Comment Re:To debunk some of the myths on this debate... (Score 1) 124
Not sure if all of this went up the first time, apologies for any repetition:
>The evidence I have seen just doesn't make it a "slam dunk" theory (and it is a theory, isn't it?).>
Science isn't in the business of proving things for all time, wrapping them in boxes, and moving on. It is dynamic--not dogmatic like religion, etc. Conclusions can only be reached within the context of available data, and as the data changes (constantly) the appropriate conclusions change.
By the way, the word "theory," as used by scientists rather than their would-be discreditors, refers to a statement which is generalizable, and contains no reflection of degree of certainty.
>For instance, there is evidence supporting the claim that creatures are becoming more and more specialized. Over time, this is not a survival trait>
The use of niches was how evolution was discovered in the first place.
>It is a theory. Just like the Earth is flat, that the Sun revolves around the Earth, that you can't go faster than sound, etc.>
Ah, so some self-styled scientists once believed that the earth was flat, and they turned out to be wrong, therefore all science is invalid. Airtight logic, that.
>The evidence I have seen just doesn't make it a "slam dunk" theory (and it is a theory, isn't it?).>
Science isn't in the business of proving things for all time, wrapping them in boxes, and moving on. It is dynamic--not dogmatic like religion, etc. Conclusions can only be reached within the context of available data, and as the data changes (constantly) the appropriate conclusions change.
By the way, the word "theory," as used by scientists rather than their would-be discreditors, refers to a statement which is generalizable, and contains no reflection of degree of certainty.
>For instance, there is evidence supporting the claim that creatures are becoming more and more specialized. Over time, this is not a survival trait>
The use of niches was how evolution was discovered in the first place.
>It is a theory. Just like the Earth is flat, that the Sun revolves around the Earth, that you can't go faster than sound, etc.>
Ah, so some self-styled scientists once believed that the earth was flat, and they turned out to be wrong, therefore all science is invalid. Airtight logic, that.
