[redrockcoulee]

Funny you guys have all the answers, some which make sense, no doubt, but still can't explain how your boys are always fouling up if they are so damn smart? If they are continually identifying various fossils, such as the lizard as the "Missing Link" it just yells out "AGENDA"...and that is not science. An awful lot of "scholarly science" turns out to be pure BS, and you guys don't want to own up to it. Evolution is so full of holes that it won't hold piss....just the crap you want to sell us....and we are not all that interested, are we?
Regards!

I did spend some time looking up your so called lizard fossil and only find one that refers to a lemur Darwinius masillae. Found lots of references to the controversy at the time as many scientists did not believe that Ida was a "missing link" to use your term as it is not longer in vogue in the science world. Different scientists placed it in different parts of the many paths of early primates.
Darwinius Not A Human Ancestor After All - Science News - redOrbit from March of this year discusses the lemur and its place in the family tree of primates.
So to summarize, some scientists believed a fossil was an ancestor of early humans while others did not. Later it was decided that it was not. Therefore the fossil lemur is a primate but not our ancestor. And from this you get it that scientists cannot tell the difference between our ancestors and a lizard disproving evolution? There must be a missing link in your logic?
Science is about attempting to make sense out of the evidence and obviously looking at 40 million year old fossils and trying to place them in the exact location of ancestory of other fossils is prone to some intrepetation. Science is not reading something writen by a reporter, change its meaning and using that as proof that a third thing does not exist. Seems like there is an agenda here or at least an unwillingness to even try to understand what others (mainstream science) is even meaning.

[Rupert]

The thing that I found funny was that he first made the claim that evolutionists believe that dinosaurs just sprouted feathers and began to fly, as though it just happened one day, or over a single generation. The next statement he made was absolutely true, though. There is no evidence that that ever happened, but no evolutionist has ever claimed it happened.

That's where they get the listeners/followers though, I suppose. Greatly misrepresenting scientific claims, and then basing their arguments off of those misrepresentations.



---------- Post added 03-19-2010 at 08:18 PM ----------

I'm not in denial of anything. I actually posted an article that sounds just like what you were talking about, except it involves lemurs, not lizards.

How am I an agenda driven bigot? How is any scientist an agenda driven bigot?

Science exists outside the realm of religion, and it is generally only the religious that see scientific findings as some sort of attack on religion.

Apparently Parallax can use Google, which is a lot more than a gifted brain like you has been able to do. As for agenda, it was the scientists that thought they found the "Missing Link".....again...that busted out the champagne....again.....to celebrate their victory over Christians....again..... if you were only able to Google you would already know this. Try a cheap computer class, you don't have to tell the thirteen old instructor that you are a big high powered biologist.......just tell him you are a slow learner, you won't have any problem convincing him, I'm certain!
Regards & God Bless Google!

---------- Post added 03-20-2010 at 05:27 PM ----------

I did spend some time looking up your so called lizard fossil and only find one that refers to a lemur Darwinius masillae. Found lots of references to the controversy at the time as many scientists did not believe that Ida was a "missing link" to use your term as it is not longer in vogue in the science world. Different scientists placed it in different parts of the many paths of early primates.
Darwinius Not A Human Ancestor After All - Science News - redOrbit from March of this year discusses the lemur and its place in the family tree of primates.
So to summarize, some scientists believed a fossil was an ancestor of early humans while others did not. Later it was decided that it was not. Therefore the fossil lemur is a primate but not our ancestor. And from this you get it that scientists cannot tell the difference between our ancestors and a lizard disproving evolution? There must be a missing link in your logic?
Science is about attempting to make sense out of the evidence and obviously looking at 40 million year old fossils and trying to place them in the exact location of ancestory of other fossils is prone to some intrepetation. Science is not reading something writen by a reporter, change its meaning and using that as proof that a third thing does not exist. Seems like there is an agenda here or at least an unwillingness to even try to understand what others (mainstream science) is even meaning.

Hey, you guys are the infallible scientists....remember? Those right wing Christians are the ones that get everything wrong....and should be laughed at and treated as fools...not your guys that find some old lizard bones and don't even know what they are looking at. You can't have it both ways......if your guys can be wrong....they can be very wrong, and that follows the same reasoning you say you admire....as long as it is in relationship to Christians.
Regards!

