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

Re: Triassic dinosaur evolution

Quoting James Farlow <farlow@ipfw.edu>:

> But it seems to me that whenever vertebrate paleontologists can't
> figure out an obvious function for a structure, the default explanation is
> that it had something to do with sex.

There are certain default explanations in various scientific fields that are 
taken for granted:

* If you don't know what a biological structure was for, then it was a 'display 

* If you don't know what a human artefact was used for, then it was a 'ritual 

* If you don't know what a gene does, then it's 'junk DNA' (at least this one 
is falling by the 
wayside these days)

* If you can't reconcile real observations with the theories of physics, then 
there must be some 
unknown particle/energy at work that has yet to be discovered (because 
long-accepted theories 
*can't* be wrong).


Dann Pigdon
GIS / Archaeologist              http://geo_cities.com/dannsdinosaurs
Melbourne, Australia             http://heretichides.soffiles.com