JavaScript is required to use Bungie.net

Forums

3/13/2015 3:09:00 AM
1
It fails to actually tell that there is a direct ancestry. You can look at the fossil, try to judge time, position, and similarity, but in the end, it's all just assumptions that all this comes together to equal the conclusion. Until it's actually documented, we have no proof of macro.
English

Posting in language:

 

Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • 'Assumption' is a kind of buzzword in this field. It is more of a deduction, and should not be discarded due to that. For as long as causation is 'assumed' I don't think you can put down centuries of palaeontology and evolutionary science as mere guesswork, it's insulting to both the scientists' involved, and your own, intelligence.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

You are not allowed to view this content.
;
preload icon
preload icon
preload icon