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

Re: A tribute

Yes, congratulations are now due to certain of our prophets – 
but then they always were!

But exactly what *has* been shown now? 

*  That some "dinos" were feathered and related to "birds"?   
Few on this list seriously disputed that. 
*  That the Feduccians were wrong?  I don’t expect any recantations 
in the near future, or indeed ever – just further displays of 
misplaced inventiveness (that doesn’t include the digit thing which 
is still very convincing).  The media, including the top scientific 
journals, will continue to grant their theory equal status.
What has yet to be proved?

*  That the ex-flying condition was at least possible in forms other 
than the most modern birds?  There are as many people who believe 
ratites never flew as believe that.  It is absolutely never even 
considered in any "respectable"  
publication, despite the implausibility of a ratio of zero for 
ex-flying:flying  tailed birds, even amongst known fossils.
*  That the ex-flying condition was the rule rather than the exception 
for at least late K theropods?  To convince people of one example of that
would require a fossil that could fly, yet was undeniably the ancestor 
of the flightless form(s) – but clearly that on its own will not be 
enough, since _Rahonavis_  didn’t do the trick.  We need a sequence of 
forms each so similar to the next that half the experts say they are 
the same species, between a flying form and the flightless descendant.  
Only then will the necessary methodological changes be made – but such 
a sequence of dinos will never be found.

*  That . . .  oh I give up!
- Oh, and another thing - how much of Greg and George's successful 
prediction was due to "cladistics in the current mode"?  Will any credit
be given to non-cladistics for a successful prediction?  I don't think so!
Some applications of "Scientific principles" are more equal than others!
I'd better stop as I'm starting to froth.
[I would be happy if any replies of a cladistic or osteological nature 
were made offline!]
BTW, is my impression correct that Phil Currie is not making any of the 
what I would call mistakes that Kevin Padian is making? 
"Here we go Here we go Here we go . . . .   Oh."