[redrockcoulee]

Apparently Parallax can use Google, which is a lot more than a gifted brain like you has been able to do. As for agenda, it was the scientists that thought they found the "Missing Link".....again...that busted out the champagne....again.....to celebrate their victory over Christians....again..... if you were only able to Google you would already know this. Try a cheap computer class, you don't have to tell the thirteen old instructor that you are a big high powered biologist.......just tell him you are a slow learner, you won't have any problem convincing him, I'm certain!
Regards & God Bless Google!

---------- Post added 03-20-2010 at 05:27 PM ----------



Hey, you guys are the infallible scientists....remember? Those right wing Christians are the ones that get everything wrong....and should be laughed at and treated as fools...not your guys that find some old lizard bones and don't even know what they are looking at. You can't have it both ways......if your guys can be wrong....they can be very wrong, and that follows the same reasoning you say you admire....as long as it is in relationship to Christians.
Regards!

It is only those who have the need to dismiss scientists who claim that scientist are infallible, it is a method of disproving them by claiming something that everyone knows is false and then stating it is false. Again it was NOT lizard bones but it really does not matter what kind of bones they are as you are freely using false statements to prove your points. Do you know how hard it is to actually indentify a 40 million year old fossil and do you know just how much different all primates looked at that period. And truth of the matter is they were not that far off in the total scheme of life, in the same family just a different branch.

Yes they can be wrong and they can be very wrong. But to be either wrong or very wrong someone has to show them their errors. That has been done in many fields of science but only by scientific theories that better explain the pheneoum. So far there has been no evidience that they are wrong on the big picture, only on the odd detail here and there and every intelligent being knows that this kind of science is always finding new data and adjusting and fine tuning the structure of knowledge and would re-write the theories too if evidience disproved their theory. It would take more that the constant lying of the fundamentalist Christains to do so. I do not state that last sentence lightly however in all my readings of anti-evolution and your earth creationists, their only evidence is the distortion and misrepresentation of what science states and science is. If there was any evidence to disprove evolution then why do they not use a scientific method to do so? Because they know they are liars! So what if some scientists cannot tell which lemur fits exactly where compared to other lemurs? It only changes the lineage of what fossils we have discovered but does nothing to the theory.

And there is no battle between evolutionist and Christians. There is a battle between evolutionists and fundamentalist young earthers and that was started by the latter and evolutionists have been on the defensive most of the time defending science, reason and knowledge from those who do not want to know. In almost all countries on this planet other than the USA there is little conflict in this area and even in the States the conflict is only with some religious groups. Your celebration statements shows more what you think as a battle than what they were thinking. The scientists, and this was a small group not the tens of thousands of scientists in the world, were celebrating what they thought was an important discovery and you turn it into some thing other than it is. More twisting the facts to feel superior no doubt.

Most of the articles I did read do not support your anti Christian statement, in fact I do not recall reading a single one that did. many of the articles did state that not all agreed with the intrepeation, something that you conviently do leave out and the only articles I did find out with a lizard were the anti evolutionary ones that probably deliberately changed lemur to lizard to fool the fools that actually believe that making fun of someone by changing what they have said is science. So yes the right wing Christians got it wrong, but they do so deliberatly as they in their hearts do know better just does not fit their agenda and most likely make more money this way as well.

Before you make fun of someone getting some thing wrong perhaps at least get the right family in your statement. Lemurs are not lizards. Lies are not proofs.

[Votesh]

Where did Parallax post anything about the lizard "missing link" you have spoken of? You can't even produce a link, or provide any more information regarding what you are talking about.

There is no one "missing link". Some scientists claimed to have found a link in the chain of human evolution. Other scientists disputed the claim which has now been determined to have been incorrect. There was no anti-Christian agenda. The study of evolution is only seen as an attack on religion by the religious. There is evidence that your infallible word of god is, in fact, fallible, and you lash out against a whole field of study.

Nobody in this thread has claimed that scientists are infallible. You have claimed that scientists claim that they are infallible. In opposition to that claim, in the case of the lemur you were probably talking about when you said lizard, it was actually scientists that disputed the claim of other scientists.

