>>14376576>Ignoring that you have shown a single flaw in evolution that makes it "terrible,"Deflection. All my interaction with you is stating the fact you don't need a better theory to reject a terrible one. I haven't bothered explaining why evolution is a terrible hypothesis since you fail to acknowlege this basic truth.
>that's literally how science worksrepeating this fallacy doesn't make it true no matter how many times you repeat it. If the hypothesis is terrible, you reject it. Otherwise, you are treating it like religion, which you are.
>>14377214>sounds like his mistake was publishing before he had a sound conclusionThat is the cope excuse. He's the first apparently in modern times to actually explain his methodology and publish raw data and it was destroyed. It never would have been if he had hid his work like everyone does as the article says.
>at best it casts doubt on the ethics of Dr. Berger More cope. An unethical person does not reveal every minute detail of the process. He was aiming for full transparency and the debacle it caused will make sure others never make his mistake.
>paleontologists sit on data for a whileThe article directly says most never gets reviewed by others. I directly quoted a part that talks about the data and how it says most never get to look at it, why do you ignore it?
>but they're still publishing their findingsFindings doesn't necessitate methodology and raw data.
>and once published that data is available for scrutiny by the scientific communityDid we read the same article?? It directly says the opposite. They say the "community" was glad to see what he did for a change because it's so rare. Read this again SEVERAL times:
>They’re usually not sharing the specimens - even casts or digital scans of them - or the data with other scientistsNOT SHARING DATA
If you actually read what he published it is very different than the typical peer review paper. There is shit tons of extra stuff you usually don't see.
