The Big Bang, Abiogenesis, and Evolution

quote:

---

Or maybe there was never any difference at all? Maybe there's never been any legitimacy to the searches for 'missing links' because no links were ever missing, right?

---

Not quite. Yes, there is no real difference between an earthbound life-form or a fossil and a "missing link", given that it is actually missing, because all life-forms are links in the evolutionary chain. We have some pieces but we don't have others. A missing link (e.g. archaeopteryx) ceases to be missing once it is found. So, you see, in some sense we can never "have" a missing link or it just wouldn't be missing. You can't have your cake and eat it too.A missing link doesn't mean a dog giving birth to a banana (and never has). It means something that we aren't yet aware of that's in between two things we ARE aware of whose discovery would help us describe the evolutionary chain more completely. So, yes, we have not found ALL the missing links, and most likely never will, but some of the missing links have become found and are thus no longer missing. But to simplify this situation as "we have never found a single missing link" is at best confusion and at worst deception.

Yeah, it's called agnosis: asserting that some or all things cannot be known beyond reasonable doubt but may or may not be true nonetheless. Atheists who claim this stance (wrt God) are called "weak atheists", though few atheists would claim to know with certainty there is/are no god(s).Edited by bernerbits, : clarifying "this stance"

Hey RAZD, thanks for the welcome. Really this is OT and the thread looks to be wrapping up but I'll linger in this rabbit hole just enough to respond.That description of agnosis/agnosticism (search for truth or reality without preconceptions) really pretty much sums up my views nicely. And you're right, I should have included weak theists in my definition as well, though I felt clarifying atheism more important in context. I think it's tough to be "strong agnostic" and not have a leaning towards either theism or atheism anyway and as such most agnostics fall under the umbrellas of either "weak theist" or "weak atheist".Maybe it's not a middle ground, but a higher ground? ;-) But saying that just seems so arrogant.Edited by bernerbits, : No reason given.