Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 20:33:02 -0800
To: Andrew Arensburger <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: David McDougall
Subject: Re: Mitochonrdrial Eve is Younger Than First Thought
On Mon, 09 Feb 1998 18:19:55 PST, David McDougall wrote:
> At 04:45 PM 2/9/98 -0500, Andrew Arensburger wrote:
> > Could you please take a look at
> Well, I see what is typical; an evolutionist making statements like, "I
> wonder what his point is," and then leaving out the point.
You seem to have missed my intent: take a look at the
quotations from Henry McHenry and Dean Falk. In the first case, Patton
omits a crucial bit of context: McHenry is only talking about a single
bone, but Patton makes it sound as if he is talking about the entire
This means Patton is dishonest.
In the second case, Patton adds to the text: Falk's article
says that it is not clear whether the specimen in question is of the
genus _Homo_ or the genus _Australopithecus_. Patton *inserts* the
words "Homo habilis," which makes it sound as if there was no doubt.
This means Patton is a liar.
On top of this, in the section on Noah's Ark, Patton
demonstrates his inability to use a simple mathematical formula
correctly, not to mention the fact that he didn't bother checking his
assumptions against published data.
Given all of the above, is there any reason why I should trust
anything he says?
Andrew Arensburger, Systems guy Center for Automation Research
email@example.com University of Maryland
Life's too short for bad coffee.
Chapter 19 | Chapter 21