Re: Darwin's young dead pet from Messel

["David Marjanovic" <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>]

> Right.  Which is why I'm a bit dismayed at some of the more extreme
> criticism the authors have caught on some blogs (and especially in
> some comments).  Which it's true that the paper is phylogenetically
> poor, it does seem that in some people's eyes, actual description is a
> rather boring waste of time, and it's _all_ about phylogeny.  But in
> fact, the detailed descriptive work in the Darwinius paper will still
> be cited long after any specific phylogenetic hypothesis has turned to
> dust.

As I pointed out on Laelaps a few hours ago, the criticism is not simply 
that there's no phylogenetic analysis. The criticism is that there are 
sweeping claims about the uprooting of the whole phylogeny of Paleogene 
primates -- claims that are made _but not tested_. The authors should either 
have taken those claims out (the subtitle of the paper already could imply 
that they'll do a separate paper on that later anyway), or kept them in and 
tested them by doing a phylogenetic analysis.

Asserting a hypothesis and not testing it is not science. :-|

As I also said (earlier), I'm not saying those sweeping claims are wrong. 
I'm after all completely unqualified to have an opinion on that. Whether the 
claims are wrong is not the issue; that they were not tested is the issue.