NJ writes:
Rick, even the writers of the article who take a very pro-evolution stance regarding biology stated that the recent discovery went against all of what bio's and anthro's previously believed. So if its based on scientific ignorance, then the ignorance isn't in my court.
Oh but it is! The strength of a given scientific theory lies in it's ability to adapt to new discoveries. Evolution, for example, has dove-tailed beautifully into recent discoveries in genetics. The theory is strengthened by corroborating evidence that Darwin could never have dreamt of.
Evolution doesn't argue that our picture of the past is complete - it most certainly isn't. The latest discoveries about early mammals fill gaps in our knowledge. Despite these gaps the paradigm of evolution is still upheld.
Consider this example. If I tip a cup of ballbearings to the ground we know that gravity acts upon them all. That is our paradigm. At the same time we might not know the specific path of each individual ballbearing through space. Though we lack this knowledge, it does not change the overall paradigm. Now, if we find evidence regarding the path of a given ballbearing is different from what we thought it to be, this is fine as long as its ultimate mode of behavior does not contradict our gravity paradigm.
A truly powerful theory is able to adapt to (and predict) new data. This is what so many YEC proponents fail to understand.
Any theory can be viewed as an incomplete jigsaw puzzle - we have enough pieces to know what the puzzle shows, but we still have gaps. If we find new pieces and can slot them into the puzzle, all well and good. If we find a piece that is clearly cut from a different jigsaw template them we have a problem. The mammalian discovery is a perfectly compatible puzzle-piece which can be slottled into the ToE.
Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.
Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.
Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2