The evidence for evolution is indisputable. As I have stated several times before, drug resistance in bacteria is one case of absolute proof that not only do allele frequencies change within a population over successive generations, but it is also proof that natural selection occurs. There are many other, readily observable and measurable, instances of evolution occurring as we speak, and there have been many studies done on these occurrences. If you really want to debate the theory of evolution, please address the issue of drug resistance in bacteria. That is all I ask of you outside of providing a link to your lizard story. If you don't want to, or can't, debate the fundamental concepts of evolution, feel free to continue to use logical fallacy to try and get your point across.

Apparently Parallax can use Google, which is a lot more than a gifted brain like you has been able to do. As for agenda, it was the scientists that thought they found the "Missing Link".....again...that busted out the champagne....again.....to celebrate their victory over Christians....again..... if you were only able to Google you would already know this. Try a cheap computer class, you don't have to tell the thirteen old instructor that you are a big high powered biologist.......just tell him you are a slow learner, you won't have any problem convincing him, I'm certain!
Regards & God Bless Google!

---------- Post added 03-20-2010 at 05:27 PM ----------



Hey, you guys are the infallible scientists....remember? Those right wing Christians are the ones that get everything wrong....and should be laughed at and treated as fools...not your guys that find some old lizard bones and don't even know what they are looking at. You can't have it both ways......if your guys can be wrong....they can be very wrong, and that follows the same reasoning you say you admire....as long as it is in relationship to Christians.
Regards!

[Nesster]

The problem ain't that evolution don't work, the problem is us humans think we know enough to mess with nature.

Thalidomide. Though carcinogens and mutagens still slip into human food directly every now and then, the public realized that the companies involved could NOT be trusted to police themselves. Now of course the drug companies are keeping a constant battle against the FDA, how much cost it adds and how much delay, how many people will die or suffer while we wait for the approvals... But, keeping our food at least reasonably free of stuff the science-industrial crowd thinks is good for us, but which turns out to be very bad for us, is a GOOD THING.

(BTW, if it makes sense for us not to trust corporations to police themselves when it comes to our health and food, why does it make sense to trust corporations in the health insurance area?)



1975, feeding urea to cattle, in order to grow em faster and into our mouths.
The regulations around livestock feeding/drugs, and around the feeding/drugging of our grain etc plants, are of course looser, and stuff happens.
Science thinks this stuff's safe, after all we eat the meat of the cow that ate the supplements, and we eat the bread from the flour from the wheat that got dusted.
Science as the lap dog of big industry and the military will do the convenient thing. Science is the key ingredient in the military-industrial complex.
Science likes to have it both ways - oh, we're just a methodology, and a rigorous peer review process, and the seeking of truth through empirical observation, everything is provable, and science itself doesn't kill (unlike those crazy fundamentalist religions) - and then step on up to the feeding trough where big business and the military fund projects to their liking. But that should not bother us - science has shown that what's in the feed trough doesn't contaminate the bacon.

[Ratmagiclady]

Well, Nesster, the problem there isn't 'Science' so much as *control.* Various ideologies and moneyed interests certainly will use science for their own ends, often while with the other hand obfuscating the public's sense of ...and even ability to discern, what they're *doin* with it.

People who are generally anti-science, for instance, may well try and claim, 'You can't prove without scientific doubt that these endocrine disruptors are the cause of this specific thing or that specific thing, Or we'll *claim* you can't'... ' As if that makes filling us with this stuff a good idea.

But they never met a weapon system they didn't like. They'll sure use science to produce the chemicals in the first place, more to the point. Much of it's the money, too. They want scientists to be overspecialized technicians, and that's where they channel people. They *don't* like the idea of the riht hand knowing what the left is doing, though. They *don't* tend to like interdisciplinary inquiry or those things which make science produce more than a disparate array of profit-making and power-expressing tools.

In a sense, this corporatism undermines the scientific spirit itself: it's about product, not about understanding the world, particularly how systems really interrelate. They want technicians, not 'big picture' types spreading and synthesizing the knowledge. The latter, they actively work against.

[Rupert]

Well, Nesster, the problem there isn't 'Science' so much as *control.* Various ideologies and moneyed interests certainly will use science for their own ends, often while with the other hand obfuscating the public's sense of ...and even ability to discern, what they're *doin* with it.

People who are generally anti-science, for instance, may well try and claim, 'You can't prove without scientific doubt that these endocrine disruptors are the cause of this specific thing or that specific thing, Or we'll *claim* you can't'... ' As if that makes filling us with this stuff a good idea.

