No I am afraid that isn't the way it works, and your demonstrating the hypocrisy right in those statements. You just want the final product without the understanding necessary to achieve it. Without the understanding you do not get the final product. No more then you get a car without understanding combustion, or you get rocketry without first developing explosives. While development is haphazard rest assured it is always cumulative. To obtain a result you must first start with understanding.
Yours is a mindset of ends being justified by the absence of means. There is a difference between knowledge and wisdom. There is a profound necessity to understand the how and the why that far exceeds the fact. Mostly you do your self a great deal of disservice by pretending that they are not linked. Do we say that someone who buys blood diamonds, but is ignorant of the origen is doing a good thing? Most of us wouldn't we might not hold them entirely responsible for the true cost, but we surely wouldn't argue that is was okay for them to do so. Causing inadvertant greivous harm is still a very bad thing.
Just like fighting a concept that is bringing results that benefit you personally is hypocritical. We understand the heart, and what ails it in large part due to Natural Selection. From the genetic root of problems, to mutations in the cells, to the effect of random mutation. You go ahead and tell the person their heart has four chambers. I will tell them that due to genetic inheritance they have a higher incidence of heart disease, and that it can be controlled by proper diet, behavior, and environment. I have a feeling that in the case of twins my patient is going to live longer then yours will. Your just squinting to see one single thing. While I have my eyes wide open, and seeing the world.
That is perhaps the fundamental point. Science isn't a book of isolated facts. Science is a tapestry of interconnected threads. That is what makes it profoundly powerful. I can combine the power of multiple disciplines some that rely on natural selection to result in a more complete, and thus a far better result. Try to understand history by just knowing the dates of important things, and I will try to understand all the variables at play. One of us is going to find a very powerful predictive tool. While the other hasn't really learned anything of real value.
P.S. In a previous post you had a factual error. You were probably meaning 10,000 years ago, and not 2000 years ago. We find 2000 year old sites every week. Human beings rebuild on top of older settlements. Basically we build on top of garbage dumps. So as old cities modernize they unearth archaeological sites quite often. Human Civilization was fairly advanced two thousand years ago. You can even make discoveries of 2000 years old architecture at street level. Just clean some walls in an old city like Jerusalem, Cairo, or Rome. Going to ten thousand years ago the pickings are far leaner, but not as much as you probably think. You would be spot on about early hominid studies had you made that comment a decade ago. In either case the number of discoveries is increasing as scientists incorporate Natural Selection into their understanding. They now know better what places are good candidates, and bad candidates.
