What utter nonsense! 

 

What you did Bill was to lift a piece of text word for word from the paper by Kashani 
et al. for which I posted the abstract. I didn’t post the entire paper for copyright 
reasons. That’s what abstracts are for… to summarise the conclusions. You selected a 
piece of text out of context it in a partisan manner and presented it as your own 
counter-argument, which is disgraceful. If you call yourself a scientist you should be 
deeply ashamed. 

 

Kashani et al. included that text as a frank admission of the possible flaws in genetic 
evidence in general. It doesn't detract from the evidence they present. Do you think 
they would present such a firm conclusion in a paper that also contains a dismissal of 
that same conclusion? What colour is the sky on your planet? 

 

What you missed is that the text was included in the interests of fairness and balance 
but also as a reassurance that the authors recognised any possible limitations and had 
allowed for this in their rigorous anaylysis. That is, they were confident that they 
hadn’t fallen into a possible hole. 

 

You selectively omitted the positive elements from the follow-on text and the main 
body of evidence and also very clearly missed the conclusion from the data (even 
allowing for any possible shortcomings). The words used were: “… definitively 
dismisses the controversial Solutrean hypothesis…” 

 

By drawing attention to the wider context, you have unwittingly reinforced the 
arguments that rubbish Stanford’s theory. Not the other way round. So, well done. 
We’ll make a scientist of you yet. Well… probably not, eh?