[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: DISSENTERS(What would we do without...)
><<No, it's not hearsay. The argument that birds and dinosaurs are not
>directly related (just distantly and a 'thecodontian' level) is what he
>have been defending from the very beginning. Everyone of his recent
>talks have been directed to try to demonstrate this, making him closest
>to Feduccia's arguments.>>
>Even if this were true, what is wrong about it? Differing opinions help
>make science science.
Couldn't agree more. I've been a dissenter and I am still in quite a few
things. What could be more diametrically opposed than the views of Luis
Chiappe (or Kevin Padian) and George Olshevsky on avian evolution? And
there I have been swaying between the two, having excellent logic
discussions with these two sides and balancing the facts and hypothesis
making my own mind about the whole debate.
I heard and balanced Ruben, Feduccia and Martin's arguments. They are fun
to hear once in a while, but I suspect that their views are even more
personality- directed than the dinosaur-bird link lovers.
Not a bad thing in itself, but that also leaves me the freedom to select
what I think is more 'objective' or 'possible'. And try to be aware of
>From what I have heard and read, Ruben has never
>really come down on either side of the debate. Last time I checked, he
>was arguing for a close relation between birds and theropods, and
>indirectly some 'thecodontian' groups
These have not been Ruben's arguments. At least since last SVP, when he
tried to debunk Caudipteryx from being a dinosaur based on a tiny
characteristic of the skull, ignoring the rest of the skeleton. If I
remember correctly , he said that Currie was wrong in his reconstruction
and that the jugal (in his view) didn't touch the quadratojugal (I might be
confused here but I don't think so) so this made Caudipteryx a bird and NOT
a dinosaur (his words).
In any case the hepatic piston of Caudipteryx should be inquestionable (in
his view) so...
>One thing that troubles me greatly is the attitude that
>there is something wrong with somebody who argues against the
Well, I hope that is not the impression I'm giving (he said snidely), since
I have been trying to raise specific arguments backed with data and papers.
If it is because my posts are not long enough... I'm sorry.
And still nobody is answering my question on Archaeopteryx...
Visit my website on http://www.ndirect.co.uk/~luisrey
- From: "Matthew Troutman" <firstname.lastname@example.org>