3 ms·
For this reason, I often wonder why the subject of life origins (or related what-have-you) is deemed science in the first place. [EDIT: Likewise with between-sp
by tjr 13y ago
For this reason, I often wonder why the subject of life origins (or related what-have-you) is deemed science in the first place. [EDIT: Likewise with between-species evolution.] As it stands, between-species evolution is something one needs to "believe".
Take the present fossil ostensibly under discussion here. Was that in fact an intermediary creature between species? I don't know, maybe. I do not see compelling evidence that we know for sure. I for one really have a hard time stating such things as facts with a straight face; I feel like I need to prepend phrases like "The fossil record suggests that".
Incidentally, I feel the same way about historical anthropology... statements like (making something up) "These ancient people wore fur hats and ate with their fingers out of stone bowls," based on some bowl fragment and a bit of fur found near the remains of a skull. Well, I don't know, maybe that was true! But such evidence seems weak to me, and hardly enough to present those ideas as facts.
And perhaps my gripe is more with mainstream media presentations and with loosely-written educational materials than with actual scientific research.
- driverdan 13y agoEvolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. It's what happened to life after it originated.
- tjr 13y agoOops! Edited. It looks like like you may still disagree with me though. :-)
- meepmorp 13y agoThank you. Because these two issues - life's beginnings and the account of the observed diversity of life - are conflated in (at least some) religious traditions, it's too often assumed by the ignorant that they're inextricably linked in all cases.
- cpleppert 13y ago>> such evidence seems weak to me, and hardly enough to present those ideas as facts. Maybe the problem is that you don't have the full context of the evidence being presented. How was the material found; was it in the exact same layer of dirt? Was it dated to the time period of the rest of the site? Some bowl fragments don't provide evidence independent of the context that gives them validity. But you should be comforted to know that the evidence for evolution from DNA is so overwhelming that there is no room for doubt at all. Species are related to each other and the approximate time that their common ancestor lived can be established as well independent of any fossil evidence. There is no other plausible hypothesis besides evolution that can be presented to explain the evidence.