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

Re: logic; BCF (going gets tough)

In a message dated 12/9/00 12:20:22 PM EST, kinman@hotmail.com writes:

<< I think it is still up in the air whether or not current dinosaur 
 cladograms are flawed on the question of whether dinosaurs came first (still 
 widely embraced) or birds came first (BCF). >>

One simply cannot tell from a cladogram what the common ancestral forms were 
like for any group of theropod dinosaurs and birds. The common ancestor could 
have been more like dinosaurs, it could have been more like birds, it could 
have been rather unlike either one, or it could have been like a mixture of 
both (whatever that might mean). The orthodox position seems to be that these 
common ancestors were like the dinosaurs (terrestrial cursorial bipeds), but 
there's no basis other than mental inertia for thinking that this should be 
the case. BCF asserts it makes better evolutionary sense to imagine the 
common ancestral forms as being more like birds (arboreal climbers, gliders, 
and fliers), particularly since this provides some pretty obvious reasons for 
a whole lot of features seen in theropod dinosaurs that otherwise have no 
rationale for their existence.