[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: feathers, hair and Compsognathus



Peter Buchholz wrote:

> You said they look like overlapping *things*.  Based on the evidence that NO 
> non-lepidosaur has overlapping scales, AND the fact that birds are theropods, 
> AND this fossil is of a theropod, AND birds have feathers, AND feathers had 
> to start evolving sometime or another; it is more logical to assume that 
> these overlapping things are in fact feathers AND NOT overlapping scales

     Why couldn't overlapping scales develop by anaolgy?  Structurally, 
it would be child's play compared to evolving a complex structure like a 
feather. 
      Mantell might have made the following argument:  Based on the 
evidence that NO known reptile except _Iguanodon_ had ridged, iguana like 
teeth, AND no known reptile was known that looked anything like Iguanodon 
is now known to look, AND the fact that iguanas (or at least Mantell's 
stuffed specimen) had a horn on the nose, and the fact that Mantell's 
_Iguanodon_ specimen was associated with a big, horn looking bone, AND the 
fact that _Iguanodon_ was clearly a reptile, AND had iguana looking teeth; it 
is most logical to assume that _Iguanodon_ was a huge close relative of the 
living iguana. 
      Unlike Mantell, we don't need to make these jumps in logic: science 
has a good specimen.  At this point, we don't have the right to ASSUME anything 
until a careful examination and formal description of the structures is 
completed.  I guess we will just have to WAIT AND SEE.

LN Jeff
0-
"She paints, she reads, she sets things on fire."
[ You could be the next Buster Keaton. -- MR ]