And I would not for one nanosecond deny your right to scepticism. However, that is a far cry from saying “most people” agree with you.
Beyond the above comment, all you’re doing is trying to pick another fight Kaeleer. This isn’t one I care that much about, sorry.
You know, you could just have said “I don’t know”. I would have accepted that as an answer as well.
Can you and Kaeleer talk about your use of the word “many” here? She seems to think broad generalizations are OK about draft horses, but not about mitochondrial DNA.
Actually, what I think is that “broad generalisations” which imply that they have their basis in empirical fact, when they don’t, are not okay. Forming an opinion based on “broad generalisations” is.
Perhaps you can’t understand the subtle distinction between YOUR opinion and empirical fact, but for some people, including me, that distinction is not only real, it is quite important.
Unfortunately for you, your arguments are not particularly cogent. Strident foot-stamping and posturing seldom is. If you want to convince me that draft horses (and by this, I don’t mean crosses, I mean a drafts, which is what YOU are asserting) are capable of performing competitive dressage, then by all means find a few. I am well aware that there are some crosses who are competing at dressage, but the question here is not crosses, it is drafts.
Contrary to what you may believe, I have no dog in this fight and I’m more than happy to embrace the idea that drafts can perform dressage at upper level if it can be shown to be so.