Re: "Waterside" is meaningless

On Dec 18, 10:40 am, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

answer: because their content = 0

First these amateurs claim they did an "extensive survey" of the
literature...
Verhaegen et al. (2002) Page 213:
"Our extensive survey of the literature [17]"
(Who is "[17]"? They cite themselves, who else would made such a
claim)

Of course their survey was proven not to be "extensive" at all as
demonstrated
by this totally false statement:

TREE 2002 Page 213-14:
"... capybaras Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris and
mountain-beavers Aplodontia rufa [24]. Both these
semi-aquatic rodents feed mainly on riverside herbs,
grasses and the bark of young trees."

Anyone even remotely familiar with the literature knows mountain
beavers are not
semi-aquatic and any survey, let alone "extensive survery" would find
this.

These amateur incompetents then go on to, "Acknowledgements" (page
216),
thank "four anonymous referees for corrections and discussions" who
didn't know
anymore about biology than the authors themselves or they would have
picked up
on such an obvious error. Talk about incompetence confirmed by more
incompetence,
this is sloppy research at its worst. The four anaonymous referees
proved the
journal TREE uses amateurs to peer review their papers.

MV et al. then go on to claim: "suggests
that most hominids might have dwelt in 'wet' rather
than 'dry' habitats, and this has been confirmed
by recent discoveries [14,18,19]."

A non-extensive "survey" of sloppy work then leads to the conclusion
that
"A.robustus = wading"? This isn't even a good example of spiritual
imagination.
"Garbage in = garbage out" is the most parsimonious conclusion for
this despicable
opinion paper:

M Verhaegen, P-F Puech & S Munro 2002
Aquarboreal ancestors?
Trends in Ecology & Evolution 17:212-7
.

Quantcast