I challenged you before to show me in anything other than this debate how conformational bias negated the body of research entirely. Not a single person here has said that conformational bias does not exists. But, it can not be pointed to as the sole reason the theory of evolution exists and enjoys wide acceptance. Real research has lead us to this conclusion.
My argument isn't that bias destroy's all aspects of evolutionary adaptation entirely, it's in key positions, which have to date, still to be proven. The leap from one dog type to another dog type isn't in question (chihuahuas and great Danes for example) the argument is that there is un-disputable proof that a fish became a dog. (yes simplified, but actually what the theory states when you break it down.)
Time has become the God of the Gaps, which is what evolutionist state. Just give enough time and organisms can change from a single cell, to a fish, to dog, or human etc.
Where is the solid proof for that?
Or isn't that just a belief?
"On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the
Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" by Charles Darwin, one of the main proofs of how man evolved is black people, aboriginals to be exact were surviving examples of primitive forms of humans. White people of course were top of the food chain... and he could prove it!
Using racism as a "proof" the theory then began to build, and when fossils were found this became a way of classifying them.
Article from scientific journal of the time using Aboriginal people and Neanderthal (not considered early man anymore) as a way to show how this skull (still found in textbooks) is part of man's ancestry.
JSTOR
So, as these respected scientists held up skulls and used Aboriginal people as part of their proofs, who could argue, we can study the skull and the black person side by side for proof!
When those then became indisputable facts, the next set of facts were bolstered by those original facts. (Eventually the racist elements faded away, but not for a very, very long time) So looking back, can you really say all these foundational facts have been interpreted correctly, without a doubt?
So, unless this board is full of bigots ( i mean racial bigots, it is full of anti-religious bigots, which is ok I see ;-) can you really argue that Darwin, etc. who used black people as proof, didn't create a
bias among scientists that helps establish a
potentially faulty foundation?