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

Re: What is biomechanics? (or, The Truth About Flying Snakes - Was: Re: science and philosophy)



>> Which just supports my point.  Dromaeosaurs and Troodontids make pretty
poor
>> precurosrs for a flying animal (from a biomechanical point of view), if
you
>> ask me.
>
>OK.  Cladistics: Lesson 1.  Cladistics is not about precursors.  Cladistics
is
>about nearest attested relatives.  Please write this on the blackboard 5000
>times.
>
>--Nick P.



Okay, I'm actually going to bite on this one.


Dear Nick

Which part of "precursors.....from a biomechanical point of view" mentions
cladistics?

What I was talking about was the observation (which is my own, and may or
may not be correct) that cladistics has yet to identify which 'nearest
attested relative' might be able to serve as a model for whatever sort of
dinosaur birds might have evolved from.  You see, I'm actually interested in
what this beast might of looked like.  Believe it or not, I do understand
that we will probably never find the fossil that it directly ancestoral to
birds...but I do beleive that we should be able to deduce, by identifying
'nearest attested relatives', what the dinosaur that spawned birds looked
like.  Oh, and I'm interested in how it may have lived, and all that sort of
stuff too.

You can take your cladistics lesson 1 and....oh well, never mind.  At least,
please don't patronise me.

Sincerely
Colin