here is a lot of subjectivity involved. Coming from a medical background...
Well, that explains it. For some reason, medical people seem to have this unwarranted feeling that they know everything about biology merely because they know human physiology. Here's the thing, though: the rest of the biosphere isn't humans, so your expertise (and I'm assuming that by "medical background" you mean you're an M.D., because that gives you the best chance of being right--if you're a nurse, I'm sorry, but your scientific background didn't go into enough depth for you to criticize other fields of science) means NOTHING in those fields. You're like a chess player that thinks he's a better general than Patton.
Have you ever looked into sexual dimorphism in ammonites? That's an ACTUAL error committed by paleontologists. Wasn't doctors or nurses that found it, though. Strangely enough, it was people who study paleontology. Or, you could look into the recent debates about ceratopsians--another situation where, oddly, it's the people who study the field correcting actual errors, not people on the sidelines. Both will show you exactly the types of reasoning and the rigorous analysis that go into phylogenies.
I'm sorry, I don't think I'm wrong, the field of paleontology has flaws
Yet you can't be bothered to learn the field. Funny how that works.
You can measure all you want but it's still a guess without a living specimen for comparison.
Thanks, I needed a laugh!
If you were serious, I can only say that you either never took a course in geology, or you should demand your money back because the course you took wasn't worth it. We certainly CAN compare fossil specimens. It's even easier with vertebrates, because by and large we all have the same parts. The deltoid process is the same on all tetrapod vertebrates, because it's what we call a shared, derived trait. It looks different, but it's recognizable. Same with skulls, the vertebrae, ribs, pelvises, etc. We can know a great deal about soft-tissue anatomy of tetrapods--even ones long dead--because frankly even the weirdest isn't that different from us. When it comes to truly weird organisms, we compare them with each other (for example, we'll compare archaeocyathids with each other). Pick up a copy of the Treatise and you'll see that there are a number of critters we simply don't know what to do with. We're honest enough to admit it (though we'll always speculate about where they should go; for example, last I heard archaeocyathids were thought to be related to sponges).
Oh, and we've actually disected many of the Burgess Shale phauna. I mean full disections, exactly analogous to what you'd do to a body during an autopsy, except that the organis were a bit more squished than they tend to be in humans.
Then there's the DNA data. It's HARD to extract DNA from fossils (and it is impossible for many). It's not impossible for ALL organisms, however. I've seen very good DNA work done with sloth dung, for example. I linked to a paper comparing cetacean DNA to morphological analyses, which means that the morphospecies concept has actually been formally tested in at least that clade.
Furthermore, in reality you have it backwards: modern DNA phylogenies are merely working hypotheses, which must be tested via the fossil record. The issue is that the overwhelming majority of all species are extinct. What that means is that any phylogeny that only includes living things is necessarily incomplete, unless we can demonstrate that all the members of the clade are currently living (I know of two examples of such clades, and am willing to accept for the sake of argument fruit flies in Hawaii as a third). Every time you say "These two things share a common ancestor" you're in essence saying "If we look into the rocks, we'll find a species that's similar to both". If you do a more mathematical analysis like cladistics, you can actually predict the traits of that species, and it's relatively easy to predict the location.
Don't say it can't be done. I've done it myself.
Forensics is able to distinguish a race of a person based on bone structure within the homo sapiens species.
Yet somehow you don't think we can tell species apart via
the exact same data. If I show you a gorilla skull and a human skull, think you'll be able to tell them apart? They're MUCH more similar than a Camelops skull and a Camelus skull.
If you applied those same differences to ancient fossils you might conclude that they were different species without DNA for comparison, when in fact, they aren't.
True. It's entirely plausable that this happens. In fact, we've demonstrated that it did. We've also worked out how to figure out when we're wrong, which you've conveniently ignored. Also, humans are rather remarkably variable--I firmly believe that we were headed towards a radiation event, which was cut off by increased exploration. (No, I'm not a racist; all humans are equal. I'm merely saying that I believe we would have had multiple species of humans if we'd remained isolated for a few hundred more generations). Of course, similar organisms will be grouped extremely closely in cladograms and the grouping will be extremely robust. So basically you're saying taht we can't build a sky scraper because the doors might be the wrong color. You're tossing out the entire science of paleontology--ignorantly, without knowing enough about it to substantiate any criticism--based on trivialities.
When I get some time, I'll delve more into this and read what you guys suggested but right now real life is getting in the way.
You'll find no symapthy from me. If you want to attack my entire field of study I have every right to demand that you take the time to at least learn the basics. If you can't be bothered to do that, you've got no business attacking a field of science.
Either educate yourself to the point where you and I can have a technical discussion regarding cladistics and taxonomy, or shut up.
Because if they think they saw it, then they aren't lying.
When I called Chris a liar it was for specific statements in this thread. He demonstrably lied about certain things under disicussion at that time. I don't care what he thinks he saw; that's irrelevant to my statements regarding his honesty.
