Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 00:42:26 -0500
To: David McDougall
From: Andrew Arensburger <>
Subject: Re: Mitochonrdrial Eve is Younger Than First Thought 

On Mon, 09 Feb 1998 20:33:02 PST, David McDougall wrote:
> At 06:34 PM 2/9/98 -0500, Andrew Arensburger wrote:
> >	You seem to have missed my intent: take a look at the
> >quotations from Henry McHenry and Dean Falk. In the first case, Patton
> >omits a crucial bit of context: McHenry is only talking about a single
> >bone, but Patton makes it sound as if he is talking about the entire
> >body.
> >	This means Patton is dishonest.
> He is not dishonest and has never been interested in anything but the facts
> as far as I can see.

	Did he, or did he not omit important context to make it sound
as if McHenry was talking about more than a single bone?

> >	In the second case, Patton adds to the text: Falk's article
> >says that it is not clear whether the specimen in question is of the
> >genus _Homo_ or the genus _Australopithecus_. Patton *inserts* the
> >words "Homo habilis," which makes it sound as if there was no doubt.
> >	This means Patton is a liar.
> Australopithecus is the biggest fraud of all of the supposed categories of
> "ancestral man."

	That's beside the point. Did Patton, or did he not add to the
text he was quoting, thereby changing its meaning?

> On the other hand, if this is all you can find
> in the sea of evidence against your beloved "science," then it speaks
> volumes as to the lack of actual evidence you have to support your faith.

	No, this is just the point where I got bored and stopped. And
the two examples above are just the most egregious examples of
Patton's dishonesty (the others are all at the URL I sent you).

> >	On top of this, in the section on Noah's Ark, Patton
> >demonstrates his inability to use a simple mathematical formula
> >correctly, not to mention the fact that he didn't bother checking his
> >assumptions against published data.
> If the published data is erroneous, why can't he publish the truth?

	Sure he can. My point is that he just pulled a number out of
his hat, when published figures were available. If he thought they
were correct, he could have used them. If he thought they were
incorrect, he should have said so.

	Oh, and should I take your silence as meaning that you agree
that he used his formula incorrectly?

> Patton has the same
> credentials as any other of these so-called PhDs in their fields and just as
> much "right" to publish the facts as he honestly sees them as do they.

	Okay, I'll bite:
	What degrees does Patton hold?
	What fields are they in?
	What insititutions are they from?
	What has he published?
	What has he published in peer-reviewed journals?

	The last two questions shouldn't take more than a few minutes
with a good abstract search engine (available at most university
libraries). As for the first three, I'll make it easy on you:
according to , Patton's e-mail
address is . You can ask him yourself, if you like.

Andrew Arensburger, Systems guy         Center for Automation Research                     University of Maryland
                Oh no! The creationists are mutating!

Chapter 21 | Chapter 23