and going back far enough turns it into pure speculation which is why most dont really believe the whole evolution thing completely anyway
Missed this thread. First off, Evolutionary Biology and the fact of Evolution are not dependent upon knowing the precise history of descent - they are based upon current observation and experimentation.
The historical sciences (archeology, anthropology, paleontology, etc.) are necessarily less precise. Reconstructing history, no matter how plentiful the evidence, is always going to leave gaps and margins of error - the further back you go, the larger the margin of error as time tends to erode the evidence.
We can look at the reconstruction of "modern" human history as analogous to the reconstruction of "evolutionary" history. The last few hundred years are quite clear and precise but as we go back in time there are fewer and fewer pieces of evidence. Still, the general current of human events is definitely perceptible. We know the Roman Empire existed even if we cannot give the exact year Rome decided to venture forth and conquer neighboring tribes. We know, for certain that Sumerian culture thrived for a period of time and that it influenced neighboring cultures even though we cannot put a precise date to its beginning or end. Every new bit of evidence found expands our understanding and diminishes what is left unknown.
The same goes for the history of evolution. We have some strong lines of evidence and can reconstruct the broad lines of evolutionary history. But many of the details have been lost in time. However, each discovery fills in some gap and the more we discover the more we know. To some degree the assertion is correct about speculation. There is much we don't know. But accepting this is not a flaw in science. The error would be in presuming knowledge where it does not exist.
The misunderstanding, when not from creationist propaganda, most often comes from textbooks and summarized scientific articles. Often in simplifying a scientific publication for summary in a textbook, or a popular magazine, hypotheses and findings are presented without the margins of error acknowledged in the primary works. This should be understood by anyone studying any scientific subject.
Never, for instance, in any accepted primary work would you be able to find the assertion that the first homosapiens was born exactly 150k years ago. What you would find is that the earliest "known" homosapiens specimen was approximately 150k years old or that by calculating the rate of mutation based upon certain approximations homosapiens originated approximately 150k years ago. The discovery of a human fossil 200k years old would then call for an adjustment of the preceding hypothesis, it does not simply invalidate it as intrinsically "flawed" or "wrong". In this way science becomes a method of constant improvement. Theories and hypothesis when not directly and fundamentally contradicted by evidence are tweaked and adjusted, improving their accuracy.
You don't junk the entire engine because the timing on one of the sparkplugs is off - you adjust it. Only if you find the entire engine block is cracked to you junk it and find a new one.
wuteva
u upset
thats pretty hilarious
that were stuck in the middle of seemingly endless snowstorms in the mountains that had no vegitation to eat only other "humanoids" and animals adapted that way so they dont die out due to critical and harsh enviroments
ill get back to this later breh
