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

Re: Re-evolving bones?

Tracy Ford wrote (quoting John Hutchinson):
>Horeses regrew there toes? Which hen's have teeth? Which bones so I may 
>be enlightened?
        And whales have hind legs. These are all frequently cited cases of
atavism, a past trait randomly showing up in a present animal. The resulting
animal is not likely to be benefitted. If, however, the "mutation" proves
beneficial, it will increase the chance of the individual reproducing and
passing the atavism on to its progeny. Scientists call this "evolution".

>>otherwise, please, let's get on with some science and be honest about what we
>>do/don't know.
>Thank you for such a KIND comment.
        If you can't stand the heat, get out of the business, or at least
stop diluting the scientific quality of the list with (in John's words)
metaphysical relics".

>So what happens when Paleontologist, nearly completely ignore a group 
>of animals, Prosauropods from their cladagram, because they can't 
>concive them being the ancessor?
        I'll admit that a full cladistic study of the Dinosauria including
the new data on therizinosaurs has yet to be done. However, since every
degreed paleontologist who's oppinion has been quoted to me aggrees that
they are theropods, it seems like there may be better uses for grant money
right now. The cladogramwould be dandy, but I don't see the point in doing
it to satisfy you and George, two people who don't even accept cladistics.
It *should* be done, though, yes.

>Clark, Perle and Norell, only mention a what Sereno, (only 6 things)

>For the record, I'm am well respected and my idea's/theroy's are also 
>welcomed from many a professional paleontologist. THEY have even asked 
>ME what I think about different things.
        Please couch your positions in a scientific manner, using theory and
evidence and reproduceable methodology and all that other good stuff.
Personal reputation (especially as opposed to professional reputation), no
matter how good, just won't cut it. I could hardly care if the Queen of
England (God bless her) knighted you, if your theoretical framework is out
of date, you don't have a leg to stand on.

>And I'm telling everyone now, either Therizinosaurids are Prosauropod 
>descentants or for some strange reason, Herrerrasaur hold overs.
        As John just said, let's please not try to introduce "special
knowledge" into our otherwise rather scientific dinosaur list. If you can
demonstrate this using modern scientific theory, fine. I really cannot,
however, as a responsible soon-to-be scientist, accept your personal
judgement as evidence for an argument (especially without knowledge of your
      Jonathan R. Wagner, Dept. of Geosciences, TTU, Lubbock TX 79409
      "The cost of living hasn't affected its popularity." - Unknown