Creation Moment 3/23/2024 - "uncritical use of evidence"

Behold, they are all vanity; their works are nothing: their molten images are wind and confusion. Isaiah 41:29

"The issue of Geology asks, “Has the utility of Dicynodon for Late Permian terrestrial biostratigraphy been overstated?” Authors Angielczyk and Kurkin lament the uncritical use of these bones to correlate geographically separated beds:

"Our analysis includes two species referred to Dicynodon that occur only in Russia and the type species that occurs in southern Africa.

Our results suggest that these three species do not form a clade to the exclusion of all other dicynodonts; the alternative hypothesis of a monophyletic Dicynodon is more weakly supported. Although preliminary, our analysis challenges the use of Dicynodon for biostratigraphic correlations between Russia and South Africa, and we urge caution in using this taxon to correlate other widely separated basins. This study also emphasizes that without phylogenetic information, there is no guarantee that named taxa represent biologically real entities, and the uncritical use of named taxa can easily lead to spurious biostratigraphic correlations."

In other words, 

---assuming that similar looking bones belong to the same genus, 

---or that they evolved from a common ancestor, 

---and then using them to tie together a story of global extinction, 

*is not necessarily supported by the evidence.

Geologists and paleontologists come up with stories of world-wide extinctions due to meteorite impacts that make for good TV animations, but are they based on “uncritical use” of evidence? 

Q: When the uncritical use of evidence leads to contradictions and absurdities, who is heeding the call to be cautious, so as not go build a story on “spurious biostratigraphic correlations”?" 

CEH