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

Re: THEROPOD LUNG UNREALITY.Answer to Terry Jones.



I have decided to answer Terry Jones latest arguments about the SVP
discussion in public, to see if it is useful and fuels some more debate.

L.Rey:
>>I was there when Luis Chiappe rose his voice accusing them of using an
>>outdated and badly reconstructed Archaeopteryx pelvis to make their point
>>and the only answer he could get from them was embarrassed silence.

T. Jones:
>What *evidence* did Chiappe give that convinced you that our reconstruction
>was wrong?  As I remember, my answer was not "embarrassed silence."  What I
>said was that some people we talked to at the meetings said our
>reconstruction may be *slightly* exaggerated, but that the pubis of
>Archaeopteryx was not vertical; it extended *well* beyond the posterior end
>of the ilium and ischium.

L.Rey
Well, you were the experts and the people speaking in authoritative terms
in a public meeting. If you haven't sorted out all the details properly how
would you expect credibility?


L.Rey:
>>I also can testify that all the argument of the collagen fibres in
>>Sinosauropteryx came tumbling down not only as Philip Currie was
>>demonstrating the hollowness of the 'spiny' structures, but right from the
>>moment Jones and Ruben were showing slides of the real collagen fibres
>>(that looked like fuzzy 'fur' and were patently some other kind of tissue
>>that had nothing to do with Sinosauropteryx proto-feather structures).

T.Jones:
>Again, what *evidence* did Phil Curry give?  As I remember, Larry Martin
>stood up and explained that these were not hollow structures, but were, in
>all likelihood, scales.  Remember that 4 members of the "dream team" that
>studied the specimens in great detail agreed that theere was no feather
>structure.  By the way, although my name and Ruben's where on the abstract,
>it was Nick Geist who gave that presentation.

L.Rey:
The micro-photographs that Phil Currie exhibited showed clearly that they
were hollow structures.
So now you go for the 'scale' thing. Well I admit that that sounds much
more reasonable than trying to convince us that they were collagen
fibers... because they are NOT! And it can be deducted just by sight. The
collagen fibers you showed in your slides were nothing similar to the
rather 'thick'(compared to the collagen fibers) structures >covering<
Sinosauropteryx and that can easily be isolated one by one. This has
nothing to do with (again) the furry/fuzzy integument formed by the mass of
collagen fibers.
Besides: Sinosauropteryx structures can be seen on top of the skin not
underneath it. Patches of skin are perfectly discernible, and the
structures are on top of these.
If you accept the 'scale' status of Sinosauropteryx structures then we go
directly for the proto-feather possibility and above all the fact that such
'scaly' coverage can very well be, in fact, insulatory. A good chemical
analysis will help I'm sure.
On the other hand you still haven't answered or showed convincingly that
GSPaul arguments about theropod lungs are false or not good enough... At
least I can say that they are better that trying to give Sinosauropteryx an
'aquatic theropod status'.
Air sacs will convince you at the end.

L.Rey:
>> when some people don't
>>want to see what is in front of them, there is no hope that they will ever
>>see it.

T. Jones:
>We've been saying the same thing.
>
>TDJ

L.Rey:
Ditto.

Luis Rey

Visit my Website on http://www.ndirect.co.uk/~luisrey