jade writes:
How would a natulralist explain the prior laws of science,
By "prior laws of science"...
If you mean what scientists believe the universe was like prior to the laws of science we observe now (ie, before the "Bigbang"), then crashfrog has already done a good job. Scientists can, and must, say I don't know when they have no way of knowing.
That ability stops blank assertions moving on to wipe out future investigations.
If you mean why the laws of science are the way they are... then crashfrog has also already answered this question. We do not know, nor do scientists need to know in order to make observations of what the laws are.
jade writes:
Where does the "instinct" of morality and conscience fit into this strongest survive motto.
I would debate that there is an instinct of morality and conscience. If there was then we wouldn't have as many problems as we do regarding clashes of morality and conscience.
If you mean the prevalent human drive to conform, or to dominate/submit, then that probably comes from environmental pressures of having to survive in "groups". It's kind of a symbiotic pressure on any individual to fill a role, and properly adjust to cues from others on what roles need to be filled.
jade writes:
Darwin himself said that if the fossil record does not prove his theory in the next few decades, it will disprove it.
No offense, but what the hell are you talking about?
Not only would such a statement be incorrect, if indeed he made such a statement, but your assertion that no species transformations have been seen is incorrect. Just check around the resources on this site, and through threads on such topics. Many have been stated.
jade writes:
What lie is given to account for the disturbing lack of fossil evidence.
Depends on what liar you happen to be talking to. I've heard many creationists lying about the disturbing lack of fossil evidence and giving false accounts of why such a thing might exist. But I wouldn't put much stock in those lies.
If what you are asking is how does science explain the lack of fossil evidence for transitional forms between species, that requires no lies to answer.
The question itself was pursued by a scientist named Gould.
According to early evolutionary models, species change was slow and gradual, and the fossil record (which has few transitional species records) does pose a problem for such models.
According to Gould's model, individuals within a species may fluctuate due to temporary changes (like the beak sizes of birds on Galapagos due to rainfall) but center on a norm for the species itself until radical and fixed environmental change occurs. At that time fluctuations are actively and pointedly selected for by the static prerequisites of the new environment.
This new model means that speciation events take place over short periods of time during environmental upheavals, or if an organism finds its way into a new environment and gets isolated there.
Since fossilization is not easy, nor common, it is not surprising that transitional forms (which by this new model would not be around "long") are less likely to have had any of their populations fossilized. When an organism stays pretty consistent in form for longer periods of time, there is a much greater chance that one of their population will get fossilized, which is why we find more of them than any "tweener" organisms.
Hope this helps.
------------------
holmes