[. . . morphology, DNA, geology, radiometric dating, continental drift, tree rings, ice cores, ocean cores, . . .] These are NOT multiple lines of evidence. These are multiple disciplines that may be employed to interpret evidence in such a way as to fit a priori views.
With all due respect, Fester, what you just said is absolute horse crap.
There's no "a priori view" dogmatic enough to force-fit that much evidence, from as many different sources, into any paradigm which *isn't* actually consistent with the evidence. It would be like trying to fit a million square pegs the size of Arkansas into a hundred round holes too small to admit a quarter.
If you had *ever* done any data analysis yourself, you'd *know* this, and you wouldn't be spewing such nonsense.
But since you very clearly haven't, you're just talking out of your hind end. What you say above is just ludicrously wrong, and transparently so to anyone who is actually familiar with how such research works. You are, quite honestly, making a fool of yourself. Normally I wouldn't mind, but there are enough folks like you that they're really giving conservatism a bad name among people who are science-literate, and *that* I *do* care about.
Nor, contrary to your implication, is it even a matter of scientists trying to "fit" each new data item into an evolutionary scenario. New evidence just AUTOMATICALLY falls into evolutionary patterns without any massaging, because THAT'S HOW THE DATA IS. Again, if you actually bothered to become familiar with the evidence, you'd *know* this -- just as any intellectually honest person does who cares to look at it.
So please, can you give it a rest with such empty, silly, ignorant, and *wrong* accusations like:
The philosophy of evolution once again proves itself predictable as ever; predictably dedicated toward obfuscation where empirical science is concerned.
Yeah. Sure. Whatever you say. Keep believing that if you want to, since obviously no amount of attempts to educate you is going to have any effect. You already "know" what you want to believe, and won't listen to anything to the contrary.
With all due respect, Fester, what you just said is absolute horse crap.Somehow I sense a lack of respect in your attitude, an overdeveloped faith in your aptitude, and a downright emotional devotion to your cause, none of which sensibly addresses the point at hand. Evolution is a philosophy that deserves a classroom distinguished from those devoted to empirical science.
New evidence just AUTOMATICALLY falls into evolutionary patterns without any massaging, because THAT'S HOW THE DATA IS. I posted this recently elswehere (coulda been this thread for all I can recall) but it fits here:
The pieces, when put together, reveal a picture (the specific dino picture isn't important here). In the context of evolution, if these pieces were fossils, the analogy of the way we fit the pieces together is the anatomical structures of the fossils and their ages. We end up with the well-known tree of life, showing common descent with variation.
Now it's possible that someone could come along and claim that this isn't the only possible picture we could make with those pieces, and that the picture we're showing is merely the result of imposing our prejudices on the pieces.
That might be true, but only if it were possible to arrange the pieces in some other way (for example, if the pieces were all the same shape, so that any number of mosaic designs could be produced). But that's not what we're working with. We might challenge our skeptic to try his hand at re-arranging the pieces, but no, he won't do that.
We could also point out that DNA evidence shows a close, pre-existing relationship of the pieces that we've fitted together, thus confirming the picture; and that re-arranging the pieces would be inconsistent with such evidence. But somehow, notwithstanding any other way to arrange the pieces, the skeptic will always insist that the picture is the result of prejudice.