[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: ABSRD Absurdities
These people are becoming the shame of the Science community.
So we have specialized "crystal mineral filtrations" for different parts of the
body that include barbules all along the long fibers and soft pliable hair on
top of the snout?
How much 'skin decay' you need to cover that area around the arms?
Pity that Ruben wasn't around 90 million years ago to comb the soft tissue and
sell it to us as fried collagen fibers... in any case, he wouldn't have anough
skin or muscle around the arms anyway...a wig or a
broomstick would have helped.
Do we ever need to comment on Storrs Olson comments in the first place? Does he
deserve any credence?
Nah. Ego-tripping bitter people don't make good scientists.
I have had time to read and digest the Nature paper since yesterday (I've got
my advanced issue yesterday midday). Even the scaly skin is preserved around
the foot and is clearly shown in the photographs... do
we need more perfection than that!?
Steve Brusatte wrote:
> Quoting Storrs Olson from an AP article published today (4-25):
> "To me it's the best specimen yet showing that these structures are not
> feathers. There's nothing there that has a structure like a feather."
> He went onto add, according to the article, that the structures Norell et al.
> call feathers "could be many things, including impressions of decaying skin
> or feathery mineral crystals common to many fossils."
> The excuses are getting weaker and weaker!
Visit my website on http://www.ndirect.co.uk/~luisrey