Quote:
Originally Posted by dyna mo
I see this as an opportunity to move closer to proving the theory as fact, not the opposite. If we can further and better explain the theory in the lack of evolution then it makes sense we move closer to validating the theory.
there's also the option that this sort of testing misses out on some evolution. perhaps the organism evolved, then evolved back. DNA mapping then matching seems to be a more thorough test
|
I agree. How many times they're going to reconfirm the same thing via these scientific papers?
As you can see from my link, they discovered this in 1968, in mud, in Australia. Since then it's been reconfirmed over and over again, I think 6 or 7 papers now since then. At what point does it finally become fact?