[<1/1,000,000th%]

If we stay on topic, and I am, you will see I've been referring to scientists who reach way back in history to events they did not witness to provide other explanations THEY can believe.

I confess to having difficulty staying on topic.

The trouble with having to witness everything that happens for it to be true, is that there are no witnesses to anything that happened prior to about 1890 currently living. Does that mean your great-great-grandparents don't exist?

Science is about evidence. When there's little evidence, theories become more speculative. This doesn't make it an attack on anyone's religion, unless you don't believe the world around you has any reality.

[pgyanke]

...there are no witnesses to anything that happened prior to about 1890 currently living. Does that mean your great-great-grandparents don't exist?

Strawman. My point on this thread hasn't been that scientists have no ability to read impirical and historical evidence. My point has been that some reach into their own beliefs to fill the gaps in their evidence.

[gore3000]

Science is about evidence.

Yes indeed, and this article is not science, it is fantasy. The fact is that there is absolutely no way that gradual Darwinian evolution can explain the humongous variety of living things which appeared within the short span of less than ten million years or why no new animal living forms have arisen since. The Cambrian completely disproves Darwinian evolution, Gould and Eldredge thought so and no Darwinist has ever been able to refute it or give evidence for the gradual evolution of the Cambrian fauna.