensis, then why do they look so much alike when A. multiloculata first diverged? Nothing I do would make any sense without evolution in play. Ultimately, though, all of the answers are all out there, and we will find them. I guess the problem I have is that at some point you have to accept some things that the evidence overwhelmingly supports as true in order to build a framework that allows you to create more knowledge. If we were to "tear down" evolution, and just say that plants and animals mysteriously appear in a logical order in the fossil record from least complex to most complex, it would create more questions than it would answer. The beauty of the theory of evolution by natural selection is that it explains several different biological phenomena at once.
At the end of the day, what you proclaim to be FACT, is only the biased observations and interpretations of data. At some point, you believe, that your interpretation of the data is closer to the truth than mine is, and I believe that mine is. No worries. I think we can all still be friends even if we disagree .
Agreed.
All interpretations are not equal though. Those interpretations most supported by the evidence, regardless of bias, are more correct. They may not be totally correct, but they have more validity if their reasoning is better. Hence, if you say "evolution isn't true" you HAVE to come up with a way to explain, in detail, why.
We're getting off topic here but I feel that this thread has gone far beyond that now. My whole point was that yes scientists and others in academia have preconceived biases when it comes to their studies or things they have been taught. What issues I may have with it have no bearing on the initial argument. If you must know I'll just point out that one example is the incomplete fossil record. Regardless of the marine layers of fossil records many of which I'm familiar with is the convenient lack of fossil records for many of the modern species today, humans included. I'm not trying to soft argue for ID or anything. I'm just looking at things from my pov and I see holes. Now whether those holes are due to my own ignorance on the subject, which it may very well be seeing as I'm not by any stretch of the imagination a scientist, or because they really are there and I'm far enough removed to see them without bias who is to say. The only thing we can do is look at those areas and see if they can be adequately explained with evidence and facts or if it is one of those areas where the evidence isn't fully developed and that is all we can say on that matter. But I'm sure that this thread is derailed enough without me postulating a plethora of other questions that don't belong on a hardware enthusiasts forum. .
You're right populations do change within species; however, looking at the LTEE experiment the molecular evolution theory at first believed isn't being witnessed in the changes of the E Coli strains. Now what this means in the long term remains to be seen, but the point being is that thee are still holes in the evolutionary argument and records that have yet to be answered completely. This may change as molecular evolution changes as more evidence emerges and gives us a pattern we can see and replicate. But at this current juncture I still see questions that need answering. I'm long removed from years as a Geology and Marine Biology major. My mom is the retired director of public health for a major California county so science has always been somewhat of a conversational topic around the table; however, I'm loathe to admit that i don't follow or keep up with it as much as I used to due to my career change and other volunteer work.
I'm more familiar with the Burgess Shale deposits as that is where I spent a summer field study which I believe is the foremost deposit of marine soft shell fossils from the either the Cretaceous or the Cambrian periods. One of the things I do remember studying was the cyclical nature of the fossil records and the lack of understanding as to what caused these. One of the reasons was climate change of course but I don't believe anything was ever determined. I should start looking this up before I start getting things wrong or spouting old information, but maybe you're more familiar with this as I am.
As far as the general population being excited over species transitions in trilobites or marrella no one really cares outside of scientists. It would be like trying to explain the finding of Zama to someone outside my field. No one would really care. However, if abundant evidence of humans ancestors were found I think more people would be like really whoa that is cool since it directly relates to them. But no one really cares about a woolly mammoth found in Siberia unfortunately...
I generally agree. However, just because you think there are holes in evolutionary theory doesn't mean it's not true. If you haven't been keeping up with some of the latest developments in paleontology, there are several books out there that have been published recently. I recommend For the Rock Record and The Making of the Fittest. Just the past 15 years have lead to incredible discoveries. Oh, and the Burgess Shale is Cambrian. I haven't had the pleasure of ever seeing it, though it's on my list.