From: "Jaime A. Headden" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: A Word on ABSRD
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 21:54:09 -0800 (PST)
Ken Kinman (email@example.com) wrote:
<I have expressed my hopes that the "Birds Came First" Theory is
actually true, because it could very well turn out that "birds"
(not Aves) did evolve from very primitive dinosaurs or even
This is not BCF, this is Chatterjee's perspective. BCF holds
that so-called avian morphology was kickstarted in the Triassic
and that dinosaurs have become explicitly terrestrial from an
arboreal ancestor, to which they _returned_ in the maniraptoran
fold, then "true" birds.
<Whether we then expand Aves to include maniraptors is a bridge
we will have to cross if and when we get there.>
"Aves" has been classically used to include *Archaeopteryx*
since the 1860's. Gauthier explicitly stated this, and Chiappe
refined it by framing the statement in phylogenentic terms.
<Whether BAM is totally right or not, today's cladistic
algorithms will probably be considered extremely primitive a few
decades hence, and there's probably a lot more computer garbage
being generated than you might think.>
Hmm. Just because the computer algorhithms 20 years hence will
be better than those now, therefore better at retrieving input
than now, is like saying the PT Cruiser's specializations make
it obscene why anyone would built the Ford Model T, forgetting
that that same vehicle was a certain improvement over the
horseless carriage, and the horse-drawn carriage before them.
Just as Keesey said, PT is a step or two above Linnean taxonomy,
returning to refine a dead horse is to say the Model T was a bad
course and we might just put wheels on the horse instead. [Only
an example, anyway.]
Jaime A. Headden
Where the Wind Comes Sweeping Down the Pampas!!!!
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/