Skip to main content
No. of Recommendations: 1
On the other hand, if a probable or plausible pathway can be demonstrated whereby a structure can be shown to have evolved (as with the flagella), there is nowhere to back up to.


Would you ingest a new chemical compound just because some scientist says he thinks it is "plausible" that it could cure your gout?

Wouldn't you require a little more scientific approach, say testing (at minimum), and a thorough understanding of the chemical interactions of the compound and the cells in your body (at best)?

Why is "scaffolding" and the like given such a huge pass? Why is scaffolding (which to my knowledge has no observed evidence), or "plausibility" (which has no exact scientific measure) allowed to settle this issue?

Bryan
Print the post  

Announcements

What was Your Dumbest Investment?
Share it with us -- and learn from others' stories of flubs.
When Life Gives You Lemons
We all have had hardships and made poor decisions. The important thing is how we respond and grow. Read the story of a Fool who started from nothing, and looks to gain everything.
Contact Us
Contact Customer Service and other Fool departments here.
Work for Fools?
Winner of the Washingtonian great places to work, and Glassdoor #1 Company to Work For 2015! Have access to all of TMF's online and email products for FREE, and be paid for your contributions to TMF! Click the link and start your Fool career.