--------------6C733C492557EF2FC627103F
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Message-ID: <36CB5069.B3F338E4@jpusa.chi.il.us>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 17:27:37 -0600
From: brian grover <grover@jpusa.chi.il.us>
Organization: JPUSA
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.0.36 i486)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Kevin O'Brien <Cuchulaine@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Cambrian Explosion
References: <01eb01be5a25$77612ea0$1bb72499@kevino-b>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> >
> >As I will expand upon below, in this sense, "absence of
> >evidence" can produce evidence of absence.
> >
>
> But since your sense of what "absence of evidence" means is incorrect, your
> conclusion that it can constitute "evidence of absence" is also incorrect.
>
This is a bit of a tangent in thought.
It seems to me to be a bit of a house of cards if the whole idea is
based upon the "absense of evidence" as any find that produces "positive
evidence" of even a viable chance of pre-cambrian ancestrory would bring
the whole theory crashing down.
Additionally, basing the whole query on this pool of posible "evidence"
means that we can never speak on this point with any certainty until
either
all the sediments in question are systematically investigated. That
doesn't
seem like a likely scenario to me.
So my question is, what correlary evidence from other sources exists (if
there is any) to swing the balance to one side or the other.
Sorry if this is worded badly or is uninformed.
i'm not a scientist and i'm not trying to argue for any side.
i'm simply trying to educate myself on the issues to try to figure out
which
theories seem to be the most viable.
thanks for hearing me out,
-brian grover
--------------6C733C492557EF2FC627103F--