[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: FURRY SINODINOS
--- ELurio@aol.com wrote:
> Not really, we can't be sure if dromaeosaurs are
> actually theropods, or
> convergant protobirds.
> eric l.
Absolutely sure? Of course not. But very little in
science is absolute anyway. The most parsimonious
explaination _is_ preferred, but it doesn't have to be
absolute to be parsimonious.
I myself often insisted that birds were not dinosaurs,
I have to say that at this point, there is now little
doubt in my own mind that they are. On the strength
of all the evidence I've seen, it would take an
enormous amount of evidence on the part of ABSRD/BAND
members to convince me otherwise. So far, nothing has
Longisquama is a bit too incomplete (and apparently
not even an archosaur; unless Fedducia et al. want to
redefine archosauria to include exceptions like
Longisquama) to be plausible, it seems. They'll have
to do better. More power to them, of course. More
specimens can only be a good thing.
But I think that as more fossils like these are found,
the Bird-Dinosaur hypothesis will only become
.oO=-Oscar Quill is a nom de something for Scott Elyard-=Oo.
| "The picture of a faithful alligator boundin' into |
| daddy's lap ain't one the public is ready for." |
| --Walt Kelly (Beauregard) |
| Comic: www.oscarquillandcoyle.org |
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices