Umm, I don't think that you can argue doubt in science based on a court case. Court trials are essentially the same as tv comercials. The point is to convince a jury of uneducated 'peers' to buy your product, which in this case is innocence or guilt. Trials may have evidence based on science, but how many professors do you see in a jury? Very few to none, I've talked to a few in my current and previous departments who've been called to jury duty. They show up and are promptly dismissed after revealing their work. They're just as happy to not stay there - which they perceive as a waste of time - but they also find it frustrating that lawyers don't want highly educated people in the jury.
But that's getting off topic. My point is that trials aren't science. The scientific evidence showing where the glaciers stopped is quite clear.
People have not been on the seas for thousands of years. People have been in little boats in lakes and near shore for thousands of years, but major seafaring travel is only a few hundred years old. The exception - depending on your definition of "major" - is the theory that the original inhabitants of S. America came from Polynesia (I may be wrong on the origin) via boats made from reeds. It's a dubious theory, but has been travelled to show it's possibility.
It never ceases to amaze me how religeous dogma followers are quick to discredit scientific evidence without (at least compelling) evidence of their own.
But that's getting off topic. My point is that trials aren't science. The scientific evidence showing where the glaciers stopped is quite clear.
People have not been on the seas for thousands of years. People have been in little boats in lakes and near shore for thousands of years, but major seafaring travel is only a few hundred years old. The exception - depending on your definition of "major" - is the theory that the original inhabitants of S. America came from Polynesia (I may be wrong on the origin) via boats made from reeds. It's a dubious theory, but has been travelled to show it's possibility.
It never ceases to amaze me how religeous dogma followers are quick to discredit scientific evidence without (at least compelling) evidence of their own.
If you don't, and I'm assuming you don't, then you are not in direct competition with these species. It also means that nothing else is outcompeting these species for food and habitat, and they are able to produce enough offspring to propegate themselves faster than they are being eaten. And that's why they survive. When the time comes that they no longer compete, they either die out, or genes are selected to make them a new species. That is a really watered down explanation, and of course I do not want to insult you or your beliefs, or change your beliefs, but It sounded like you had some very wrong ideas about evolution.
