You basically have built in an axiom of sorts, kind of like how physics in essence has 'made up' the law of thermodynamics.
This axiom is: "Complex, intelligent things can only be created by another intelligence".
Not sure I'd call it an axiom, and either way it's not built-in.
I didn't just arbitraily up and decide to declare some "truth" to myself one day (design). Evolution simply doesn't make any sense to me. I've studied it as much as any person can. I've pulled it apart, examined it, thought about it, carefully considered all arguments for it, etc. To me, it makes no sense. And nobody can offer me good explanations for many questions I posit (one of which is in this post, but I have many others). There's no "built-in axiom."
Let's say we find evidence of such a brain in the fossil record. It may tell us about our origins, but it still doesn't answer the question of the origin of life. This is not satisfactory. Here is where your axiom creates a problem. The 'intelligence' that created us would have been sufficiently complex that it would have been created itself by another complex intelligence. We are in an infinite loop, unless you invoke something like a god.
Your theory doesn't answer the question of the origin of life either.
Now, if you claim that holes in the data used for an existing theory (say, evolution) somehow are proof of another theory
Holes in one theory aren't proof of another theory. They are just proof of the wrongness (or, perhaps "unprovenness") of the theory with the holes.
you have to first exhaustively prove that those holes won't get filled over time to either improve or refine the existing theory.
No I don't. You have to prove your theory. If it has holes, then it is unproven. Period. This is science. It may not be how the modern day "scientific establishment" practices science, but it is science nonetheless.
For example, you say that there is no chance that biological precursors could form, and coalesce into life because the probability is far too small given the billion-year timescales. However, this would require that no natural catalyzing mechanism or mathmatical model will ever be found, now or in the future, to explain it. You can't do the exhaustive proof, so all you've done is inject an idea. Without some other kind of evidence to back that idea up you have no hope of creating a theory from it.
LOL. I honestly don't even know where to begin with this mess of a paragraph. You are basically positing a "scientific" theory that you can't prove, and you are saying that since nobody can currently prove that a mathematical model proving your theory correct won't materialize in the future, we have to assume it is correct. What are you smoking? Who taught you that this somehow constitutes the "scientific method?"
The main difference between Darwin and Gould is the relative rate of evolution. Darwin's model was pretty much a continuous process, while Gould advanced a theory of long periods of relative stability followed by (relatively) abrupt changes before settling into a new relatively stable configuration. Much of that was based on a larger population of fossil records, few of which showing "transition" specimens
Correct! Finally, someone here knows what I thought should be "common knowledge" among evolutionists. Just to be clear (I am rewording what you said), I believe you stated that Gould based his theory on his belief that the Darwinian model of evolution was NOT reflected in the fossil record (i.e. few or no "transition" specimens as you stated, thus no "tree of life"). Can we agree on that? Note that I am NOT asking you to disagree with evolution, or agree with design or creationism or anything else. I just want to know whether we agree that some prominent evolutionists don't believe that the fossil record shows a Darwinian "tree of life?"
How many discrete individuals do we have a fossil of? A million? Hell, I'll be generous and assume 50 million, which is probably absurdly high but not high enough to throw off my point.
I am not going on solid record with what I'm about to say, because it is hard for me to believe this number, and perhaps my memory fails me. But if my memory is correct, I believe the latest figures which aren't disputed by anyone is that there are on the order of a BILLION fossils now collected. Yeah, I know, an unbelievably huge number, but again, if I'm remembering correctly, that's the figure. Stephen J. Gould, some people at the Museum of Natural history, and others, say (or in Gould's case, said) that this is the fossil record, and they believe it is reflective of reality. They believe there either aren't any transitional forms, or that there are so few (and airtight cases can't be made for those), that a new theory of evolution was warranted. Thus punctuated equilibrium.
No, the handicap is that you decided that only you can use anyone else's work. You haven't argued jack shit, you just keep pointing to Darwin and Gould and saying "these guys said something that sounds vaguely close to my opinion, so my opinion MUST be right!"
Somehow, in your zest to just berrate and attack me any way you can, you have completely misunderstood what I was saying. People claimed that evolution was proven in the fossil record, thus "case closed." I just tried to say that there are plenty of hardcore, prominent evolutionists who disagree with that. When I stated that, I was shouted down, and asked to produce sources. I refused to provide such sources for reasons already stated.
I never said, or implied, that "these guys said something that sounds vaguely close to my opinion, so my opinion MUST be right!" Fuck my opinion, and fuck whether it is right or not. My point was simply to say to the apparently surprised evolutionists here that there isn't a consensus even among hardcore prominent evolutionists that the fossil record provides an airtight case for evolution. Apparently that was news to some. Now, if I heard you correctly (I probably didn't), you agree with that?
If you can quit with the "bickering syndrome," I believe you and I can "get somewhere," and perhaps already have.