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

Re: Why Thulborn's ideas on dinosaur polyphyly are wrong

This is something that mystifies me. What's the use in chipping at the
consensus if you don't have an alternative to express? If we were to
accept, say, that the sister-group relationship between saurischians
and ornithischians is poorly supported, we'd still think they're
sisters till he presents a better supported arrangement.

This confusion of "there is little or no evidence for it" with "there is evidence against it" was considered normal in the precladistic age (and is still considered normal in most of historical linguistics, which is in the precladistic age with very few exceptions). It's simply the weight of tradition.