Pistike, I have decided to answer this your question separately ( from Tiktaalik )
But maybe it should be your turn to answer questions, Andrew. Where did you get your education in biology? Who do you consider the authorities on natural history? What should we believe about the history of life on Earth? Is evolution just a fraud and a hoax? If so, why do so many people, particularly scientists, affirm the validity of Darwin's theory?
I answer willingly - as mentioned before, I am no more than an amateur in this field. My actual educations were: Dipl. Engineer , with major on microprocessor control systems in aviation/airspace ( State Aviation and Technical University, Ufa, Russia ), and classical piano ( Diplom of State College Of Arts, Ufa, Russia ). I have honestly tried it, to combine professionally such two different activities for a certain period, but later evolved to a full-time muso.
For what it's worth, I think, that the general education gives one the ability to quickly learn, analyse and systematize new facts, in whatever field. It does in no way equates a degree on biology, of course.
Who do you consider the authorities on natural history?
Maybe these two videos can be interesting for you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LE7cvUzSn4U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1xkpncGHEQ&feature=related
Two of a many . Prof . Dr. Siegfried Scherer ( Molecular Biology ), Prof . Werner Gitt ( Theorie of Information ).
I am sorry, once again, that the first video is in German - you asked me about MY preferences. So, these two gentlemen stay strictly within their own professional domains, no further speculations. Dr. Scherer on the first video explains, that the human emrios do NOT represent evolutional stages, as it was claimed for a long time. Furthermore, he claims that abiogenesis is proven, to be impossible ( you see the experiment of Pasteur, and then that of Miller ).
You see, there are really many prominent figures, Profs, Drs...
on both sides of the argument. Why should opinion of Dawkins be more preferable for me, than opinion of Scherer?
What should we believe about the history of life on Earth? Is evolution just a fraud and a hoax?
But then, it is still a matter of belief? Pistike, I can't of course say what anybody SHOULD believe. The views of Prof. Scherer are represented on his
Wikipedia page. He undoubtedly believes, that God created life. He works with American creationist Universities, but does not support the literary conception of creation in 6 days. He accepts the evolution too, but more like a speciation - all dogs, apes...came from their common ancestor. Maybe even all mammals, it is not clearly posted there. In this case, it was, once again , a web, not a tree, and the process went downhill, like all natural processes do. I think such version of a natural history has more evidence than the classical ET. But, this is just my opinion.
If so, why do so many people, particularly scientists, affirm the validity of Darwin's theory?
This one is absolutely a brilliant question ,Pistike, if one would understand it kinda,
Why are there so many materialists in our time? I think it is even worth a separate thread. But, first off my answer here:
I think , on two reasons. First , and rather simple, people do always understand many really different things as evolution, and there are cases where evolution clearly happens ( like the adaptation of modern humans to raw milk ). But, this is microevolution, and then the usual extrapolation is being made. There are also many works on mutations, especially in microbiology, whereas one is inclined, to see each and every change as the proof of evolution. It was, btw, also mentioned in the article ( about the web-tree ) we have discussed a week ago here. Then, the results ( in the special field of research, absolutely verifiable, of course ) are being published in a magazine like NATURE. The reader reacts on the word "evolution" and gets a steady image of a tree, and the Darwin's portrait , linked together with the real context of the article.
The second reason is , it is a matter of the world view, as always. You have mentioned that phylosophy is one of your interests, then the words "modern times' mentality" - or Neuzeit Mentalitaet, in German - should say you something.
You know that the mentality of the medieval Europe could be of course described as religious , or Christian. Via Reformation, renaissance, baroque it has slowly shifted to more and more secular one, and the ideas of humanism were already completely atheistic. So was the modern times' mentality born, and this was the society, and the model of thinking, which has accepted Darwin's Theory. The idea itself was in no way new. Scientists are the part of the society, like all other people. You know that Sir Isaak Newton has written more works on theology, than on physics, trying to understand or to explain the harmony of the world around him. And you know that Prof. Richard Dawkins has written "Delusion Of God", for whatever reason. So I think - all-common world view, mark of time... is the actual answer. No sign of any conspiracy plot, anyway ( only if it is not the plot, in which the most of adult population of Europe, USA... take part ).
Best regards to you,
Andrew