- Thread starter
- #161
Graham:
You're talking to someone who looks to have created an account solely for the purpose of arguing this point. It is a way of trolling, and may be an alter ego created for that purpose. Regardless, continuing to feed is not recommended.
Morphological data is not dispositive in terms of genetic relationships. It is just another piece of the puzzle. People tend to give it more or less weight depending on their own predispositions.
Finally, posting snippets from studies remains less than useful, as noted above, because you can't determine much (or anything) from such cut-and-paste posts. Anyone here can use Google. If you really want to get anything out of the studies provided, you're going to have to go do a lot of research, not just rely on someone who is cut-and-pasting portions of them. It's not really a good means of going about a discussion like this unless your purpose is simply to obfuscate by burying people in text.
You're talking to someone who looks to have created an account solely for the purpose of arguing this point. It is a way of trolling, and may be an alter ego created for that purpose. Regardless, continuing to feed is not recommended.
Morphological data is not dispositive in terms of genetic relationships. It is just another piece of the puzzle. People tend to give it more or less weight depending on their own predispositions.
Finally, posting snippets from studies remains less than useful, as noted above, because you can't determine much (or anything) from such cut-and-paste posts. Anyone here can use Google. If you really want to get anything out of the studies provided, you're going to have to go do a lot of research, not just rely on someone who is cut-and-pasting portions of them. It's not really a good means of going about a discussion like this unless your purpose is simply to obfuscate by burying people in text.