eihwaz
Posts: 367
Joined: 10/6/2008 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote:
ORIGINAL: eyesopened I have searched. There is no absolute proof that could possibly link the first amino acids to form on this earth and a mutation by mutation genology to go from those acids to modern human. There isn't even bone evidence to get to modern human. The "missing link" has never been discovered. I am also certain that evolution took place but there simply is no absolute proof of how modern human evolved. But without faith, conjecture, belief, and a thirst for knowledge, nothing would ever be proven. Gravity existed and was known long long long before Newton "proved" it. Going by your standards Newton did not prove anything. It is why they call it the theory of gravity. So I guess that must be another one of those scientific faiths. First, to the best of my recollection, Newton didn't propound any "theory of gravity." He did identify (quantify) what we refer to today as the Law of Gravity, though. Perhaps you're referring to General Relativity, a theory proposed several centuries after Newton? The nature of gravity was being pondered by ancient Greek philosophers. And there was Galileo's famous experiment (falling bodies are subject to constant acceleration independent of their mass). Second, since much of science investigates phenomena operating at scales of time and space not normally accessible to humans, much of scientific proof must be indirect and inferential. Although evolution has been directly observed in a few instances, the evolutionary history of organisms (including people) has been reconstructed mainly from the fossil and genetic records -- i.e, by historical traces. Since that record is likely incomplete, we will probably never be able to prove the complete history. The emergence of life happened long, long ago. Unless someone invents time travel, there can never be any direct, only indirect, proof of the mechanism by which life came to be. And that is likely to have some uncertainty attached to it. That's the nature of science. Science does have a central tenet of faith: That the cosmos is ordered according to discoverable, universal laws. One more thing: In science, he or she who makes a claim -- such as that the mechanism(s) and historical process by which amino acids ultimately developed into humans are known -- is expected to produce evidence supporting said claim. Not the other way around.
|