Are you gonna share this on Facebook? :)

The Neanderthal tool set could strongly hint at this. They were very advanced relatively, yet they weren’t evolving at the rate erectus was. As the expansion of their tool set seemed to have stagnated in comparison…why? 

Chimps have remained in the same environment, therefore not being pressured to evolve much. But, Neanderthal moved to many different environments…yet the tools didn't evolve. 

+Parth Saluja Or it loves Russia too much! :P

+CaptainObvious0000
Well, I suppose, but then you run into an issue. Either you must always prove the method was applied incorrectly when it was, or you must always prove the method was applied correctly when it was. The null hypothesis would say that neither is true until there's evidence for it. So if you claim you don't need evidence that the method was misapplied for GMOs, you're implicitly claiming that things need evidence of correct scientific application to be valid. And...well, that's what peer review is all about: giving evidence that the method was applied correctly. So anything that's stood up to peer review has that evidence.

Unless you claim that peer review is also not applied correctly...but as you can see, this is a loop that never ends and will always eventually get somewhere such that neither the "is sound" nor the "is unsound" side have any evidence, meaning if you're going to do that, you can just say any claim is sound or unsound as you feel like it.

Woah, IFL and Dnews are in one place.

+MrSleazymoney Laura J puts 'your' instead of 'you're' and your retort questions her language skills. Maybe you're taking that one a little too far. I think everyone on the internet takes it just a little too far with the whole 'anonymity' we feel we have.

You're hot. Let's mate.

-- Kangaroo Bob