Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: gore3000
...has been proven through DNA analysis not to have been in any way an ancestor of man and totally unable to reproduce with homo sapiens.

It has not been "proven." It has been hypothesized and for the most part the hypothesis has a goodly chunk of evidence to support it. However, there are dissenting voices and they also have evidence to support their stances (personally, I think their evidence is slightly shaky). Once again, you seem to have this "thing" for proof. Proof is a mathematical term; preponderance of evidence is a scientific method.

1,074 posted on 02/28/2002 2:33:34 AM PST by Junior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1044 | View Replies ]


To: Junior
Lurking ...
1,075 posted on 02/28/2002 2:50:29 AM PST by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1074 | View Replies ]

To: Junior
"It has not been "proven." It has been hypothesized and for the most part the hypothesis has a goodly chunk of evidence to support it.'

There you go again, with your phony semantic arguments. Look up the word proof in the dictionary, it applies to a lot more than mathematical proofs. People are everyday proven guilty in courts of law without any mathematical proofs at all.

However, I am glad that you at least admit the statement that homo sapiens has no ancestors and hence did not descend from monkeys, Neanderthals, or any other species is correct.

1,078 posted on 02/28/2002 4:50:34 AM PST by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1074 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson