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

The Stephen Czerkas argumentation

  I think various viewpoints re: the science of the
Sylvia Czerkas compendium have been advanced, and I
believe Stephen has been reading and assimilating the
more thorough analyses. Perhaps, if a second edition
is released, he will necessarily revise  the incorrect
and unscientific extrapolations, correct  the
unprovable topological mantras, as I believe he rushed
into print without more thorough peer review. Mickey
Mortimer's critique, in particular, has been
lambasted, but I find its careful observations to be
"on the mark", and at no time did I think he was
personalizing his discussion of the specimens.  Part
of the scientific process is having one's ideas
examined and examined and examined, and Stephen's
theropod phylogenies are not correct.
   Thus, I believe it is time for the rhetorical
flourishes, and the incessant bitching about
grammatical nuances etc. etc. to cease. Unless one has
another diagnosable specimen to compare with the
Czerkas dinosaurs ("Archaeoraptor" or whatever name
one chooses for the nestling, which is not the
revolutionary event perhaps Stephen thought it was, in
1999 or 2002), then what is transpiring on this forum
are sandbox tantrums. 

Do you Yahoo!?
New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!