Re feathers vs hair. You wrote a lot but still didn't explain why mammals have hair, rather than feathers. The default answer for most defenders of Darwinian evolution is that "they are optimal for survival". Yet what experiment has been done to demonstrate that mammals would not fare just as well or better with some sort of feathers? The answer of course is none. So your reply is just a reiteration of Darwinian dogma.
Re what I have "encountered": I had good science teachers in public school. 8th grade science, HS biology and chemistry, where I was introduced to the scientific method of confirming or disproving theories based on analysis of observed facts. I also have earned a BA in Philosophy, where I studied scientific methods, and learned both deductive and inductive logic. (Plus experimental Psychology, laboratory Chemistry, Biology and Astronomy.) I understand that any scientific theory is never 100% proved, nor can it be.
I did not say I was in doubt of evolutionary facts that are supported by strong evidence. What I said was that there are some things that evolutionary theory implies must be true (such as one species evolving into another) that science cannot explain at the present time. IOW, there is no mechanistic model which demonstrates the fact of one species giving rise to another, much less any model which demonstrates with any precision just how this could have occured. There are only extinct intermediary species, which scientists assume to be confirmation of what they already believe, namely, a small number of species giving rise to a greater number and variety of different species no longer able to interbreed. But note please, this has never been observed to occur, nor does the paleontological evidence prove, even within the accepted statistical certainty associated with inductive reasoning, that this must have occured!
You talk down to me as if I were largely unacquainted with science and carried bagload of unquestionable religious dogma. I assure you that I am neither a scientific novice nor a religious dogmatist. In fact, I was a strong evolutionary dogmatist before I came to question whether life could have originated and/or evolved without intelligent guidance.
-- ARFAR
And, did they teach you that kind of reasoning in philosophy class?
I say, you have a right to demand a full refund of every penny you paid those b*st*rds to teach you to "reason" this way.
Come on, pal -- even a grade-schooler cannot fail to see the flaws in your logic here.
Indeed, your reasoning is so sloppy, I doubt everything else you claim about a supposed degree in Philosophy, etc.
Look at what you wrote!
You began by saying: "The default answer for most defenders of Darwinian evolution is..."
But just three sentences later, "default answer" has magically transubstantiated into "your reply is just a reiteration of Darwinian dogma".
Using "logic" like that, why not just transubstantiate the national debt into your personal income?! ;-)
And why, in your Philosophy classes, did they not teach you to pay close, close, close attention to the arguments actually made, instead of those which would have been made if you had been making them?
Enough. You asked a seemingly reasonable question regarding hair on mammals versus feathers on birds.
The simple answer, which I gave, is that mammals first appeared roughly 65 million years before the first birds.
Mammals have hair and hair works well for them, so hair came before feathers.
The question then is not: why don't mammals have feathers? (answer: because they don't need them), but rather rather, why don't birds have hair? -- answer: because hair doesn't work for birds.
Really, it's not that complicated, especially once you understand the sequence of events.
ARFAR: "I understand that any scientific theory is never 100% proved, nor can it be."
If you understand the elements of uncertainty inherent in the scientific enterprise, then none of this debate should faze you.
AFAR: "What I said was that there are some things that evolutionary theory implies must be true (such as one species evolving into another) that science cannot explain at the present time.
IOW, there is no mechanistic model which demonstrates the fact of one species giving rise to another, much less any model which demonstrates with any precision just how this could have occured."
You claimed above to have studied not only Philosophy, but also Biology, but then immediately demonstrate they didn't teach you much of that either.
Really, I think you could retire now on the money those people owe you for delivering a defective product! ;-)
I'm telling you, your problem here is a religion-based hang-up over the definition of the word "species".
And the answer is: in nature there is "no such a thang" as a "species".
And while we're at it, let's get rid of all the genera, families & phylums too. Out! They don't exist in nature.
All these biological classifications are just man-made constructs intended to help us understand what-in-the-world is going on in nature?
They were never intended to drive religiously devout people crazy, or drive mis-educated "philosophers" to false conclusions.
In nature one "species" doesn't "change into" another "species".
What happens is that breeding populations of a single type sometimes get separated from each other -- by water, mountains, deserts, etc., and now each sub-grouping is only breeding amongst itself.
Now Evolution facts (=confirmed observations) say that every generation First descends with modifications and Second is selected naturally for survival.
Over time -- millions of generations -- these small modifications can add up to the point where the various sub-populations, if reunited, could no longer interbreed.
Then scientists would arbitrarily call them separate "species".
But in nature, all they are is different populations which can or cannot interbreed.
And there are many intermediate examples of this, including horses and donkeys, brown bears and polar bears, etc.
ARFAR: "There are only extinct intermediary species, which scientists assume to be confirmation of what they already believe, namely, a small number of species giving rise to a greater number and variety of different species no longer able to interbreed.
But note please, this has never been observed to occur, nor does the paleontological evidence prove, even within the accepted statistical certainty associated with inductive reasoning, that this must have occured!"
I just cited two examples above, and there are many others.
Possibly the most notable examples are our distant cousins, the Neanderthals, which fossils suggested were not our ancestors, but now DNA is saying maybe there was some hanky-panky going on in back of the old cave.
So, were Neanderthals a separate species or not?
Answer: the word "species" is an arbitrary classification -- a scientific construct -- which can be less than helpful in some circumstances.
ARFAR: "You talk down to me as if I were largely unacquainted with science and carried bagload of unquestionable religious dogma.
I assure you that I am neither a scientific novice nor a religious dogmatist.
In fact, I was a strong evolutionary dogmatist before I came to question whether life could have originated and/or evolved without intelligent guidance."
I doubt all that.
Most Christian denominations teach (and I believe) something called "theistic evolutionism", which simply means that God designed, created and manages the Evolution process in order to produce what we see today, especially mankind.
And that is in no way a challenge to the theory of Evolution, it simply says that what science calls "random chance" is in fact intended by the Creator, from the beginning.
But "Intelligent Design" is something entirely different.
ID suggests -- or hints, or allows people to believe -- without in any way demonstrating, that some being is out there (where?) routinely manipulating DNA to produce new kinds of creatures.
And the problem, of course, is that nothing the IDers claim can be demonstrated scientifically.
That's why the notion of Intelligent Design is just somebody's idea of religion dressed up in scientific drag.