But they never met a weapon system they didn't like. They'll sure use science to produce the chemicals in the first place, more to the point. Much of it's the money, too. They want scientists to be overspecialized technicians, and that's where they channel people. They *don't* like the idea of the riht hand knowing what the left is doing, though. They *don't* tend to like interdisciplinary inquiry or those things which make science produce more than a disparate array of profit-making and power-expressing tools.

In a sense, this corporatism undermines the scientific spirit itself: it's about product, not about understanding the world, particularly how systems really interrelate. They want technicians, not 'big picture' types spreading and synthesizing the knowledge. The latter, they actively work against.

Golly Gee Ratlady! I read it and almost thought that those "generally anti-science" people you referred to might be the religious ones? You stopped short of saying it.....and I sure won't attempt to read your mind......who here could do that?
Just to clear the air, it couldn't be that religious people are ever under the kind of attack you claim scientists suffer....could it? Do we ever hear of religion being attacked in America....the world....or right here on this Forum? What an absurd and ridiculous thought......you certainly would never stand for such a thing yourself.....would you?
Regards!

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

Science as the lap dog of big industry and the military will do the convenient thing.

Well, you can use a knife to cut bread and you can also use it to attack someone. There is no tool that can be used just for good and is not capable to be used for bad.

You can ask the TSA, if you don't believe me.

[Votesh]

Humans do know enough to mess with nature. We do it on a daily basis. Whether that messing is a "good" thing or not, is dependant on the outcome of the messing, as well as the opinion of the observer in many cases.

Without a doubt there are people, and organizations, that operate within the scientific community that would do most anything to make a buck. This would come into play especially within private, for profit companies, where salaries are based primarily on how much money you can, and do, make the company, and profit is the number one consideration. In these instances the bottom line is the most important consideration for the company, and rigorous, peer reviewed testing increases costs. Fields such as chemistry, agronomy, pharmacology, and weapons technology would be prone to this behavior, but most practitioners in other fields have benign intentions at worst. Of course, intention and outcome are two different things, and all of this is generalization.

However, many of the fields within science involve no stepping "on up to the feeding trough where big business and the military fund projects to their liking". Science may be the key ingredient in the military-industrial complex, but it is not the key ingredient in the scientific complex.

There are bad apples in every bunch.

In the case of the study of evolution, since that is the topic of discussion, most of it is done for the sole purpose of gaining knowledge about an interesting characteristic of life. It is carried out primarily by researchers working for academic institutions, generally being paid relatively little, because they are interested in the subject. It is not carried out with an anti-religious, or any other agenda, and the findings are unlikely to lead to the harm of a single human. They may in fact be benificial to humans.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the scientific community as a whole, in and of itself, is not to blame for the outcomes of its findings. The use of the findings is what helps or harms people. Of course the original intent of the research determines what the outcome of the usage of its findings will be, but I think if you examine the intent of most research you will see that little to no harm could come from its findings.

[Rupert]

Humans do know enough to mess with nature. We do it on a daily basis. Whether that messing is a "good" thing or not, is dependant on the outcome of the messing, as well as the opinion of the observer in many cases.

Without a doubt there are people, and organizations, that operate within the scientific community that would do most anything to make a buck. This would come into play especially within private, for profit companies, where salaries are based primarily on how much money you can, and do, make the company, and profit is the number one consideration. In these instances the bottom line is the most important consideration for the company, and rigorous, peer reviewed testing increases costs. Fields such as chemistry, agronomy, pharmacology, and weapons technology would be prone to this behavior, but most practitioners in other fields have benign intentions at worst. Of course, intention and outcome are two different things, and all of this is generalization.

However, many of the fields within science involve no stepping "on up to the feeding trough where big business and the military fund projects to their liking". Science may be the key ingredient in the military-industrial complex, but it is not the key ingredient in the scientific complex.

There are bad apples in every bunch.

In the case of the study of evolution, since that is the topic of discussion, most of it is done for the sole purpose of gaining knowledge about an interesting characteristic of life. It is carried out primarily by researchers working for academic institutions, generally being paid relatively little, because they are interested in the subject. It is not carried out with an anti-religious, or any other agenda, and the findings are unlikely to lead to the harm of a single human. They may in fact be benificial to humans.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the scientific community as a whole, in and of itself, is not to blame for the outcomes of its findings. The use of the findings is what helps or harms people. Of course the original intent of the research determines what the outcome of the usage of its findings will be, but I think if you examine the intent of most research you will see that little to no harm could come from its findings.

