"If forams smaller than 150 micrometers exist (and they do), they end up in the sink and do not appear in the figures," p158.
I am astounded that scientists would come to the conclusion that the size of forams [Foraminifera] is increasing, knowing that they are neglecting and failing to record all forams smaller than 150 micrometers. It is like having the hypothesis that suspect X is the murderer and ignoring all evidence that points to other suspects. Obviously, the data supports your hypothesis if you ignore all other data. The book, Bad Pharma, illustrates that drug companies make this error when they stop drug trials midway through the trial. If the data supports the drug: publish; if the data shows that the drug is harmful or no better than a placebo: do not publish. Therefore, the research that drug companies are doing to test their own drugs is disproportionately in favor of their drugs.
"There is no apparent...tendency to favor size increase; there is no strong indication of size-dependent longevity, and there is no indication of size dependence in speciation or extinction rates," p161
Gould uses the example of forams' size as a substitute for complexity. It taken for granted that throughout evolutionary time, size of the forams increased just as the obvious fact of increasing complexity and progress throughout evolutionary time. Both have little evidence to back it up (Gould is extremely convincing in his argument.) I see the connection, but I am wondering if the findings of "no indication of size dependence in speciation or extinction rates" is transferable to complex organisms. Gould does not answer my question in the following chapters, but I have a hunch (obviously a very testable hunch, and I know the danger of hunches) that more complex organisms and more specialized organisms are more prone to extinction.
No comments:
Post a Comment