Quote:
Originally Posted by Neapolitan
... take rabbits for instance, at one time they were considered to be related to rodent and here they turn out to be more closely related to primates. Honestly, should I go around erroneously believing that rabbits are related to rodents?
|
Improvements in DNA capabilities will do that to you. Science advancing isn't an "inconsistency" it's science advancing. This is an absolutely **** poor refutation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neapolitan
So well then maybe they didn't evolve into each other afterall. Sadly enough the last of the big beavers died alone in a cave in Ohio, the last of it unevolved kind.
|
Evidence leads us to believe A is the probably likelihood. New evidence shows up which in fact proves B. Whole theory goes out the window because science adapts and evolves as new evidence shows up?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neapolitan
Scientitst haven't found a intermediate lizard-pterosaur link - sadly enough.
|
Yeah, imagine that. Fossils/archaeological evidence, which require very specific conditions to be preserved as opposed to the remains being simply destroyed, which could be anywhere on earth at any depth not being found for one species. All those other species that have been unearthed and do show missing links are pure coincidence?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neapolitan
I'm waiting for scientitist to stop evolving the Evolution hypothesis itself.
|
Then you're waiting for a scientist to stop practising science. That's how it works; evidence found indicates A. New evidence shows up, brings up new knowledge and understanding - we should just ignore this because it's too hard to keep up with? Absurd. The very essence is that it's adaptable and forever improving based on new findings rather than staunchly entrenched in one mode of thought because it's be far too troublesome to change things.