[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.