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

Jaime needs proof.

David Peters (davidrpeters@earthlink.net) wrote:

<And yet, twenty years from now, after everyone accepts tiny pteros as adults,
your children will have no problem understanding this form of evolution.>

Jaime wrote:

<There is no "this form of evolution" without proof, and one cannot point to
these juveniles and embryos and simply label them "adults" without further
proof. What the future will see is the argument from nothing, that someone has
asked people to suspend their disbelief and just "accept" these are adults,
without any primary data (none has been forthcoming). This is a matter of faith
and religion, and for most reasonable people, is kept well separate from
science which does not tamper in faith.>


Well hold on, partner! Just 'cause they're small and cute doesn't mean they're juvies.
Imagine finding a ten-cent gekko in Jurassic sediment. You'd be sure you had a baby. Or maybe
you'd find a tiny pipestrelle bat half or quarter the size of Icaronycteris. Or consider the smallest hummingbirds.

How did they get that way? Did someone say paedomorphosis?

And again, let's get away from that darn word, "proof".

What I promote proves nothing, as I'm sure you are quick to agree. Proof requires being there. And we're not.

I am giving you a lead. A means by which you can fix the dang pterosaur tree so that it works in every way.

If they are juvies, then why do they bunch together only at the five or six major morphological transitions? And why in gradually increasing or decreasing series? And for that matter: why not consider all anurognathids juveniles (big eyes, short tail, short rostra)? In fact, that's a great parallel!! Let's talk about that!

I am telling you that it doesn't matter a whit if any pterosaur you point to is a juvies or adult. It just doesn't matter.

(And no B.S. about 'not being forthcoming' . My evidence was on the Internet in RGB for
years. And any data you might think to request has always been available. But you never ask!)

If you simply label them juvies, as you do, you do so on faith that 'small' means 'young.'

If you believe that juvies don't have similar proportions then you must show matching pairs (any 2 will do) to provide a modicum of evidence for your beliefs. Otherwise, you're blabbering on faith that Wellnhofer and Bennett were right.

If you consider them equal to adults, you can consider them in analysis, as I do. End of story.

That covers all the bases, doesn't it?

Really, unless you can come up with some evidence for your assertions, and I'm still asking for it, then let's stop beating this dead horse.