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

Re: Doesn't George have a point?

-- Jeffrey Martz <jeffmartz@earthlink.net> wrote:

>     George and I talked about this last week.  

I remember that thread, and it was very interesting,
but its topic was not really what I'm asking about.  I
also sense that this is not what was really discussed
ad nauseum on one or another mailing list.

What I'm asking is really simple.  Is it in line with
prevailing standards of scientific analysis of
prehistoric life to hypothesize that birds are
dinosaur descendants when the dinosaurs the birds are
said to have descended from come after the first birds
in the known fossil record?  I'm certainly not saying
that the answer is "no"; I'm just asking.  

And if the answer is "yes" (as is obviously strongly
suggested by the work of many people on this list),
what is the thinking that makes it so in this
particular case?

One respondant said that it's ok, as we've found that
other lineages go back further than we had
anticipated, and that may very well turn out to be
true of Dromaeosaurs as well.  But as of right now, we
don't have such evidence.  This is really quite a
process-oriented question.


"I've been ionized, but I'm OK now."


Do You Yahoo!?
Get Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere!