[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: "Yale settles debate: Birds are dinosaurs"
Well... I guess you can call it a good thing that Feduccia and the gang haven't
said a single thing in reply... but I wouldn't discount the possibility that
they weren't even asked to begin with.
And on a stronger note... The politics where a hypothesis is quoted as being a
known fact because of cladistics makes my blood boil, and I'm sure I'm not
alone. If I could be so bold... This article really is a good in-your-face
example of dogma. There really is no hard evidence that says without a shadow
of a doubt that the flight style mechanism of the avian hand evolved for prey
grasping,... yet more often than not, it is treated as such. Logic points
toward arboreal activity as being just as likely a possibility, and some see it
as being even more so.
But in the end, I have to express the same opinion as some of you already have
by saying that I truly have no idea why anyone even bothered to write the
article. Without the intention of upsetting anyone, I'm lead to believe that
the article is just some sort of bragging rights based on position and
authority as a means to make the claim that opinions are facts.
And that's all I have to say about that.