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

Re: Audobon bird/dino article

bruce thompson wrote:
> >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.

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