Re: An alternative to ST and AAT
Gerrit Hanenburg (G.Hanenburg@inter.nl.net)
Tue, 26 Nov 1996 21:09:26 GMT
Paul@crowleyp.demon.co.uk (Paul Crowley) wrote:
>I'm afraid that IMO Gerrit's post was a classic example of bad science: false maths based on
>unstated assumptions; the unthinking application of some general
>rule; the extrapolation from inappropriate data, little of which
>is "hard", to other data which no one claims is "hard" to produce
>figures to a completely spurious degree of accuracy.
You haven't even read the original papers on which it was based,so you
have no ground to judge the data as inappropriate.
Instead of the "unthinking application of some general rule",I gave
you an example of the use of the comparative method, one of the most
important tools of the evolutionary biologist. It is not perfect but
much better than the method of groundless speculation,which seems to
be your favorite.
>It is so easy to fool yourself in science, especially when you
>introduce a teeny bit of maths. I'm sure most of us were fooled.
>I certainly was.
You were not fooled, you simply don't understand it.