From: "Robert Comer" 

> There's much more than 'circumstantial evidence' for evolution. We've got
> forensics and everything!

Actually we don't have forensics -- for that we'd need the transition
animals themselves, their parents, and their offspring all down the line,
and proof that the new traits weren't dormant or expressed in the original,
and any lost traits would have to be indeed lost. (i.e., it would be very
very very hard to have proof.)

--
Bob Comer


"Paul Ranson"  wrote in message
news:43790739$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> It's implicit in science. But most scientific theory is known to be 'good'
> in the general sense. Imperfect but not 'untrue'.
>
> There's much more than 'circumstantial evidence' for evolution. We've got
> forensics and everything!
>
> Paul
>
> "Gary Britt"  wrote in message
> news:4378cdc0$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>I wouldn't have a problem with just a simple reminder that all scientific
>> theories (and not limited to evolution) are not based upon direct
>> observation of the things about which the theories draw conclusions and
>> therefore they remain subject to some possibility that they could later
>> turn
>> out to be untrue or imperfect explanations of that which they seek to
>> explain.
>>
>> In a sense all convictions of circumstantial evidence on done on *faith*
>> or
>> *belief* that the circumstantial evidence points to the guilt of the
>> accused
>> beyond a reasonable doubt.
>>
>> Gary
>>
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5