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

Audobon bird/dino article



I've gone and read the Audobon article on bird/dino links.
I've seen the pictures of Sino**/Compsognathus  prima.
My general observations of the pictures:

1) those 'feathers' look a lot like some fish scale fossils I've seen of
fossil fish with erect dorsal spines.  Or hair.  Don't look
particularily feathery to me.  Want to wait till we see some micro
photgraphy of them.

2) It's interesting how the feather-things are grouped along the tail. 
The feathery things seem to run along the spine in a big, solid path
until the tail.  The bottom 2/3rds of the tail has displayed along both
sides of the tail but grouped in patches with an entire vertebrae spaced
between individual clumps along the tail.  
Would this have been indicative of rings of feather things seperated by
bald rings all around the tail or would it have been indicative of two
paired clumps of feather things appearing spaced along the tail?

3) Awful lot of dark organic looking material around that intestinal
area.  Wonder what it ate?

4) The double-page spread has been retouched in Photoshop or other
photo-manipulating software on at least the middle-left-hand side. 
There are some rock pattern rings which are repeated like wallpaper. 
This looks like the editors were merely trying to make the page pretty
by removing the edge of the fossil and table (from above the text on the
bottom left) and cloning parts of the rock to cover it up just above the
text but I don't like it.  Don't take THIS photograph as pure research
material.

My general observations of the text:
FEDUCCIA:  doesn't sound like a good scientist to me
1) he makes out-and-out-statements of fraud about other scientists who
are trying to refute his theory by presenting priliminary (photgraphic)
evidence:             "I've studied enlarged photos of that thing, and
I'll tell you this, those aren't feathers."  
                       Alluding to a fraudulent human fossil, he adds,
"I call it the Pilt-down dinosaur."
He bases this statement on photgraphic study.  He has not SEEN the
fossil in question and he claims these people are creating a hoax. 
That's not good science to me.

2) He includes animals in his arguments against a close bird/dino
relationship that we HAVE NO FOSSIL EVIDENCE FOR as gospel scientific
proof for an argument.
            "Well, any engineer will tell you that's aerodynamically
impossible.  In every group of 
             animals that flies or glides-BATS, frogs, snakes,
squirrels-it's evolved from the trees down."
a)What possible evidence does he have for bat origins?  Everything we
have that's been identified as a fossil bat is because it has batwings
and already flies.  WE HAVE NO FOSSIL RECORD FOR WHERE BATS COME FROM AT
ALL.
b)Frogs didn't start in the trees.  

IN GENERAL: of special inetrest
1) the AMNH has > 2 < brooding Oviraptors-only one has been prepared so
far.  The other is the one we already know and love.
2) the "chickadee-size enantiornithine from China"
3) a Jurassic ornithurine 
              "About the same time as Archeoptyrx, argue Feduccia and
his 
              paleo-ornithologist colleague from the University of
Kansas, 
              Larry Martin, who site a sparrow-size bird unearthed
recently in China"

Comments?

-- 
           Betty Cunningham  
the reply-to in this e-mail is a spam trap
mail e-mail replies to bettyc@flyinggoat.com