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

Re: ptero endothermy



>From Jaime H:
 When I first heard that science prefers the shortest, simplest
explanation, I beleived it ... until I saw more complex arrangements and
directed challenges to that tenet in the fossil record, so I realized
Occam's Razor cannot be applied literally to a conclusionary subject, but
only to the methodological subject to arrive at a conclusion. Hence
Doyle's addage: "when all other data has been removed, what remains, no
matter how impossible, must be the answer."
This is applicable variously. In Dave's case, I do not disbeleive the
prolacertiform argument, but rather the presentation of this as fact.
Doggedly applied "fact." 

>>>>> Well, because it is fact... until someone out there finds otherwise. It's 
>>>>> as much a fact as any other relationship testable by a cladogram. It's 
>>>>> okay to resist, but you have to have a better answer than the given one 
>>>>> if you want to help your cause. We're not a bunch of "doubters" and 
>>>>> "believers" here. We're a bunch of "testers".  

JH: How can we be objective and scientific when we
are advancing an hypothesis with doors closed off in our heads?

>>>>> There is no closed door with science. I'll bet someone out there is 
>>>>> already hard at work on anti-gravity. Fire away with any and all 
>>>>> objections!  I'm game. 

JH: Personally, it looks strong that pterosaurs are prolacertiforms; rather
Dave has also advanced nearly every other Triassic "parareptile" as a
pterosaur ancestor, and no one has yet adopted this. This does mean Dave
is the odd man out on the matter, right or wrong, and I think it warrants
a critical review. 

>>>> Yeah!  Let's have it!

JH: However, others have applied many of these taxa as well
in cladistic phylogenies, and derived at different phylogenetic positions
for some. 

>>>>>>>>  When you say "these taxa" do you mean the four sister taxa of the 
>>>>>>>> Pterosauria (Longisquama, Sharovipteryx, Cosesaurus and 
>>>>>>>> Langobardisaurus)? Or are you referring to the oddball below, which 
>>>>>>>> truly is weird and will be argued over for a long time, but at this 
>>>>>>>> point appears to me to be closest to Macrocnemus. If only the oddball 
>>>>>>>> below, they you have misdirected your audience with a red herring.

JH: Drepanosaurids may be more basal than Archosauromorpha, for an
example, beyond preolacertiforms, archosaurs, *Euparkeria,* and maybe
close to the base of Diapsida.
 
DP (old) : <The pelvis deal is old news. Why it hasn't been accepted is (as you
already know from your readings of Martin, Feduccia, Jones, Ruben, etc. in
another well-known squabble) academic politics.>

JH:  We did already hear arguments for an alternate, repeatable argument
about the elongate ilium's function, as in anurans, to reduce stresses
through the axial column? Anurans stress their spines when leaping, and
pterosaurs do by flying, another reason it appears that primary fliers
like birds have such whopping huge ilia. Therefore, the data implies that
morphological similarity may not be phylogenetic similarity, and this is a
good place to start testing.

>>>>>>>>  The four sisters are increasingly similar in _every_ regard to 
>>>>>>>> pterosaurs, from their fingers to the toes.

DP (old): <If you only have tomatoes to throw, please don't throw any more. 
You're
one of the smartest scientists of your generation. Tear down the
prolacertiform hypothesis or any part of it. That's your challenge. If it
is possible, I think you are the guy to do it.>

JH:  Well, all compliments aside, if appreciated, I would actually like to
see Dave do this. 

>>>>>>  And I would like to see Sandy Koufax catch his own fastballs. Here's 
>>>>>> where the loyal opposition steps up to the plate. I'm already too deeply 
>>>>>> entrenched and have seen too many wonders. Besides that, I'm a paid 
>>>>>> spokesman and my prolacertiform clients wouldn't allow it.         : ) 

dp