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


In a message dated 98-08-02 15:06:12 EDT, cbrochu@fmppr.fmnh.org writes:

<< Actually, this is precisely the thing that makes BCF an "umbrella
 hypothesis."  Given the weight of *all available evidence*, BCF is not the
 simplest explanation; but given a few transformations that might seem
 problematic in isolation, BCF seems outwardly to fare better. >>

I've read with comprehension every evolutionary hypothesis that relates
dinosaurs and birds. BCF is the simplest and most straightforward. It has no
problematic transformations at all. Some may have problems with BCF, but
that's not because BCF is intrinsically problematic.

Remember, the sequence of animals that leads from the common ancestor of
archosaurs to birds lies along the >spine< of the Hennigian comb, >not< along
the tips of the comb's teeth.