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

Re: Valid Questions



Larry:

    Just my two cents for a minute:  The only places that I have found
references to BCF were on this list, and in some of George's publications.
I have not seen a complete description of it, and look forward to it in
George's 3rd edition of Mesozoic Meanderings #2.

    From what information that I have gotten from the list (from George),
the BCF theory is very elegant and logically built.  However, my problem
with it is that I don't see enough evidence to back BCF versus BADD (or
BAMM) - the fossils are just too few to be absolutely sure in either case.
George himself said that the differences between BCF and BADD would be very
subtle in the fossil record (This was in response to a remark I made
concerning _Scipionyx_).

    For now, I currently feel that BADD (or BAMM) fits the evidence best.  I
do LIKE George's theory. I await more evidence.

        Allan Edels





-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas R. Holtz, Jr. <th81@umail.umd.edu>
To: larryf@capital.net <larryf@capital.net>
Cc: dinosaur@usc.edu <dinosaur@usc.edu>
Date: Monday, August 31, 1998 8:46 AM
Subject: Re: Valid Questions


SNIP

>>Well, I`ve said before, I believe in BCF, so I guess I`ll just have to
>continue asking George my VALID questions. Thank you.
>
>In some ways, this is the most symptomatic part of all.  You "believe" in
>BCF.  Fine.  However, science is not about belief: it is about method.
>Hopefully, what you mean here is "currently, I find that this scenario
>better explains the data as currently known".
>
>Thomas R. Holtz, Jr.
>Vertebrate Paleontologist     Webpage: http://www.geol.umd.edu
>Dept. of Geology              Email:tholtz@geol.umd.edu
>University of Maryland        Phone:301-405-4084
>College Park, MD  20742       Fax:  301-314-9661
>
>