[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Jaime needs proof.
David Peters (email@example.com) wrote:
<And yet, twenty years from now, after everyone accepts tiny pteros
your children will have no problem understanding this form of
<There is no "this form of evolution" without proof, and one cannot
these juveniles and embryos and simply label them "adults" without
proof. What the future will see is the argument from nothing, that
asked people to suspend their disbelief and just "accept" these are
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