Is science being unduly influenced?

[Chameleon]

Everyone remembers how the Catholic church unduly influenced science then there was the Copernican revolution and now we have all this wonderful astronomy. I would like to leave religion out of this discussion and keep it on a friendly level. I think the same is happening to biology today. I don't have a problem with micro-evolution, where bacteria develop immunity to antibodies. The problem I see is science forcing a square peg in a round hole. A. Huxley said "there are no transitional forms", then why do they still search and act as if there are?
Neanderthol man is a good example. Some scientists that examined these fossils concluded this is evidence for evolution. They do not allow just anyone to examine these fossils, specifically non-Darwinists aren't allowed to examine them. In the 1970's unknowingly one such scientist was was allowed to examine the fossils. He took pictures and X-rays with the jawbone in the correct position. Then did what scientist are supposed to and let the data speak for itself. Neanderthol man is not some missing link but actually a human that lived to be 800-900 years old. He drew the conclusion humans are actually devolving.

Unlike Neanderthol man, Piltdown man was a forgery. Introduced in 1916, if wasn't exposed as a forgery until the 1950's. Incidentally, this is the time when they began teaching Darwinian evolution in schools. It wasn't that it was such a good forgery. It's that it took that long before anyone was allowed to examine them.
I think science needs to remove the Darwin bias and just
If examine the data, then come to a conclusion. For all I know if doctors understood we were devolving it could give them a fresh perspective on old problems. we all heard of a different set of eyes.

[mrwho]

I don't believe there's a "Darwin bias". Darwin's theory isn't generally accepted because he was such a nice fellow - the reason why it is considered by most as the most accurate theory is because the data he provided could be confirmed by other scientists, and continues to be reinforced with every new discovery - there are some loose ends, but they appear to be caused by lack of information rather than the theory being inacurate.

With that being said, and as I said before, it is still a theory, but until a better theory - backed up by valid and repeatable data - comes up, it will stand as the leading theory for species evolution.

[Chameleon]

and continues to be reinforced with every new discovery.

No disrespect but I disagree. The newest discoveries only show how wrong he was. DNA, complexity of life, no transitional forms all prove his original theory totally wrong. what is being reinforced are his conclusions, by forcing the data to fit.

[Akitu]

No disrespect but I disagree. The newest discoveries only show how wrong he was. DNA, complexity of life, no transitional forms all prove his original theory totally wrong. what is being reinforced are his conclusions, by forcing the data to fit.

Just because the transitional forms have not been discovered, does not mean they did not exist. The giant squid was known to exist for the longest time based on injuries seen on humpback whales, yet no proof was able to be given of their existence until a live specimen was captured (and subsequently died minutes later) and then finally filmed in the arctic waters. That does not mean it did not exist, merely that it had not been documented.

Life is complex, I will concede that fact, however with the mapping of genomes our understanding only grows. If the conclusion is being supported by the data, does that not mean the conclusion is a logical one? Not debating whether it's right or wrong, but simple logistics. The data would not support something with no ground, as you put it, fitting a square peg in a round hole. The explanations presently are conclusions that either we are separate organisms from Homo Erectus etc., or we have evolved from them over the course of many thousands of years. The conclusion can't be changed by lack of data, and the data can't be forced to fit a conclusion that makes no sense.

[Chameleon]

I'll use the fruit fly study.
[DATA] scientists observe fruit flies over multiple generations. They find some get big, some get smaller, some become wingless, some get bigger wings, some change color.
[ CONCLUSION] Fruit flies were once ameobas.
That does not seem like a logical conclusion from the data.

[rthonpm]

Transitional forms can also be problematic to spot. Say for instance that the change is internal or unable to be detected by fossil records as it happened with internal organs or skin or hair colour, how would you spot that? Besides, bodies are composed of cells which are small enough to be affected by gradual evolutionary shifts.

As for devolution: if there was a strong enough case to be made in a single scientist's data to suggest such a possibility there would be a good deal of research thrown towards it.

[Akitu]

I'll use the fruit fly study.
[DATA] scientists observe fruit flies over multiple generations. They find some get big, some get smaller, some become wingless, some get bigger wings, some change color.
[ CONCLUSION] Fruit flies were once ameobas.
That does not seem like a logical conclusion from the data.

I honestly don't even know where to begin with this post. It seems very illogical and pieced together here with two bits of unrelated data for the sake of the argument.

[DATA] Scientists observe a face carved into the face of mars.
[CONCLUSION] Aliens.
[DATA] Scientists observe a strange arrangement of large stones in a circle.
[CONCLUSION] Aliens.
[DATA] Scientists observe a large triangle built out of thousands of pounds of sand in the shape of blocks, these triangles have lasted several thousand years.
[CONCLUSION] Aliens.

The lack of data given and the randomness of the conclusion means absolutely nothing. There have been dozens of studies conducted on fruit flies due to their short life spans and high rate of reproduction. One in particular was done to determine whether or not a society based on heterosexual reproduction between a male and female could survive if the population shifted to predominantly male or predominantly female. Do you think the data collected from this would have anything to do with the origin of the species?

The conclusion must be supported by the data, and the lack of would indicate either a lack of data or an incorrect conclusion. The fact you're noting genetic mutation and not evolution does nothing to support your conclusion either, though you do have the base data for a compelling argument about the rapidness of change that genetic mutation can bring to a species.

[Chameleon]

As for devolution: if there was a strong enough case to be made in a single scientist's data to suggest such a possibility there would be a good deal of research thrown towards it.

No disrespect but I strongly disagree, which explains the name of this thread. In light of the fact that some sceintists refuse to allow others to examine their work and are willing to make forgeries I disagree there would be.

[mrwho]

No disrespect but I strongly disagree, which explains the name of this thread. In light of the fact that some sceintists refuse to allow others to examine their work and are willing to make forgeries I disagree there would be.

What's stopping you from getting some fruit flies and doing your own research? It's not rocket science, you know...

Nothing is stopping anyone from trying to replicate the same results, and that's what's best about science - if someone makes a bold claim he must prove that claim is true before it being accepted, as opposed to religion, where the person making a claim (the dragon in the garage) tells you that if you can't prove he's wrong, then the claim must be true.

[Chameleon]

the lack of would indicate either a lack of data or an incorrect conclusion.

I strongly agree. If that is true, then the moth or bacteria examples can only conclude minute changes within a species and say nothing about evolution. I am discussing macro-evolution. The theory all life evolved from an ameoba not minute changes within a species.