[Loser]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
You do not rule out the theory of evolution; you in fact are good evidence of it's validity.

That sounds troublingly circular, since Evolution was formed specifically to explain our existence.

Before a discussion of evolution gets any further, I would like to point out a few things about how theories and science work.

Science: the dogma that is wrong

In science, we make up reasons for why the world works the way it does. These are hypotheses and humans have probably been doing this for as long as we've been here, or longer. What makes science better than other dogmas is what you do next.

After forming a hypothesis the scientist finds a way to test it. This test should not only be a "if this works, I'm right" setup, it should also cover "if it turns out this way, I'm wrong" circumstances.

The greatest thing about science is that it is often wrong. It is in a continual climb of improvement.

But what if it's about Napoleon, Doctor Wally?

There are two kinds of theories for which this is very difficult, in fact almost impossible. The first are sociological theories, as the test group or the control group tend to be subjected to inhumane situations in order to prove or disprove the theory. See the Stanford Prison Experiment or the Johnson/Tudor Stuttering Experiment for examples of some of the least inhumane experiments. Note, if you will, that sociological theories are still tested today, but the limitations on the test that can be done also limit the theories that are proposed.

The other sort of theory that is difficult to test are historical theories. The Theory of Evolution and the theory "Democracies don't make war on each other" that I have brought up in the Iraq thread are both theories of this sort. Most of the time theories of historical matters are of such a scale, and deal with matters so unreachable, that proving them is a matter of waiting for something new to be found.

Alternately, you can use the theory to suggest that something would exist is a certain place and of a certain nature. This is the way we will prove the theory of evolution: we search for the 'missing links' that the theory of evolution specifies must exist between differing species.

Now I speak about things

Unfortunately, we have not yet found any conclusive evidence in this matter. There are a number of places that we could look for such things, a number of dramatic transitions rich in the possibility for such a find: water-to-land, ground-to-air, land-to-water, ape-to-man. But, despite the fact that so many separate species seem to have made the first three transitions, we have not found a proper candidate.

Not that you'd be aware of that, if all you listen to is popular media. It turns out that any currently existing water-to-land transitional species is at it's 'evolutionary limit' and is unlikely to finish the transition. And no fossil evidence has produced any water-to-land transitional species that could be an ancestor to any other known land species.

The land-to-air transition seems the most promising, really, since it has happened twice recently (avians and mammals), because the animals involved were of fairly sturdy structure (unlike the soft amphibians), and because we have so much fossilized material from the time period when we're pretty sure at least one of these transitions (avian) must have happened.

I'm sure you are aware of the Archaeopteryx. This species is certainly the strongest contender for a 'missing link', but even here there are uncertainties. Archaeopteryx can be seen as having both some of the features of an avian and some of a dinosaur, but it remains a strong possibility that Archaeopteryx is no ancestor to modern avians. The likelihood that it developed along side them is very real. Then there is the matter of the stuttering steps: we have several wonderful examples of Archaeopteryx in fossilized form, but none of other steps in the process, before or after Archaeopteryx.

I was under the impression that there were no strong examples of land-to-sea transitional species, but I could be wrong.

In the matter of ape-to-man, we again run in to the problem of relation. We can find creatures that are much like man, or creatures that are much like apes, but nothing in between. An additional problem is that many of the older examples of homids do not seem to have lead to modern man at all, but instead represent dead ends in an evolutionary paradigm.

These facts do not disprove evolution, in fact most support it or at least can be fit into the evolutionary paradigm with trivial supposition. But the difference between "the best idea we've got" and "downright fact" is an important distinction to make.

A couple additional things to note.

We're lucky to have a fossil record at all. The conditions required to make a fossil are exacting and rare. There are some creatures that will may never know of, because they were made of too-delicate stuff, or because none of their members died in the right place at the right time.

It speaks strongly of the Theory of Evolution that even the Creationists have incorporated some of its principles into their world-view. 'Creation Science' now purports that animals can, in fact, change to suit their environment (they do still maintain, however, that one sort of creature cannot change into another sort). While this is a reactionary movement, its members may still have something to contribute to the scientific community if they focus on more scientific method and less on philosophical detractions.

In closing

I would like to say at this time that I am uncertain of my intentions in this rant. I do not know what I meant to accomplish by saying these things, but I am fairly sure that I have said all I meant to. I apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused you or your family.

Thank you.