Quote:
Quote by: gallo  I'm not sure what "spiciest" means in this context. What are you talking about?
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.
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. |
The word speciest as I was using it is simply an identifier of someone who believes that one species can evolve/diverge into another. It's a common convention to identify sides when writing by identifying point of views by a single word identifer ie idealist, racist,Marxist ect. Given the context and my statements it should be obvious to anyone bothering to use any amount of evaluation to my post.
It's actually very hard to get funding to verify experiments, the work doesn't bring nearly the same notoriety as proving something "new" (easy to varify with sources if you disagree with what should be common knowledge). As for an example you can compare the two Weignberg articles by doing a simple search. You can find 2 dozen or more hits with the 1992 article and about 4 for the 1996 article 3 of which will send you to the same source.
The original 1992 article is in Jack's link, which I refered to previously. It studies worms and concluded a change in worm population believed to a significant change in karyotypes. The 1996 article recounted after finding that the protein variation didn't support the conclusion. This should all of been self evident if you would of read the 5.7 section (about a paragragh) of the link Jack provided and done a 10 second search for the 1996 article instead of disecting my post line by line spamming irrelevant comments (for the same reason Zhavric did) while ignoring the whole section that actually talked about the short comings of the research.