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

Re: "Feathery fossil shows birds aren't dinosaurs"

Dinogeorge wrote...

>Come on, man! Arguing that if something is absent from the fossil record
>it didn't ever exist is hogwash, and you know it.

    That was exactly my point.  It applies just as well to bird-like
Jurassic dromeosaurs as it does to dino-birds (and the entire population of
Archaeopteryx).  You were making the argument that the fact that all known
really bird-like theropods come after Archaeopteryx is a problem for the
idea that Archaeopteryx is descended from bird-like dromeosaurs rather then
vice-versa.  My point is that a missing fossil record doesn't mean that they
weren't around in the Jurassic.  How can say the argument that "something is
abesent from the fossil record then it didn't ever exist is hogwash" in
support of BCF, but use that same argument against the existence of
bird-like Jurassic dromeosaurs proceeding Archaeopteryx?

LN Jeff

You have to study a great deal to know a little.
-Baron de Montesquieu

They may forget what you said, but they will never forget the way you made
them feel.
-Carl W. Buehner
Jeffrey W. Martz
3002 4th St. #C26
Lubbock, TX
(806) 747-7910