True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing

One of the fundamental points of science is to have the honesty to admit to uncertainties. Even in physics there is uncertainty in many measurements, and that uncertainty has to be accounted for. Sometimes - in astronomy for instance - the uncertainties can be very large.So, for phylogenies where the evidence is sparse and fragmentary - and we are likely missing many species - scientists do the best they can and where the evidence is inconclusive they admit to it.And sometimes something comes along that shakes things up. Recently there was a proposal that proposed a rather different view of the relationship between two major dinosaur groups. Now there is new evidence around the evolution of the ray-finned fish. Ancient fish skullsBut this is science. If you want false certainty, then religion can give you that. But science's honesty and willingness to admit the possibility of error is the reason why science has a far better record of getting to the truth.

If you want us to trust you or show sympathy to you then arrogant displays of error are hardly a good move. Misrepresenting the history of the discussions here does not help either.You have not even dented the theory of evolution. You have not even tried to make a rational case against it. Nor do you understand how science works.

quote:

---

At this point the two references I have been provided are admittedly misleading and incomplete. Now read what people are telling me in response. Ok. No one corrects the evidence I have been given by you guys. The basic theme is im a wanker for not believing. Don't question. Have faith. Like wtf. Ur giving me the same faith bs iv heard before.

---

Unfortunately the sources are not misleading with regards to your question, and being open about the weaknesses of the current presentation is an example of honesty, not an excuse to discard the whole thing. And you did get further explanations of the problem, so claiming that you did not hardly helps you.More importantly the fact that we do not know the details hardly invalidates the whole story. (You would have to throw out a LOT of history if that were true). Evidence which is insufficient to show us everything can still strongly confirm the big picture.

quote:

---

just as i predicted un able to reason, be objective to take another perspective.

---

And now you are attacking me because I dared to disagree with your falsehoods.

quote:

---

So ur saying I should of accepted that evidence given to me as fact?

---

The evidence, yes. More to the point you need to understand how science works, understand that it does not claim to offer complete and infallible knowledge about everything, understand how it copes with the limitations of the evidence available.For instance you may think Physics is simple and factual, but nobody knows how to make General Relativity work with Quantum Mechanics. The two theories are hugely successful but where they intersect the experts really don't know what happens.
But neither theory is disproved by this - scientists accept that they work in the domains where they work, while some specialists keep plugging away at the problem.Likely neither theory is exactly right, but in practically every case you they will be so close as makes no difference - only very extreme cases will be that far out. Just as Newtonian mechanics is good enough for nearly all practical cases on Earth, so that you'll probably never need to know either Relativity or Quantum Mechsnics.

quote:

---

thanks for helping me understand... i believe it all. i never question again please forgive my ignorace wise old men who got debunked by a teenager so easily turned your worlds upside down and inside out with factual truths
who presentst evidence that contradicts itself. i believe you i have faith

---

Maybe you should put yourself in our shoes. What should we think of someone who arrogantly proclaims ridiculous falsehoods ?