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

Re: Bad as opposed to BADD

At 04:32 PM 10/27/96 -0500, George Oleshevsky wrote:
        So let's see where "BCF" comes from...


>mrowe@indiana.edu (Mickey P. Rowe) wrote:
>> Despite what he might have us believe, George does not hold the corner
>> on the market on the idea that flight evolved first in arboreal forms.
>> I suspect that idea is older than George is (it's most certainly
>> decades older than "BCF").

        Proposed by Bakker, amongst others...


>[...]it is virtually certain that Greg Paul's idea that
>dromaeosaurs were the flightless descendants of [pre-]archaeopterygids is


>BCF asserts that theropod dinosaurs were the giant cursorial descendants of
>the arboreal archosaur lineage some of whose small, arboreal members
>eventually evolved into birds.
>BCF extends Greg's idea [...]
        This is the only origional element of "BCF" that I can find, other
than the origional synthesis of the work of others.  It is certainly an
interesting idea.  So where do you take this?


>More and more paleontologists are reading the earlier _Mesozoic Meanderings_
>#2 editions and coming to see that, yes by golly, there is some sense to BCF.
>dinosaur-bird connection, will become the dominant paradigm of dinosaur
>evolution. BADD, inchoate mass that it presently is, will eventually "merge"
>with BCF: consciously or unconsciously, it's happening even as we exchange
>these e-mails.

        We have just seen that your theory is merely a synthesis of he
theories of others, with a little twist of Olshevsky in the phylogeny.  What
we are seeing today is the acceptance of these "parts of your theory", which
are really theories in and of themselves.  I do not see "BCF" becoming the
"dominant paradigm" of dinosaur paleontology.  In the case you mention in
your post, the new Madagascar bird, we are currently seeing the vindication
of careful study (and perhaps a little speculation) on the part of Greg Paul
and others.  I'm afraid that you and your theory cannot take the credit for
the vindication of Paul, any more than you can take credit for the dozens of
scientists who believe the "arboreal theory" (which, to be perfectly honest,
seems to me to be as much of a "hodgepodge" as you say "BADD" is).
        I will read any publication I can get my hands on.  Heck, I'll read
Feduccia's new book, and I'll bet that, "by golly", there'll be some sense
there too.  I'm sorry, I have never heard of a respected dinosaur
paleontologist accepting the core of your theory.  Perhaps there are some, I
would not know, because they certainly aren't advertising the fact.
        I'm sure that there are plenty of scientists out there (and there's
me, too) who do not wholly discount the core of "BCF" as a possibility, but
for them to believe, that core will have to demonstrated scientifically.
Your going to have to find some evidence that all dinosaurs are decendants
of "dino-birds".  The increasing support for other theories, which just
happen to be incorporated into your theory will not bolster the basic lake
of evidence for it's main premise, because, as you consistantly fail to
realize, just because you wrap a theory into a nice tight little package
does not make it a better theory.  Each part of it must be able to stand up
to independant test.

| Jonathan R. Wagner                    "You can clade if you want to,     |
| Department of Geosciences              You can leave your friends behind |
| Texas Tech University                  Because your friends don't clade  |
| Lubbock, TX 79409                               and if they don't clade, |
|       *** wagner@ttu.edu ***           Then they're no friends of mine." |
|           Web Page:  http://faraday.clas.virginia.edu/~jrw6f             |