Theory of Evolution is about to change a bit

[Reforged]

*thumbs up*

[KichigaiNeko]

So what?? We found more of "us"...big deal

[CapnAwesome]

Well I understand we are two different minds. I am open to a lot of ideas and beliefs. You are not. Am I against you for thinking that way? Nope

I know it can be easy for you to not respect other people but that is your attitude towards other belief systems. Yet to me I do not care much about trying to disprove someone because they think differently than I do.

I should have mentioned in the beginning that I am open to the frontiers of science. Unlike some people even scientist who believes that what they know now is the ultimate proof.

There are people who believes in the evolution of science and there is people that does not want to discover new things. I am open to new scientific theories. If that makes me illogical to you then, so be it. I respect your opinion, I welcome it.

Here is the problem with what you are saying. "Beliefs and ideas" covers literally everything that everyone has ever thought. Racism, Facism, Fundamentalism, etc are all "Beliefs and Ideas." That somebody is capable of forming (or more likely copying) an idea doesn't do anything at all to warrant my respect. Especially when religion has done and continues to do so much harm in the world.

As for evolution, this doesn't change the basic tenants, (natural selection via mutation) of evolution at all. It updates our understanding of the fossil record and the prehistory of humanity. The fact that science changes is not a weakness, it is a strength. Religion doesn't change, that's why cultures that cling to it are stuck in the 12th century, both morally and technologically.

[The Grand Nudger]

There is an entire chapter devoted to this (not evolution, the march of scientific progress) in a very approachable and easy to read book. The Universe in a Nutshell. It's a recap (with some additions -ironically-) of what got a short mention in A Brief History of Time. The idea that our scientific understanding of the world around us is constantly in flux, awaiting some new earth shattering discovery is largely one of popular myth. Consider, for example, that the vast majority of the technology you use today is based on Maxwell's Equations, first published in 1861. The article you cited does not have sweeping or dire implications for our most successful theory of evolution (1859), but for taxonomy (1735), specifically our family tree. Science does not actually move forward by leaps and bounds. Leaps and bounds get publicized, but they only appear to be leaps and bounds by ignoring everything that has happened in the interim. To be fair to all of those involved, while some discoveries seem to pierce the veil more than others, those discoveries are just another step in a long line of people standing on each others toes (some people like to use the phrase -standing on the shoulders of giants-...but that's entirely too much altitude for the way that science actually operates) hoping to reach just one more inch into the unknown. We like genius, perhaps we like to exaggerate its role in our progress. For every Einstein that brought you whatever it is you fancy, there were dozens of "Phil the Nobodies"..people who worked tirelessly, never getting a much broader or more focused picture than they began with, but making incremental progress nevertheless. Ditto for their discoveries.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

How did he know something was there without the technology beats me.

Argument from incredulity. (look it up) Science makes no claims of perfection. Such discoveries do not change the basics of evolutionary theory. Nor did discovering and mapping the human genome.

It seems to me that you're really stretching the meaning of that sentence to see an argument from incredulity or ignorance in it.

From Wikipedia:

Arguments from incredulity take the form:
P is too incredible (or: I cannot imagine how P could possibly be true); therefore P must be false.
I cannot imagine how P could possibly be false; therefore P must be true.

freedomfighter wasn't appealing to his ignorance of Einstien's methods to reach his conclusion. His conclusion was basically "we should keep an open mind." His supposed "appeal to incredulity" was merely meant to set aside irrelevant objections that would miss his point.

[Ace Otana]

I believe that we should respect others beliefs. Nothing fishy about that. I wouldn't understand why anyone would disrespect someones belief. It really does not make sense to me.

There is no 'should' for me. Respect is earned. There are many belief systems that I have no problem with. However with Christians and Muslims, they like to tell us that we're hell bound, sinners, immoral, selfish and the like, and that we and our loved ones will be tortured for simply lacking their beliefs. They like to knock on our fucking doors and preach, they've picked on entire families, they've bullied and they like to harp on about their beliefs as if it's a fact. So, I can't respect them.
Remember, respect is earned. You won't get a lick of respect from me if you push your religious beliefs where it don't belong.