What are the biggest holes in evolution?
it doesn't explain the initial origin of life (abiogenesis)
Nor should it. Evolution doesn't try to explain how life started.
We have described here a series of genetic experiments that provide support for the existence of non-Mendelian, multigenerational inheritance of extrachromosomal information. This information is transmitted in the form of small RNAs, viRNAs, which are induced by an episode of viral replication and which are propagated through the germline in a non-template-dependent manner. Our results therefore support the Lamarckian concept of the inheritance of an acquired trait.
Science is never final, the picture is always subject to change.
And you decry absolutists with their 'black and white' thinking?! Pot, meet kettle.
Put it another way: maybe some parts of science are "final". But how do you tell those buts apart from the ones that might not be final?
Finally! The difference between claiming 'all' or 'some' is important, thank you Slim'.
Of course, all this arguing could be instantly resolved if the big guy in the sky just picked up his gigantic cosmic megaphone, switched it on and shouted:
"hey, humans, over here, here I am, the one you've been searching for since forever, stop arguing already, I'm GOD, now quit bickering and get on with your damn lives'...."
Yeah, all the mountains of the earth would probably shake, but then there would be no mistaking... of course he'd have 'a lot' of questions to answer to....
nicolaou not so fact. Since there is no way of knowing which parts of science may change in the future and which may not, therefore it ALL needs to be treated tentatively.
" therefore it ALL needs to be treated tentatively."
And that is what ex JW's seem to find so hard, they are used to the "certainties" that they were fed, which of course were almost 100% wrong, and they would still like a Final Theory of Everything that will never change.
To me, the real joy of the human struggle to understand the Universe and the big questions about how we got here etc etc is that nothing IS fixed in stone.
We can debate, theorize, dream even, and often we may be proved wrong, sometimes right, and more often than not, if it is a big question, it is left open ended.
What is wrong with that ? The Scientific Method is the only viable way we have to get some surety, some understanding. But if, as was claimed toward end of the 19th Century, there is nothing more to discover in Physics, then it is an arid world as far as knowledge goes.
Of course that claim was nonsense, Einstein and explainers of Quantum Mechanics were still to come.
There is no end to knowledge it seems. Thank god. ( "god" said tongue in cheek of course).