Hmmm...good to know that some scientists did not boost Champagne sales when they found that lizard skeleton. They are most likely the ones smart enough to use Google, and could plainly see that it was no "Missing Link". Someday, when you get your tutoring by that 13 year old computer whiz, you will understand the value of Google and how it works........maybe?
Regards!

[Votesh]

What lizard are you talking about, and what does that have to do with anything in my last post?

Google must be broken, unless this is what you are talking about: 'Missing link' with dinosaurs revealed as humiliating fake. - Free Online Library
Once again, not a lizard at all, and once again, disputed by scientists.

You can't even find the story on google so how should anyone else be able to, when the only thing that you have said about it is that it was a lizard, missing link, fraud?

So, master of google, please reveal to us the mysterious proof that evolutionary theory is fraudulent, and that all of those that study it are frauds.

Hmmm...good to know that some scientists did not boost Champagne sales when they found that lizard skeleton. They are most likely the ones smart enough to use Google, and could plainly see that it was no "Missing Link". Someday, when you get your tutoring by that 13 year old computer whiz, you will understand the value of Google and how it works........maybe?
Regards!

[dylansalt]

CHLOROFORM IN CHILDBIRTH

Science & Christianity working together.

[Ben_Edict]

The problem ain't that evolution don't work, the problem is us humans think we know enough to mess with nature.

Thalidomide. Though carcinogens and mutagens still slip into human food directly every now and then, the public realized that the companies involved could NOT be trusted to police themselves. Now of course the drug companies are keeping a constant battle against the FDA, how much cost it adds and how much delay, how many people will die or suffer while we wait for the approvals... But, keeping our food at least reasonably free of stuff the science-industrial crowd thinks is good for us, but which turns out to be very bad for us, is a GOOD THING.

(BTW, if it makes sense for us not to trust corporations to police themselves when it comes to our health and food, why does it make sense to trust corporations in the health insurance area?)

1975, feeding urea to cattle, in order to grow em faster and into our mouths.
The regulations around livestock feeding/drugs, and around the feeding/drugging of our grain etc plants, are of course looser, and stuff happens.
Science thinks this stuff's safe, after all we eat the meat of the cow that ate the supplements, and we eat the bread from the flour from the wheat that got dusted.
Science as the lap dog of big industry and the military will do the convenient thing. Science is the key ingredient in the military-industrial complex.
Science likes to have it both ways - oh, we're just a methodology, and a rigorous peer review process, and the seeking of truth through empirical observation, everything is provable, and science itself doesn't kill (unlike those crazy fundamentalist religions) - and then step on up to the feeding trough where big business and the military fund projects to their liking. But that should not bother us - science has shown that what's in the feed trough doesn't contaminate the bacon.

Jussi,

I would be the very last person to deny the wrongdoings of scientists and the political and economical exploitation of scientif research and research results. We all know that this happens and we are all doing not enough to prevent that.

We have been personally members of several environmental protection groups and also of anto-GMO groups. But that has nothing to do with the discussion of science and religion here, I think.

Religion has been misused and abused as an excuse for unspeakable brutality over thousands of years and so has been scientific research. Scientists and religious leaders alike have not done too much to protest or prevent this misuese and abuse. So, this is one thing, both aspects of our world have in common…

Nevertheless science and scientific methods have validity beyond that misuse and so has religion or any faith/belief. But here important differences should not be overlooked: There is only one science, but many faiths. Scientific methods change over time, as new findings and knowledge needs to be incorporated into that growing body of knowledge and methods. Faiths usually do not change over time, as their very nature (at least in those religions I know off) is, that their set of believes and rules are not negotiable.

Ben

---------- Post added 03-22-2010 at 11:57 AM ----------

Hmmm...good to know that some scientists did not boost Champagne sales when they found that lizard skeleton. They are most likely the ones smart enough to use Google, and could plainly see that it was no "Missing Link". Someday, when you get your tutoring by that 13 year old computer whiz, you will understand the value of Google and how it works........maybe?
Regards!

Rupert, I think, I have read enough posts by you in many threads, to know, that you also know much better!

Bad science or an error made by few or even many scientists will over time be exposed and remedied. If some scientists publish rubbish, it will be exposed and thus will enhance the scientif discussion and progress.

