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

Re: The question of beaks in simplistic terms

Kris Kripchak (MariusRomanus@aol.com) wrote:

<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.>

  Just to make sure, but I want to ask the opinion of anyone, if this post
is to imply my use of any tooth vs. beak argument? I made none, nor
implied one, nor assume one (as a personal effect, my statement of
refutation of Paul's beaked dromaeosaurs had nothing to do with teeth, but
foramina and texture on the premax and anterior dentary, and stated so
explicitly). If this has led to Kris' statement of some form of strawman
on my part, I'd like to know _what_ he thinks is a strawman in my
argument, considering I made no parable to describe a beak's presence or
absence under any conditions, just extant species and fossil equivalents
and what they show, preserving or not, etc.

  Please, a clarification is in order.


Jaime A. Headden

  Little steps are often the hardest to take.  We are too used to making leaps 
in the face of adversity, that a simple skip is so hard to do.  We should all 
learn to walk soft, walk small, see the world around us rather than zoom by it.

"Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969)

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!