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

Re: The Men Who Stare At New Papers

Michael Erickson <tehdinomahn@live.com> wrote:

> The paper by Kavanau interests me the most. I'll definitely have to
> see that one. Considering the massive amount of bias against the
> notion of secondarily flightless dino-birds*, I'm not too surprised
> that the good man was forced to publish in Medical Hypotheses.
> Although it could also just be because the paper is crap.
> * I never have understood why a hypothesis that's so well supported by
> heaps of evidence would be so harshly ignored and rejected by the
> palaeontological community.

There is no bias, no conspiracy, and no intellectual snobbery at work here.  
The very fact that dromaeosaurids and troodontids had wings does not 
automatically mean that they evolved from flying ancestors, or that some might 
even have flown themselves.  Sure, either of these may be true (possibly both). 
 But the secondary flightlessness ("2F") hypothesis is just one way to explain 
the distribution of anatomical characters across Maniraptora (avian and 
non-avian).  It is not the only hypothesis.  At the current time, it is not the 
most parsimonious one.  Maybe one day...