it's amazing RAF. you appear to know nothing of the theory of evolution or of scientific method, and yet you are convinced it has not already been shown to be highly reliable. you seem to give the impression that you are unaware of anything "BIG" enough in the theory of evolution to make it the theory that scientists contend it is. well, sorry, but perhaps "unaware" is the key word here, for you.
tetra
Highly reliable from the start ??? I appear to know nothing ??? You need to give me a name ???
There is no reason to "put" details about a theory to make it a proofsince it is a theory (if for you what is realiable is a fact to demonstrate the whold process of evolution from the stat with all missing links as proof) What can I say? ... it's just YOUR opinion funy how you really want it to be a proof (again about the whole process - IT IS NOT) you can read a 20 years to a 2 months old book about the subject today this entire theory (again about the whole process) is still a theory
Neither an Exposition - or a theory is a proofon the whole matter ... (for me). call that being unaware ... I guess it is your opinion.