{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
3/13/2015 3:09:00 AM
1
It fails to actually tell that there is a direct ancestry. You can look at the fossil, try to judge time, position, and similarity, but in the end, it's all just assumptions that all this comes together to equal the conclusion.
Until it's actually documented, we have no proof of macro.
English
-
'Assumption' is a kind of buzzword in this field. It is more of a deduction, and should not be discarded due to that. For as long as causation is 'assumed' I don't think you can put down centuries of palaeontology and evolutionary science as mere guesswork, it's insulting to both the scientists' involved, and your own, intelligence.