Science is the human way of venturing into understanding the physical nature of our world and universe. As such, it is prone to human error or even misuse. You know that and you also know, that this does not take away anything from the validity of the scientif approach. Just as science cannot and will not take away anything from your believes.

Ben

---------- Post added 03-22-2010 at 12:09 PM ----------

Ben, what you say may be true between true believers (in anything) and outsiders: the outsider is the common enemy. And to an outsider, the true believer seems as you say.

But amongst true believers? Humans find a way to debate and examine and find small differences in any situation. An outsider may not care, or think the close study of the bible is worth studying that closely... but whole industries, whole movements and traditions, have been supported by the need to examine and understand. To a biblist, it's simply a book and a set of traditions that's worthy of examination; to a scientist, it's the outside world and a set of procedures that's worthy of examination; to a meditator it's the inside world etc...

We're all looking for clues about the meaning we may have, the purpose. We all band together based on like interest (as in: pentax), and accentuate difference to other such bands (as in: canikon)

I do not question the least the quest for finding "meaning" in ones own existence. Many way are going this route and I am following may own route, which may or may not be the same as others follow.

But the "meaning of life" has only a few common denominators, like the protection of life (killing other humans is basically outlawed by all religions or believes, even if the action of some groups of believers do everything to cover this) and the believe in a supernatural God or Spirit or higher Being. But not even that last denominator is universal to the major religions (look at Buddhism).

What I aim at with this introduction is: any believe may be true or not. It certainly gains thruth for the individual believer - but not beyond hium. Conviction is a personal thing.

Science has a totally different approach, as it does not deal with believes. It only deals with factual findings, which can be proven or misproven by other people. This is important! Any form of scientific laws are only valid, if these laws are in accordance with the facts. Even a law, that has been regarded as being valid can be demolished any time a new fact can be proven as being true, that counterdicts that scientific law.

So, science has a reach, that is universal, but ofcourse limited to the physical world. There is no science of the spiritual world. But then, ofcourse the opposite is true: the spiritual world will not alter science and the physical world, unless it causes real physiical action by the believers. Words written in a spiritual book, do not do anything to the physical world, apart from occopying some space and using ressources.

Ben

[redrockcoulee]

What lizard are you talking about, and what does that have to do with anything in my last post?

Google must be broken, unless this is what you are talking about: 'Missing link' with dinosaurs revealed as humiliating fake. - Free Online Library
Once again, not a lizard at all, and once again, disputed by scientists.

You can't even find the story on google so how should anyone else be able to, when the only thing that you have said about it is that it was a lizard, missing link, fraud?

So, master of google, please reveal to us the mysterious proof that evolutionary theory is fraudulent, and that all of those that study it are frauds.

If you Google about Ida a lemur that was placed in one line of the lemur branch by some scientists however those scientists that thought it belonged to another branch prevailed. But you can find at least two anti evolutionary web sites that transfer the lemur to being a lizard and then discredit both the original scientists and all of evolution for mistaking a lizard for a early human, neither of which happened in any of the origianal coverage.

Rubert has been told by several on this site that it was a lemur not a lizard but like all the anti evolutionarists I have encountered they love to change facts to some thing else so that they can disprove them, it appears that lies are the only tools they have.

Rubert, go to the original coverage of the story and you will see that the anti evolutary sites have made a huge, probably deliberate, error in changing a lemur into a lizard, they were able to type in the scientific name correctly but not a 5 letter one. Believe what you may about evolution but it is a FACT that there was no lizard involved in determining where in the fossil record an early lemur species should be placed. Insulting others for not finding the inaccurate site is fine but certainly even a 13 year old could find on Google that it was a lemur not a lizard and stop repeating a lie. And it is a lie when you repeat something which is provable to be totally wrong, it was a lemur according to each and every press release which is where 'your' web sites got their info because they did not seem to use anything from the origianal paper. And by the way neither Darwin nor Wallace based their theories on where on the evolutionary lineage one early species of lemurs would be placed in the future.

[Rupert]

I don't need Google to know that if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck.....it's a duck! Someday your scientist boys will catch up in the "common sense" category and stop seeing "Missing Links" to flaunt in the face of Christians every time the wife throws a ham bone in the yard for Rover. And if they do....it will be on Google, but most of you will not be able to find it.......
Regards!