[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Doesn't George have a point?
Not that I believe that dinosaurs evolved from birds
per se (?A planet where apes evolved from men?!?!??),
but doesn?t George have a point when he says that the
lack of a suitable known dinosaur ancestor of birds in
the appropriate time period raises some really serious
doubts as to the dinosaur ancestry of dinosaurs?
I guess this is actually a question about the
scientific method as it relates to paleontology.
Doesn?t the formation of this hypothesis require that
the temporal bit fall into place as well? As I
understand the facts, there currently isn?t any
specimen of a suitable coelurosaur predating the
earliest fossil birds. Doesn?t that have any bearing
on the formation of a hypothesis? (Or is this wrong?)
Can scientists say, ?other things look very good for
our hypothesis, but we?ll need to keep looking for an
appropriately early ancestor,? and still have a valid
And what is the status of the idea until the suitable
piece of information comes along?
This is not a rhetorical question, or a statement of a
position. It is a quest ... for the truth (dramatic
"I've been ionized, but I'm OK now."
Do You Yahoo!?
Get Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere!