[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: birds DID NOT evolve from therapods
There should be some sort of rule about posting under the influence...
The antagonism-come-mirth that is exhibited throughout your post suggests
that you are either a) attemtping to get a reaction or b) inexperienced at
debating in scientific forums. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and
play it straight.
I have been reading the archives recently and I have been struck by the
venomousness of the attacks on anyone who DARES contradict the fanciful
notion that birds evolved from therapod dinosaurs. I was so disgusted I
opened a hotmail account and subscribed to this list, just to air my
Congratulations on your experience exercising first amendment rights. While
the tone of posts on the list is playful, using terms like "fanciful" while
disputing a nearly unanimously held concept in science does not bolster your
air of impartiality.
Such self-appointed ?experts? as Thomas Holtz, Jaime Haedden, Mickey
Mortimer, Tim Williams, and George Olshevky seem barely able to disguise
theiur contempt for such a esteemed, world-respected scientist as John
This is what's known as an "ad hominem" attack, meaning you are
attacking the people who advocate an idea, not the idea itself. This is
widely considered by experts (self styled and otherwise) to be one of the
fastest ways to lose credibility in a scientific debate. Interestingly, the
"world-respected" scientist John Ruben (however you quantify THAT) submitted
an abstract this year on the politics of dinosaur paleontology. I'll let
your draw your own conclusions. (actually, Ruben's paper is probably a
reflection of his frusturation with collegues who disagree with him.
However, when "everyone is lost but you" in science, the burden of proof is
on the minority, and like it or not, the "birds are not dinosaurs" group has
failed to make an overwhelming case, no matter how badly they wish it to be
Laugh all you want buddy. Ruben and his colleagues now far more about
vertebrate metabolism than you ever will. Birds are WARM-BLOODED.
Therapod dinosaurs were COLD-BLOODED.<<<
Although Ruben has a previous history publishing fairly mainstream
works on non-mammalian synapsid metabolism, I'm not sure I could attest to
his (et al.) omniescence when it comes to vertebrate physiology. For
example, from shaky taphanomic data they concluded largely unsubstantiatable
inferences about pulmonary function in theropods, (e.g. they inferred that
the stain in a Sinosauropteryx specimen represented an orthographic
representation of the outline of the liver in life, even though in the same
specimen the stain representing the eye is larger than the orbit).
Didn?t you read his two papers in Science...??? No I suppose not - too
busy spitting venom at Ruben and co. <<<
Obviously many people on the list have read his Science articles,
although some of them may have been too busy reading papers in Nature...
Longisquama is about as close as we?re going to get to the origin of
birds. Get used to that fact. Ruben is ON THE BALL!!> And Al Feduccia
too. try reading his book - you'll actually learn something guys! <<<
There's not much I can respond to here. The use of facts will never
hurt your case; give it a shot. Re Fedducia's book: I'm sorry, but the
first few chapters are the sorriest excuse for scientific discourse I have
ever had the misfortune of reading. And I'm not referring to his
conclusions, but rather the methodlology. Attempting to discredit all
cladistic studies by selectively quoting a few he thinks were wrong, for
example. Or referring to a problem with stratigraphic incongruity, even
though there would be a larger gap in the fossil record from Longisquama to
Archaeopteryx than from Deinonychus to Archaeopteryx.
Not content with putting feathers on therapods now you want to put wings
on them as well. <<<
Had you actually been at SVP Boseman you might have glimpsed a new
specimen of dromaeosaur that obviously had wings, and strongly looked like a
barbed and rachied feather. So yup, they had wings, which probably
preceeded flight, although some groups may have been secondarily flightless.
As for the rest of you ? WAKE UP!! Therapods couldn?t leap from trees
(pay attention TW and GO !!), no matter how vivid your imagination is.<<<
Actually, I agree, which is why I presented a plausible aerodynamic
model for a ground up origin of aerodynamic surfaces. And this year a
plausible (and charismatic!) hypothesis was put forward on the transition
from winged non-flyers to flyers from the ground up.
The rest of your post was a bunch of personal attacks on people you
disagree with, so I won't respond to them. I, and I suspect the rest of the
list, would welcome you to actually present evidence that would disprove the
dinosaur-bird link. But that requires data, not name calling. Give it a
shot. The worst that could happen is you may gain a better understanding of
the issues, and at best, you might be the Gallileo of paleontology.
"In order to be the next Gallileo, it is not enough merely to be persecuted
by an orthodoxy; you also have to be right." -C. Sagan
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp