( concerning the problem with palaeontology Relative to the PAST; What can we know about life ? And; How can we know it?) Scientists did not observe biological evolution in the past. Hence the use of palaenotology. Nevertheless; The idea that palaeontology supports biological evolution is irrationl. why? Because, If all fossils are examples of things that have changed, then no fossil can show us what an organism (or its phenotype) intially looked like. For any thing that has changed does not look like what it looked like before. Thus, since the knowledge of change is contingent on our past experiences of what something initially looked like, (and since we do not have any past experience of what any organism looked like), it implies that fossils cannot grant us knowledge change. Biological evolution pertains to change. Therefore fossils cannot grant us knowledge of biological evolution. It is important to note that palaeontologists are saying (without experiencing the past and the knowledge of what things intially looked like) that all things have changed. If so, then they cannot know what these things intially looked like. For (by definition) change implies that things no look like what they they looked like before. Therefore they cannot know that those things have changed, because the knowledge of change is contingent on our past experiences of what something intially looked like. So the hypothesis (namely; fossils are displaying changes) is logically impossible. Therefore biological evolution (namely, Change with modification) is logically impossible. Formally; my argument can be stated as follows: 1. The hypothesis (namely, all fossils have changed) , cannot be verified, because it implies that all fossils do not look like what they intially looked like. 2. If all fossils do not look like what they intially looked like, then the hypothesis (namely, all fossils have changed) is false. (because we do not have any past experience of what any fossil intially looked like. For the knowledge of change is contingent on our past experiences of what fossils intially looked like. But we do not possess such knowledge because we did not exist millions of years ago) 3. Hence the hypothesis is false. 4. Therefore biological Evolution is false. (That is, CHANGE with modification over a period of time, is false) The fact is, if palaeontologists begin with the hypothesis (namely, fossils have not changed) , then the theory of biological evolution cannot be verified, because the past cannot repeat itself. And, If palaeontologists begin with the hypothesis, (namely, all fossils have changed) , then the theory of biological evolution cannot be verified. For if we assume that all things have changed, then we have no past experiences of what they intially looked like, and subsequently (since knowledge of change is contingent on past experiences) we cannot know that the fossils have changed. Finally, if palaeontologists propose the following hypothesis (namely, the fossils are changing) , then things could not have evolved/changed (because they are evolving). Moreover; palaeontology pertains to past events. Thus the present tense (namely changing) cannot be exhibited by fossils. So it is apparent that the hypothesis of what evolution is (namely, EVOLUTION is CHANGE with modification) cannot be tested.
Posted on: Fri, 12 Sep 2014 10:38:43 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015