Yes they were- and not a single one provided the evidence that the changes needed a lamprey clotting system, or simpler ones, could be accoutned for via natural process’- ALL they did was posit what they felt ‘might have happened’ without explaining HOW these changes could take place without damaging hte species-That's how forensic science works. It's how all forensics works, even in criminal trials.
I find it odd that conservatives find the methods of forensic science adequately trustworthy to convict and execute criminals, but doubt it when "the glove don't fit" their religious beliefs.
I find it odd that conservatives find the methods of forensic science adequately trustworthy to convict and execute criminals, but doubt it when "the glove don't fit" their religious beliefs. Gradations of confidence according to different methodologies, for different prospective goals.
Even within forensics, for example.
'Preponderance of the evidence' vs. 'beyond a reasonable doubt' vs. 'QED'
Cheers!