Le Aug 3, 2012 à 3:35 PM, Jojo Jaro <[email protected]> a écrit : > Till now, we have defined species based on their gross physical > characteristics. We now know that that approach is flawed and contributes > much to the confusion of the debate.
What you're describing is not much less than the complete overturning of evolutionary biology as a legitimate body of knowledge. In this thread you seem to be saying that evolutionary biologists are confused on the basic points. This is a claim of a different order than that involved in LENR, for example. To support the plausibility of LENR, one need not set aside physics altogether and raise up a parallel edifice. One need only suspect that the scientific method should be better applied to a handful of experiments that have not been approached with a sufficient degree of objectivity. I defer to physicists on almost all topics relating to physics because I have not made the effort to understand the intricacies of what they're saying and feel it beyond my competence to assert a strong opinion in such matters, even if I occasionally have questions here and there. I feel even less in a position to tell physicists that they are confused about the field as a whole. I find myself in a similar situation with regard to evolutionary biology; having a vague sense of the limits of my understanding, I am happy to defer to them on the fundamentals of their area of expertise. Here we are talking about the hard sciences and not literature or the social sciences. What is the basis of your judgment that you have the requisite understanding of evolutionary biology to set aside the main conclusions of the field and call (Darwinian) evolution a kind of religious faith? Do you propose a world in which expert knowledge beyond a handful of fields has no place? Without having obtained a PhD in evolutionary biology and attained recognized mastery of the field, how is one to distinguish between an awareness of fundamental difficulties in the assumptions of the field, on one hand, and one's own lack of knowledge of the experimental basis of its conclusions, and the specific details of those conclusions, on the other? Perhaps I have misunderstood the implications of your position. Eric
