KGB/Stasi

adrenalinejunky wrote: but i do not agree that it is so well proven to nearly constitute fact. as i believe there is simply FAR too much we do not know to be making such a bold statement.

We may have to get scientific here, but this depends on what "it" is.  Evolutionary theory is large and complex, and includes a myriad of subtheories and hypotheses.  Many of these are hotly contested; others are not.

So what is the "it" that is not proven enough to be fact?  Common ancestry?  The role of natural selection?  The lack of teleological characteristics?  Something else?

adrenalinejunky wrote: some things i have issues with lack of evidence - for instance, the fossil record, i seem to recall we touched on this point a long time ago, my opinion is that even under punctuated equilibrium, we should be uncovering a much larger number of fossils from forms with very slightly differing levels of evolution, instead of the fossil record that we do have. others i have problems with interpretation of evidence, for instance, common ancestry. having similar genetic makeup is something that COULD indicated evolution, but it also could indicate ID, or perhaps something we arent aware of yet. and also for some i have issues with methods used to obtain evidence, for instance - and i know i'm gonna get it for even bringing this up - radiometric dating.

And each of those independently would perhaps give one reason to doubt.

But they are not in a vacuum - they work together and corroborate each other.

Prior to modern genetics and radiometric dating, the phylogenetic trees were devleoped based mainly on examinations of fossils and current species.  Fossils were dated primarily based on stratification.

Based on those limited facts, fairly detailed phyogenetic layouts were devleoped.

Then modern genetics came along, and it was like getting the teacher's edition of the textbook.  Suddenly you could see all the relationships spelled out.  And those relationships turned out to be almost EXACTLY the same phyogenetic relationships as were predicted by the pre-genetic science.

This was a massive confirmation of fossil interpretation.

Then came radiometric dating, which again confirmed the strata-based dating of fossils and other finds, and confirmed the timelines predicted by genetics.

Each of these three sources independently arrived at basically the same result.

And there are others - tectonic history turns out to align perfectly with genetic movement across continents.

Etc.

My point is that focusing on weaknesses in the fossil record as weaknesses in the support for evolutionary theory is a mistake, because the fossil record is only a small piece of the puzzle.

If you read the works of the ID folks, they keep talking about fossils.

If you read a textbook about evolutionary biology, it is all about genetics.  Evolution is a genetic phenomenon, not a fossil phenomenon.  It's all about the genetics.  No gap in the fossil record can undo that - to the contrary, every fossil found supports the genetic theory.

Based on existing learning, scientists were able to not only predict the existence of a feathered dinosaur (which creationists said would never be found), but also to predict more or less what it would look like, where it would be found, and how old it would be.  All of those were borne out.

And yes - all of the evidence for evolutionary theory is also consistent with ID.  And it is consistent with any other theory that adds in a superfluous feature.  ID adds nothing to the table, and there is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of the outside influence theorized by ID.  ID is a fine philosphical theory, but that is all it is.  It may be true and correct, but we have no evidence that this is the case.  Zero.

(sorry - as you know, I could go on about this for some time)