Sender: |
|
Date: |
Thu, 23 Jul 2009 15:15:36 -0400 |
Reply-To: |
|
Subject: |
|
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
In-Reply-To: |
<40EA531916C443489B2CDDD70A004CF7@BlackHP> |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed |
From: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Hilary McClure wrote:
> william wrote:
>>
>> Am I the only one here who has heard of the "Missing Link"?
>
> Of course, everyone here has heard the term "Missing Link". But
> William, I'm wondering what you mean by "the". Which missing link are
> you referring to?
I leave such a definition to those specialists who know what they are
looking at. I can't; AFAIK no one has "shown" such.
It is a very solid theory
> (*not* a hypothesis). Of course, it's not "proven". As others have
> pointed out, science doesn't prove things true.
Yes, the scientific reports I've read never use the word "proven", but
they do use the word "show", which I take to mean that a competent and
skeptical observer can see the truth of their finding.
I've read that the scientific process requires examination and criticism
of every theory, otherwise we would have a (multi-billion $) cold fusion
project.
I'm not satisfied that this has been properly done for evolution of man.
Still waiting for an answer - what has evolution to do with paleofood?
William
|
|
|