I'm not sure what "spiciest" means in this context. What are you talking about?
Quote:
Quote by: doittoit  When studies are recounted they don’t get the same press as the original studies and are often over looked. |
That a load. Dumping on the paradigm is a good way to get famous in science. Not only do such papers get published, they make the cover and get picked up by the press.
Quote:
|
A good example of this is 5.7. This is used by spiciest often as a main source of evidence even though it was overturned in another study done by Weinberg over a decade ago (1996 EVOLUTION 50(1):457-461 RODRIGUEZ TRELLES; WEINBERG JR; AYALA FJ) Hardly anyone even knows this and I see the Weinberg original 1992 used by scientists/spiciest all the time.
|
Again, what is a "spiciest" and what does it have to do with evolution?
Please sumarize the above original paper and then the one that you cite. Please compare the specific parts of the two papers that are in conflict. In other words, specifically what data from the Rodriguez et al. paper shows the first to be incorrect. Your failure to do so will reduce your discussion to babble.