Quote:
|
Originally Posted by $5 submissions
You raise an interesting point about statistical representation, however, much of science does rely on interpolation and inferences.
One funny angle of this information is that it does get the ANTI Darwinist (read: creationist) camp in a tizzy. Here's one representative comment:
**Take your pick - either there is no evil Darwinist consipiracy to suppress this kind of information, or this information is consistent with the modern synthesis of evolution... Actually, the truth is "both".
Of course the truth is both. This is why the theory of evolution is not falsifiable. Darwinists are like the Borg - they simply assimilate anything into the theory whether it is consistent with it or not.
"Suppression of information" is not the problem. What Darwinists suppress is any interpretation of the information that is inconsistent with Darwinist dogma.**
|
Yes, but no science relies more on guesses and propabilities than this one.
Like someone said, it does not put any question marks at the evolution theory since it is said they did actually evolve, just haven't evolved very much since that time. I bet you can find many insects that are the same.
Saying that things did not evolve is kind of strange, how did animals come to be? Did they just magically form out of thin air or dirt?