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

Re: Kosher dinos



Heh, heh. If we accept the phylogeny in the Science paper on Eudibamus, then Mesosauridae belongs into Parareptilia/Anapsida, and Reptilia has the same content as Sauropsida, so it can be (yabbadabbadoo) ignored in favor of the latter, and the debate whether we should call a bird and/or another dinosaur a reptile can be ended. Like Huxley said in the 19th century, it is a sauropsid.
 
;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-)
 
If I have understood the logic underlying "kosher", then most theropods would not be kosher and most other dinos would be. B-)
 
I very strongly doubt, however, that a word for "reptile" or anything similar exists in Biblical Hebrew and therefore in the prescriptions on what is kosher...
----- Original Message -----
To: DML
Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2000 6:40 PM
Subject: Kosher dinos

I just came to a humorous realization.  If birds are dinosaurs, then the debate over whether dinsoaurs are kosher has ended.  (No, this is not a popular debate)  Up until now, dinosaurs have been guaged against the mammal kosher guidelines (cloven hooves and chewing of cud), but seeing as no one took into account the evolutionary relationships, everyone thought dinos were unkosher.  But the conundrum now is that no reptile is kosher.  So when is a bird not a reptile?  Or better yet, when is a dinsoaur not a reptile?
 
Looks like cladistics won't affect just the scientific community!
 
Peace out, Demetrios Vital
 
P.S.  I wouldn't lose sleep over this if you eat Kosher (I don't eat Kosher, BTW).