One thing you will notice is I will occasionally make nods, references, or gestures to other instances that may only vaguely have anything to do with the topic at hand in an overarching sense. I am aware you're probably not a creationist nor have any inclination to it but it's something I felt like bringing up all the same. you'll get used to it. I just like saying more than I need to. 
"Fact" is a funny word to use. Depends on how pure you want your fact to be. The fact of evolution itself on the overall whole IS fact...but not all the explanations of the HOW it is fact are all there or entirely accurate. It's fact...though we just don't know ENTIRELY why. Think of it like this; you exist. This is fact. You know it's fact, I'm...PRETTY sure it's fact [unless you're a figment of my imagination in which case...well I probably need to get my ass to a mental clinic on the double, then, don't I?]. But do you, yourself, know the EXACT process by which you were born? Do you know the rate at which each organ developed, at what time the sperm entered the egg, the rate of cellular growth you underwent? No, but you do have a general idea, right? That's SORT of how it is with evolution, though more advanced than that. It's fact that it happened and continues to happen but we've only had like two centuries of study in it and we have to basically look at a timetable going back to the beginning of the universe itself; the EXACT understanding of the mechanics are still being pieced together. Obviously we can't discount it just because we don't know it since we've come far enough to essentially conclude that, within a reasonable error of margin, it MUST work like this, that or the entire thing needs to be revised.
THAT is where the bias tends to come from. You go with what seems to make the most sense currently...because the likelihood is greater that that is how it works, because all existing explanations make sense. The other makes less sense for one of two reasons; it's just simply wrong, or there isn't as much information backing it up. If it's wrong and you're on the right path, well, no time wasted, and if you're wrong and the less-likely theory is right, well, you'll reach that point eventually, now won't you?
That's why some scientists seem to be refusing to acknowledge new evidence; if one piece of evidence contradicts a hundred pieces of evidence, but both sides make sense, you're gonna go with the quantity of evidence until evidence starts to stack up against it. A single piece or even several pieces aren't quite enough to throw a theory out or revise it entirely...but if the big pile starts falling apart because of the new pile, then there's something to it...which is why you'll notice scientists changing their tack after multiple pieces of evidence start building up in different paths of thought.
But scientists are human, too, so...ego is a part of it. XD
"Fact" is a funny word to use. Depends on how pure you want your fact to be. The fact of evolution itself on the overall whole IS fact...but not all the explanations of the HOW it is fact are all there or entirely accurate. It's fact...though we just don't know ENTIRELY why. Think of it like this; you exist. This is fact. You know it's fact, I'm...PRETTY sure it's fact [unless you're a figment of my imagination in which case...well I probably need to get my ass to a mental clinic on the double, then, don't I?]. But do you, yourself, know the EXACT process by which you were born? Do you know the rate at which each organ developed, at what time the sperm entered the egg, the rate of cellular growth you underwent? No, but you do have a general idea, right? That's SORT of how it is with evolution, though more advanced than that. It's fact that it happened and continues to happen but we've only had like two centuries of study in it and we have to basically look at a timetable going back to the beginning of the universe itself; the EXACT understanding of the mechanics are still being pieced together. Obviously we can't discount it just because we don't know it since we've come far enough to essentially conclude that, within a reasonable error of margin, it MUST work like this, that or the entire thing needs to be revised.
THAT is where the bias tends to come from. You go with what seems to make the most sense currently...because the likelihood is greater that that is how it works, because all existing explanations make sense. The other makes less sense for one of two reasons; it's just simply wrong, or there isn't as much information backing it up. If it's wrong and you're on the right path, well, no time wasted, and if you're wrong and the less-likely theory is right, well, you'll reach that point eventually, now won't you?
That's why some scientists seem to be refusing to acknowledge new evidence; if one piece of evidence contradicts a hundred pieces of evidence, but both sides make sense, you're gonna go with the quantity of evidence until evidence starts to stack up against it. A single piece or even several pieces aren't quite enough to throw a theory out or revise it entirely...but if the big pile starts falling apart because of the new pile, then there's something to it...which is why you'll notice scientists changing their tack after multiple pieces of evidence start building up in different paths of thought.
But scientists are human, too, so...ego is a part of it. XD
