quote:
Originally posted by wj:
Retro, I'm afraid this is a tissue-thin argument. You are trying to wring a drop of doubt out of a stone of evidence.
Actually, what wj has said is sort of provisionally correct. The split of organisms into families and so forth has gone through a long history. At one stage they were classed more on appearance than ancestry (hence the biblical bat called a bird), and through other methods over the centuries. The latest, called cladistics, is as wj said, and is rapidly becoming THE method of classifying organisms. Organisms are grouped together purely based on how closely they are related (ie., how long ago their most recent common ancestor lived). On this basis, we are closer to chimpanzees than we are to gorillas; but we are closer to gorillas than we are to orangs.
In any case, Retro, the main thrust of wj's post was correct. Scientists 'believe' these things. Based upon evidence. You can 'believe' something based on faith, based upon wishful thinking, based upon nothing, based upon paranoia, based upon evidence...based upon almost anything. To say you 'believe' something is not to say anything about how accurate that belief is. You have certain beliefs based on your religious faith; scientists have beliefs (some of which conflict with yours) based upon evidence. Neither belief is inferior or superior because of their basis - they are inferior or superior based only upon which most closely corresponds with reality. As wj said, your argument (in the post referred to only, mind you) IS tissue-thin.
™ Version 4.2
