[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
The question of beaks in simplistic terms
Let me restate for those of you who care, in the most simplistic, elementary
terms that I possibly can muster, my opinions on the issue of dinosaur beaks.
These opinions, though stated as TENTATIVE, lean towards saying that;
1) Havin' teeth has not been shown to negate a beak.
2) Owing to the fact that so little preservation of such items are known,
correlations as in claw sheath preservation yet no beak preservation means
there was no beak, that have been stated in the past, are at best wild guesses
that ignore differential deacy. What results are arguments that resemble
grasping at straws in an effort to find an answer that is unknown.
3) If a beak or another form of covering is found on some animal, it would only
clear up the issue for that particular species. It would not apply to all.
I see no evidence whatsoever that says there was a lack of beaks, in one form
or another, even though I know that there is no positive evidence at this time
in favor for them. No one has come close to showing that teeth negate the
presence of a beak. No one has shown me a variation contained in beaked animals
today that was not present in dinosaurs.
All my opinions are still TENTATIVE. This is not a done deal. Teeth do not
negate a beak. If some think that there is something present on the skulls of
dinosaurs that in some way unambiguously shows that none of them had beaks and
teeth, then feel free to show me how this is so.