Dramatic discovery in Israeli excavation: A new type of Homo unknown to science

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@swamidass

No that isn’t the reason.

Yes, it is. It could have been long ago when there could be a presumption of an error made in good faith, but that is no longer the case.

@thoughtful

Just please stop saying Jeanson should have figured out the pedigree rate of the whole genome, when the whole point of focusing on the y-chromosome is that it’s the only way to win the argument!

@thoughtful

Because each side explain the nuclear DNA data in a different way, again Y-chromosome is the only way to win the argument. Again, if he looked at the whole genome, you’d explain the data based on your position - that is what he is saying. It’s not cherry picking for no purpose.

Valerie appears to think that the cherry picking is ethical.

@swamidass

He reasons…

Given his lack of response to those who have pointed out the massive flaws, “claims” is far more appropriate than “reasons.”

@swamidass

…that it’s not possible with current methods to analyze the sections with recombination, which is not true.

Correct. Since that has been pointed out to him and he does not engage with it on any professional or even semi-professional level, it’s plain ol’ cherry picking.

@swamidass

In fact TMR4A does just this.

And he has been made aware of that and the paper has not been corrected, so there is no reason to presume that his false claim was made in good faith.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Mercer

@swamidass

In fact TMR4A does just this.

And he has been made aware of that and the paper has not been corrected, so there is no reason to presume that his false claim was made in good faith.

At first, I think he was just ignorant of argweaver and related methods. Subsequently ignoring this is a real problem.

But it’s still a different issue that cherry-picking, which was my main point.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@swamidass

At first, I think he was just ignorant of argweaver and related methods. Subsequently ignoring this is a real problem.

It’s an ethical problem, because there’s no evidence that your assumption of ignorance was correct.

@swamidass

But it’s still a different issue that cherry-picking, which was my main point.

The lack of any response from Jeanson is strong evidence that it was deliberate cherry-picking.