But one can prove things in various ways. Mathematics being one of them and most theories concerning our universe have quite a decent mathematical proof behind them. A scientific theory based on nothing does not exist.
2# Tell me how is that claim you've just written not a leap of logic? It was exactly like that article. You answered to the question "What?" and that is all, what you need to next for it to be complete is to answer to the questions "How? and "Why?". As a hypothesis, it is full of fallacies.
3# This is why I disagree. An assumption or a conjecture cannot be logical. Because there is no proof.
4# Actually, it is completely logical. The natural state is skepticism. To add something to an equation, you need proof for it to be there.
5# I don't see any problem whatsoever with what has been said in the article. What was said is that the theory of evolution needs a little revision. That is all. There were no mention of the theory being fundamentally flawed or anything like that, all that was said is that the amount of importance on certain aspects of it need to be changed. This is nothing new, this shit happens every week in the scientific arena. Hell the theory of evolution itself has gone through a lot of changes already in the past 100 years, this is nothing new or shocking.
In the scientific arena, no one gives a shit who you are. If there is no proof presented with a theory or a hypothesis behind it. You can go fuck yourself. Your degree says only minimal things about your credibility.
The fact that someone has a Hab. Doctorate in something or something equal to that does not mean shit. They can be as wrong as anyone else. Hell, Einstein himself was fundamentally wrong in a lot of his views, even thought he himself is written in the history books as one of the greatest scientist to exist.