[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Audobon bird/dino article
bruce thompson wrote:
> WE HAVE NO FOSSIL RECORD FOR WHERE BATS COME FROM AT ALL.
> >b)Frogs didn't start in the trees.
> Surely this is a semantical objection. Ultimately, nothing
> "started" in trees.
It's quite possible that the semantics were being bandied about here.
Frogs becoming tree frogs before they became gliding frogs I can live
Bats however show as much scientific evidence of being related to
rabbits as they do to primates
The evidence to a relationship with primates is due to similarities of
the skeleton of early primates and modern bats. Same number of fingers,
similar skulls, age they live, etc.
The evidence to a relationship with rabbits is based on a genetic test
where bats were compared to a number of animals and found to be most
similar to rabbits. (Rabbits don't climb trees and haven't generally
in their evolutionary past.)
The evidence to a fossil evolution of a bat SHOULD show this modern
scientific quandary, but NOOOo00o0o0,
Mr. Feduccia already knows where bats come from.
Heck, THAT should be more news-worthy than an article on how closely
birds are related to dinosaurs!
You got a group that represents the greatest number of species of
mammals after Rodentia, no one knows where they come from, and Mr
Feduccia says they come from -without a doubt-down out of trees.
On another note about why he bugs me:
He doesn't say that the people who are trying to prove him wrong are
mistaken in their findings, no, he compares them to a famous scientific
fraud, insinuating that The Chinese and perhaps Phil Currie are LYING.
the reply-to in this e-mail is a spam trap
mail e-mail replies to firstname.lastname@example.org