Evolution Facts

[Esquilax]

Er, consensus tree of life had the nervous system evolving once, after sponges. New DNA study suggests nervous system developed twice, or developed prior to sponges and sponges subsequently lost nerves and muscles. Either way, existing tree of life not confirmed.

Serious question: what is it you think you're proving, here? Because I don't think that anybody is claiming that we're in possession of all of the facts at all times. Nobody is claiming omniscience here; these revisions you're talking about is just learning, simple as that. Do you have a problem with learning?

More importantly, what is it that you want to happen? Would you prefer that we find new evidence in our studies and then don't update the references to reflect that? Wouldn't you then be telling us all about the incorrect models that biology still supports?

At any given time, a scientific theory represents the best current facts at our disposal. That's not a limitation, it's a simple consequence of being temporal beings who want to be accurate: we can't have it reflect facts we don't yet know, and it'd be foolish to reflect past facts that have been superseded. You can't just spin this as though the current tree of life is unconfirmed, because that isn't true: it's confirmed according to all the currently available evidence. This "if you don't know for certain, you don't know at all," nonsense is the "99 percent equals 0 percent" fallacy, and it's the domain of the presuppositionalist knuckleheads too. Let's not go there.

ETA: And yes, John, I agree with you that "without exception" may be overstating the case, but I just took it as simple hyperbole and moved on in the knowledge that by and large, the tree of life is confirmed. It seems to me a silly thing to get caught up on.