[gore3000]

Ok, let's quit looking for the answers through science

No, let's start doing real science and let's start looking at what makes life tick instead of digging up stupid bones which tell us nothing. Let's start doing real science and look at how organisms really work instead of going around counting bits of DNA and calling them homologous which tells us absolutely nothing. Let's start doing real science and let's look for the causes of things instead of asserting that random chance is the source of differences in species. If one wants to learn how life works one has to look at the whole organism not take it apart piece by piece.

[Alamo-Girl]

Talking about looking for answers in science, y'all might find this quote interesting, from The Physics of Symbols: Bridging the Epistemic Cut

Many biologists consider physical laws, artificial life, robotics, and even theoretical biology as largely irrelevant for their research. In the 1970s, a prominent molecular geneticist asked me, "Why do we need theory when we have all the facts?" At the time I dismissed the question as silly, as most physicists would. However, it is not as silly as the converse question, Why do we need facts when we have all the theories? These are actually interesting philosophical questions that show why trying to relate biology to physics is seldom of interest to biologists, even though it is of great interest to physicists. Questioning the importance of theory sounds eccentric to physicists for whom general theories is what physics is all about. Consequently, physicists, like the skeptics I mentioned above, are concerned when they learn facts of life that their theories do not appear capable of addressing. On the other hand, biologists, when they have the facts, need not worry about physical theories that neither address nor alter their facts.