That is the exact opposite of what we actually do. It's also professionally insulting. Please stop calling me a fraud. I have no vested interest in preserving or supporting the premise of a common ancestor, and I am currently involved in a project that supports a lamarckian style of evolution. If I could disprove a common ancestor, I'd do it in a heartbeat then sit back and wait for my Nobel prize.
I am not calling you a fraud at all. You are undoubtedly far more advanced than I. My lab experience was not research it was more task oriented (Elisa tests, protein quantitation, splicing, and so on, for those studying disease and making medicines) but likewise I am not ignorant of science or the scientific method as some accuse.
Also I would love to hear more about your project. Is there any where I can access info or would you give a brief description?
My point is that like when in What Makes Biology Unique? (p. 198, Cambridge University Press, 2004), Ernst Mayr says “The earliest fossils of Homo… are separated from Australopithecus by a large, unbridged gap. How can we explain this seeming saltation? Not having any fossils that can serve as missing links, we have to fall back on the time-honored method of historical science, the construction of a historical narrative.” All I am saying is we should be honest in separating the two.
Now surely he believes there are reasons for this gap which he probably does not believe exists in reality, but his honesty here is important because this profound evolutionist is admitting that when the actual evidence fails to efficiently support the hypothesis, instead of letting it shape the hypothesis (which is what objectivity and the pursuit of truth in Science demand) we make up a hypothesis based story to explain the discrepancies away. And this is fine only we should not pass it on as if it is established truth beyond a reasonable doubt (because I and others have reasonable doubts).
So I say yes theorize and hypothesize by all means but declare that to be what they are. Separate what we KNOW or can know from what we suppose is the reason.
Finally, no one can prove there is no common ancestor (as that would be trying to prove a negative) but why should we need to when it has not yet been proven. It is accepted yes, but we have no observable facts to base it on. As I said your offspring example IS sound because we can see that something was in fact changed (no supposition required).
I say prove there is one and then you will have your Nobel Prize...as for other lines of evidence feel free to share (even briefly) but now you get me interested in your project...
Last edited:
Upvote
0