Stardate 20010607.1212 (On Screen): Correlation does not prove causation. Sometimes I wish that could be tattooed on the forehead of every scientist out there. In this case some researchers have dated bones and concluded that the extinction of numerous large animal species in Australia and the Americas happened within a few thousand years of when humans arrived. This is suggestive but it is not proof. They also didn't bother explaining why it was so selective. Why were the mammoths extinguished, but not the elk, llama, bison or moose? Why do the mammoths' smaller cousins the African and Asian elephants still survive?
In fact, it may be true that the mammoths (and other large animal species they analyzed) were destroyed by humans. What I object to is their claim to have proved it. They've done nothing of the kind. Can we make a class in "Post Hoc Fallacy" a requirement for a science education, please? (rant)
