onlinelibrary.wiley/doi/10.1111/nph.13114/pdf >Smart >Citing this paper as evidence against evolution Pick one. The paper even lists the problems which should be addressed First, several clock studies ignored previously known fossils that, if used as calibrations, would probably have made several estimates older (Table 1). These oversights mostly affected cycads and araucarians. Second, the convention of placing calibrations at stem nodes, unless they are explicitly resolved into a crown group, seems to cause significant directional bias. This procedure is methodologically conservative, but it forces crown nodes to be younger than the calibration fossil, whose real evolutionary position was either in the crown or along its subtending branch, not at a stem node.
Posted on: Wed, 24 Dec 2014 13:43:29 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015