How reliable is science? (The limitations of science)

by David Turell , Tuesday, February 05, 2013, 15:50 (4307 days ago) @ dhw
edited by unknown, Tuesday, February 05, 2013, 16:00

dhw: An article tucked away in today's Guardian:
> That traces of Neanderthal DNA can be found in people today may be due to them having a common ancestor[/i]."-That sentence in the Guardian is also pure supposition. Spain is not the only place the sapiens and the Neanders co-existed. Thre are lots of DNA admixtures in studies done elsewhere in the world, and although I am not an expert, the DNA experts never hark back to 'it is all due to a common ancester'.-Source article:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/02/130204153714.htm-> 
> dhw:Science of course is an ongoing process of discovery, revision, correction, and today's sensational revelation will become tomorrow's oops. So how much of today's science should we believe? We laymen have no way of knowing how trustworthy the so-called experts are, past or present, but in matters relating to the history of the universe and of life on Earth, a healthy dose of scepticism might not come amiss.-Well stated. Those dates are theoretical history, never exact, but useful approximations. They tell us that life arrived rather quickly. That is a key finding, not that there is a plus or minus to the time interval.