[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: A Converter to the Birds are Dinosaurs Camp(I'VE SEEN THE LIGHT!!!)
I must say, this went fast. :-o
> Since that seems almost certainly the case,then by modern
> classification(which goes by ancestry,rather than physical
> characteristics,if I'm not mistaken)
Well. As you'll easily find out from spending a few hours in the archives
:-) , it goes by ancestry, means, it only accepts groups that descend from
one common ancestor and include all its descendants (e. g., either we
completely stop using Dinosauria, or birds are dinosaurs); and it tries to
find out that ancestry by means of _derived_ physical characteristics.
As an example, in earlier times some people divided the marsupials into
Diprotodonta and Polyprotodonta, those with 2 vs. those with many lower
incisors. The former character is derived, means, it was not present in the
last common ancestor of all marsupials; the latter is not derived but
retained from the last common ancestor of all marsupials. Accordingly, the
term Diprotodont(i)a is still in use (because the reduction of tooth number
happened only once), while the term Polyprotodonta is dead.
> Also,I find it more than a little hard to swallow that the vast majority
> the scientific community who agree with the idea are either liars or
> delusional fools.This many people in agreement MUST BE ON TO SOMETHING!
To be honest, it wouldn't be the first time that the vast majority of the
scientific community were delusional fools. :-) It would, however, probably
be the first time that there's any lie in this penniless field of research.