4 ms·
There's some evidence that is suggestive, but far from what anyone knowledgeable would consider proof.
by beervirus 6y ago
There's some evidence that is suggestive, but far from what anyone knowledgeable would consider proof.
- Falling3 6y ago> but far from what anyone knowledgeable would consider proof. Which is why the comment said "evidence" and not "proof".
- sjg007 6y agoRead the Nature paper.
- ClumsyPilot 6y agoIf you are going to be pedantic, there is no such thing as 'proof' at all. You can only ever demonstrate that you are 9X% likely to be correct. Maybe the murder caught on camera is a lost identical twin, or victim of a very elaborate frame-up. The standard for conviction is beyong reasonable doubt. What is reasonable? Maybe we have laws of physics wrong, and next tuesday sun will rise in the west, and Jesus rises from the dead. Again. Do yoy trust governments and scientists? They used to claik smoking is a great way to get your essential vitamins. Do you trust your own mind, because research has shown people can be manipulated into remembering things that never happened. Ib radical doubt, the only thing you can proove is 'I think, therefore I am".
- Jaepa 6y agoSo then just give voice to unsubstantiated rumors that contraindicate what we see in the genetic marker?
- Jaepa 6y agoAlso I'd like to contest that the nature study is "suggestive" that its not man made. Finding Elvis dead in Vegas is not "suggestive" that Elvis is dead. If you are asking me to proof a negative, that's virtually impossible.