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

Re: (intentionally left blank?)



-----Original Message-----
From: Dinogeorge@aol.com <Dinogeorge@aol.com>
To: ornstn@home.com <ornstn@home.com>; dinosaur@usc.edu <dinosaur@usc.edu>
Date: Monday, November 01, 1999 9:05 PM
Subject: Re: (intentionally left blank?)


>In a message dated 11/1/99 7:11:36 PM EST, ornstn@home.com writes:
>
><< Calling them all birds, or
> archosaurs, or rhipidistian fishes, brings us no closer to the answer to
> that question. >>
>
> Neither does anything else. The only way to break out of the endless
circle
>of debates and counterdebates at this point is to simply stop debating and
>counterdebating. There is no way we're going to understand the evolution of
>birds or dinosaurs without a time machine to check our hypotheses and weed
>out the falsifiable ones.
>

Or maybe a better sampling of the fossil record to fill in the gaps would be
convincing, like a clearly dated sequence of theropods to birds or bird to
theropods (...more likely...8^).

Or perhaps discovery of more convincing truely flighted avian forms in the
Triassic, or even th e Early Jurassic would be nice. I thing we all mostly
agree that birds didn`t evolve twice (or more) independently.

Heck,...maybe some day someone will discover the hypothetical pterosaur-bird
I keep talking about! ....(that would certainly be nice!). So let`s make
sure that those important  areas where the fossil record seems especially
blank, are not left that way (intentionally or otherwise). Dig we must! (as
CON EDISON would say).

PS....I think the field of dinosaur science would be a lot more boring if it
weren`t for the arguements! (although it would be nice to avoid the personal
ones if possible).