Bluejay writes:
The point wasn't that pigs aren't useful index fossils, or even that Peg's example is invalid: the point was that Peg is failing to actually present the argument.
That would be really nice if that were how you presented the argument. In fact, you challenged Peg's assertion that pig fossils are, in fact, quite useful as index fossils over vast areas in east Africa. Moreover, you based that on the fact that many species of spiders can be found in a relatively small area. Don't you really understand how irrelevant your analogy is? The point is, in fact, that Peg's assertion is correct. The point is not whether she failed to present a valid argument. In fact, she did. The point is that you challenged her assertion reference to pig fossils with an irrelevant reference to spiders. In fact, the dating of the KBS tuff was rejected because the pig fossils were not the same type.
As I said, Peg gets very few points right. But in this case she did. And you decided to argue and present a totally irrelevant metaphor.
P.S. Spiders regularly cross entire oceans by ballooning on threads of silk, and thereby colonized the Pacific Islands. Can pigs do that?
My inclination would to have left a gross error alone. Do I need to explain why this little tidbit is just so much defensive fluff?
Edited by pandion, : No reason given.