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

Dinogeorge Digest #10



Subj:   Re: MORE ON BCF
Date:   98-07-11 16:55:24 EDT
From:   Dinogeorge
To:     vonrex@gte.net, Danvarner, jwoolf@erinet.com

In a message dated 98-07-11 14:26:18 EDT, vonrex@gte.net writes:

<< As for BCF, I can only add my own sentiments: BFD.  I am
 personally sick unto death of hearing a few individuals' long-winded
 tirades and counter-tirades on the subject.  But knock yourselves
 out...that's merely my take on it. Without a fuller picture from the fossil
 record, it seems pointless to get too dogmatic about any of this. >>

I agree. Almost every discussion on this list would benefit from a fuller
fossil record. There is no way to test or confirm any but the most trivial
hypotheses about dinosaur endothermy; dinosaur behavior, habits, ecology, and
lifestyles; dinosaur phylogeny and relationships; dinosaur diseases; and
dinosaur life appearance (color, stance, and so forth). On this list,
therefore, we should discuss nothing but historical aspects of dinosaurology,
dinosaur descriptions and nomenclature, and the reconstruction and life
restoration of existing dinosaur specimens in motion pictures and as art.

Subj:   Re: Disney's DINOSAURS
Date:   98-07-10 12:41:53 EDT
From:   Dinogeorge
To:     bchoo@cyllene.uwa.edu.au

In a message dated 98-07-10 12:19:40 EDT, bchoo@cyllene.uwa.edu.au writes:

<< Watching the Stravinsky's "Right of Spring" sequence in Fantasia...
 Is that a (3-fingered) _Tyrannosaurus_ finishing off a stegosaur? (Isn't
that an anachronism or something??) >>

Given that it's a stegosaur, and given the three-fingered hand, the most
parsimonious interpretation of the cartoon is that the theropod is an
allosaur of some kind, not a tyrannosaur. (But if so, what are all those
duckbills doing there??)

Subj:   Re: MORE ON BCF
Date:   98-07-09 22:47:32 EDT
From:   Dinogeorge
To:     m_troutman@hotmail.com

In a message dated 98-07-09 19:16:12 EDT, m_troutman@hotmail.com writes:

<< <<Where the "standard model" and BCF diverge is at the beginnings of 
 flight. BCF contends that the Triassic and pre-archaeopterygid Jurassic 
 ancestors of birds were far more birdlike in their arboreal lifestyle 
 and ability to fly--that is, to control their passage through the 
 air--than the "standard model" says.>>
 
 Of course, there is little to no fossil evidence of this taking place.   >>

Just as an aside, there is also little to no fossil evidence that the
Triassic and pre-archaeopterygid Jurassic ancestors of birds were >not< more
birdlike than the "standard model" says! >None< of the known Triassic or
Jurassic theropods besides _Archaeopteryx_ shows the >slightest< degree of
any flying ability whatsoever. The standard model prefers to >speculate<
about pre-archaeopterygids by analyzing Cretaceous theropods that occur well
after _Archaeopteryx_ in the fossil record and which could therefore be
modified to an entirely indeterminate degree from the their
pre-archaeopterygid common ancestral form. BCF, on the other hand, speculates
from commonsense and quite easily understood arguments of physics and
evolutionary theory.

Now, if the "standard model" (BADD) asserts that the post-archaeopterygid
birdlike theropods are >not< much modified from their common-ancestral form,
despite scores of millions of years of independent evolution, but at the same
time asserts that avian flight appeared rapidly, just before the appearance
of _Archaeopteryx_, in standard-looking theropods that had become >much<
modified from their common-ancestral form in fewer than ten million years,
then this is a glaring inconsistency. Why should small theropods evolve
slowly just when it suits the standard model, and also rapidly just when it
suits the standard model?