3 ms·

Here is a polished version of my argument: https://marcinciura.wordpress.com/2020/10/11/bad-medicine-the-median-artery-and-microevolution/ https://marcinciura.w

• sradman 6y ago
  > The conclusion of the paper is just bad science, not an example of human microevolution. "Bad science" might be a bit harsh. I read the paper as a call to arms (no pun intended). The data presented in Table 1 is good science but the sample is far too limited to support the paper's subtitle "A microevolutionary change". It is plausible that a microevolutionary change has occurred (ditto environmental change or no change). We need much larger surveys that span populations and geographies to first establish that a change has occurred and then quantify the causal factors. Perhaps the fault lies in the culture surrounding the publishing of scientific papers with an emphasis on strong conclusions rather than unresolved questions. Maybe I'm being too forgiving because I was previously unaware of the adult median artery phenotype. Regardless, your criticism is important and appreciated as is tgbug's point that we are lacking data on population wide anatomical variation.