That's one aspect to consider, sure. But with all due respect - people have publically tried to analyze this question from all kinds of angles, and there are l

That's one aspect to consider, sure. But with all due respect - people have publically tried to analyze this question from all kinds of angles, and there are lots and lots of equally valid extremely indirect bits of evidence, and people that have looked at this with a lot more time than me and (I'm guessing here) you to invest in the question, and they haven't been able to really conclude on this matter either way. But when you take specific bits of evidence out of the great soup surrounding this and highlight them, it's really easy to draw the wrong conclusions, or to get the feeling that this bit of evidence simply due to familiarity is more trustworthy than some other evidence. And we also have biases towards evidence we understand, which kind of makes sense, but is also a problem, as non-experts...