26 May '11 00:44>
Originally posted by Proper KnobThe paper states that the purpose of the study was to answer two
Explain to me how the method used in the paper i listed above doesn't fit the 'scientific method'.
questions about penguins.
1. Where did penguins originate?
2. Why are such mobil birds restricted to the southern hemisphere?
The three hypothesis that were to be tested were as follows:
1. They arose in tropical - warm temperature waters.
2. They arose in species - diverse cool temperature regions.
3. They arose in Gondwanaland ~ 100 mya when it was further north.
They do some tests with penguin DNA, then using Bayesian inferences
of ancestral areas, they claim to show an Antarctic orgin is "highly likely".
And molecular dating "estimated" penguins originated about 71 million
years ago in Gondwanaland when it was further south and cooler.
Then they hypothesize that as Antarctica became ice-encrusted, modern
penguins expanded via the southern continents and reached cooler
tropical waters is the Galapagos ~4mya.
They say, "Flat priors were assumed for all parameters of the model."
As I said before, to assume makes an ass out of u an me.
It is my opinion that assumptions should not be used in the scientific
method if you want to prove an hypothesis.
They say the testing was evaluted using an "approximately unbiased"
test. It is my opinion that the scientific method should use an "unbiased"
test and not an "approximately unbiased" test.
They also say the use of "uncertainties" account for a source of error
in estimating where penguins originated.
So they where unable to really prove anything other than to make
another "hypothesis". The two questions remain unanswered.