Basing Facts on Theory: Sound Intellectual Practice or Scientific Irresponsibility?
The truth about the sequential nature of original human origins and evolution will most likely go untold for many generations to come. However, with the fossil record that has been uncovered thus far, anthropologists have begun to piece together several different theories as to what the human evolutionary process may have been like. However, these hypotheses have yet to be definitively proved by a consensus of the scientific community and are further complicated by other inherently related fields of study, primarily genetics and geology, which ultimately undermine the value and integrity of basing conclusions on solely the fossil record.
Considering the vast amount of information in our ancient evolutionary past that is still unknown, it becomes incredible to think of the ramifications these uncertainties must have on our modern day sciences that we, the non-scientists, naively accept as fact. Most specifically these uncertainties have a great impact on the validity of modern day genetics. Genetics and our understanding of DNA is a fairly new scientific and technological advance and there is still much to be learned and discovered. Although a DNA test may be able to determine something simple such as paternity, it apparently is unable to determine origin! If this is true, researchers must not know as much about genetics, genetic coding and DNA as they profess. Considering that the uncertainties about theories such as Genetic Drift and allele frequencies are still highly prevalent as well as the unsolved mystery of origin, it is no wonder why there is so much debate about stem-cell research in the current mainstream media.
If the scientific community can not reach an agreement as to the most basic questions in the field, how can they continue to move forward with projects such as in-vitro fertilization, a euphemism for genetic cloning, genetic "therapies" that supposedly will prevent disease without causing any degeneration of mutation elsewhere, and stem-cell research? Although progress in the medical field is generally viewed as a step in the right direction, when we do not have a starting point of reference it is impossible to see the road. Furthermore, if we can not yet completely understand origin and therefore consequently genetics, what answers do we stand to lose my beginning to intervene at the mid-point?