But Greg wrote that this experiment findings debunks the hypothesis ( Can rocks from Earth hit Mars ? ) I don’t understand this ( why greg wrote the opposite thing ) ?
Can you post the full passage and rephrase your question? I’m not able to follow it
Greg wrote
This conclusion has led to another question:
whether meteorite impacts on Earth have similarly
driven rocks from this planet to Mars.
as Hypothesis which is agreeable to me
Then , he wrote the function of the last sentence of the passage as
" Undermines the hypothesis"
Now, my question is ,
doesn’t the finding of the experiment done by Phinney backfired on him ! Phinney said that there is negligible chance of rocks from earth to hit Mars , but we see some rocks did hit Mars, So Phinney is wrong and this supports our hypothesis
I am unable to comprehend why Greg wrote the opposite thing ! What am I failing to understand , please help
Debunk is a pretty strong word, but the fact that ONLY 17 rocks out of 1000 hit Mars, a percentage of 1.7%, it goes to show that it’s unlikely.
damn , man . I get it now .
Its not all white and black . These things lies on the grey area.
Our Hypothesis throws a question : Can rocks hit Mars ? 
He said that percentage of hitting Mars is almost negligible NOT ZERO.
He empirically established that 17 out of 1000 is hitting which is pretty low NOT ZERO.
So, Phinney WINS and that weakens our Hypothesis .
DAMN , its always not binary
Got it @gregmat . Thanks for the nudge 
