On Thursday, January 12, 2017 at 4:29:58 PM UTC-8, Richard Clayton wrote:
> On 11-Jan-17 17:20, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 10, 2017 at 4:04:59 PM UTC-8, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 1/10/17 3:15 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, January 10, 2017 at 2:39:59 PM UTC-8, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>> On 1/10/17 1:03 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> >>>>> On Tuesday, January 10, 2017 at 12:09:59 PM UTC-8, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>>>> A new paper in Molecular Phylogenetics & Evolution reminds me of one of
> >>>>>> the more interesting recent results (preceding this paper, which
> >>>>>> confirms it), that the smallest and largest of the ratites -- kiwis and
> >>>>>> elephant birds, respectively -- are sister taxa. Ain't evolution odd?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1055790317300192?dgcid=raven_sd_aip_email
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yep, the implication being that no objective falsification criteria exists.
> >>>>
> >>>> Bet you didn't follow the link.
> >>>
> >>> Behind the $39.95 paywall? No I didn't.
> >>
> >> Did you read even the abstract? On what basis are you claiming "no
> >> objective falsification criteria"?
> >
> > Of course I read the abstract, it's the only free thing, and it's short.
> >
> > "that the smallest and largest of the ratites -- kiwis and elephant birds, respectively -- are sister taxa. Ain't evolution odd?" (J.H.).
> >
> > Intuition says kiwis and elephant birds cannot be sister taxa; hence what I said about falsification.
>
> This is a decidedly odd argument. Are you saying that intuition is a
> more reliable tool for evaluating reality than the scientific method?
>