/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8995263
>Just because you are incapable of something doesn't mean it's impossible.
So it could've been an ancient fairy, or mermaid, or satyr?

>Because opposable thumbs are present in literally all the great apes known. It's all about parsimony.
He most likely meant "actually useful for anything other than climbing in trees."

>And this is known because stone tools, and bones bearing their marks, have been found along with Homo habilis.
So they admit to intelligent design when man is the designer? Figures, they let their ego get the best of them.

>It all comes down to "well, I just don't understand how they could know this", the classic argument from incredulity. As usual, it speaks more to the ignorance of the speaker than to anything about the methods of the experts.
So I should take any yahoo with a PhD's wild extrapolations seriously?

>Forensic scientists use basically the same methods to reconstruct the build and appearance of murder victims whose otherwise unidentifiable partial remains are found. The fact that these reconstructions, from fragmentary remains, are frequently successful in identifying the deceased is proof that these techniques work. Chew on that for a moment.
But we're not dealing with humans, are we?

Anyone wanna refute this article?
http://scienceagainstevolution.org/v4i5f.htm

>>8276243
How does one not know if the methods weree based on any preconceived notions of the person who made them? Say a professor with degree in philosophy claims all morality is relative, and then molests his students, could it be that he made this worldview in order to run from the guilt he felt.

It's all about feelings, not facts.