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

More on Speculation

     (note: the topic is MORE ON SPECULATION, not MORON SPECULATION!).
Anyway I`d like to again point out that the "speculation" I am talking about
is the use of established physiological and evolutionary principles, which
we must apply if we want to establish any kind  of "complete" or total view
of the Dinosaur Phylogeny. There just isn`t enough hard fossil evidence. For
example, the BCF vs BADD argument, no way can it presently be determined by
fossil comparison alone. What is needed is some fossil sequence, (comparable
to what we are fortunate enough to have in the forms leading to modern
Equus),where we can accurately date both ends of the sequence, and thus
determine the direction of the evolutionary path. This sequence we just
don`t have. As a hypothetical example, ...if someday is found an
archaeopteryx type fossil, where this archie is being devoured by a
something else that is practically bone for bone identical to the archie,
but both were caught in a volcanic mud flow, and somehow even the feathers
were preserved, showing as well as the typical archie feathers, some few
sparse feathers (not enough for flight) on that other "non-avian theropod"
type thing that was doing the devouring,...then both sides would be arguing
till doomsday which was the other`s ancestor.
     My point is, in this case of BADD vs BCF, despite any single fossil
find being made in China, or wherever, the choice between BADD and BCF must
be made on the grounds of physiological and evolutionary argument. And I
just happen to think that the "trees down" argument (already well
documented) makes a hell of a lot more sense.