[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Avian origin of birds - Reuben et al ...
B tH schrieb:
Do these guys at least provide strong scientific "style" to their
What do you mean?
The majority may disagree with them but if presented properly, isn't
it a good thing if only to provide points of contention to knock
The problem is that those points have been being knocked down without
interruption for the last 10 to 20 years (in some cases 30). It's
getting boring. The BANDits just seem to never learn certain things.
They aren't looked at only as cranks, are they?
20 years ago they weren't. Nowadays they are.
The main problem with them is that they are not interested in dinosaurs
(other than birds). They are not familiar with dinosaur diversity and
anatomy. They don't read the relevant journals. They have no idea
whatsoever of the progress in dinosaur research of the last 30 or more
years. (Witness Feduccia's 1996 book still claiming that hadrosaurs were
aquatic as if that had never been contested. I could hardly believe my
eyes. Another example is how no BANDit seems to have the slightest idea
of the Jurassic dromaeosaurid and troodontid remains that have been
known for up to 20 years now. They don't contest their existence or
identification, mind you -- they just don't mention them.)
Not knowing what you're talking about, and repeating long-disproved
claims unchanged, is a defining characteristic of pseudoscience.