[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
The main problem that folks such as Ruben seem to be having is the notion that
a dinosaurian origin of birds absolutely necessitates a ground-up origin of
flight. This is obviously just wrong; for one thing, BANDits have yet to
demonstrate that *NO* small coelurosaurian theropod had any sort of climbing
capabilities, something they really *must* do if they are going to claim that
avian flight evolved from the trees-down and at the same time reject a
dinosaurian origin for birds. They just somehow seem unable to grasp the
concept of an arboreal (or even scansorial) theropod dinosaur, for reasons
I think that David Marjanović once stated that BANDitism is 'nothing but one
single bloated argument from ignorance', or something to that effect. To that I
say: Dead on.
> Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 01:51:26 +0000
> From: email@example.com
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com
> Subject: PNAS
> Study challenges bird-from-dinosaur theory of evolution - was it the other
> way around?
> A new study just published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of
> Sciences provides yet more evidence that birds did not
> descend from ground-dwelling theropod dinosaurs, experts say, and continues
> to challenge decades of accepted theories about the evolution
> of flight.
> Full pop article here:
> PNAS has recently published widely disputed (to put it mildly) papers on
> venomous theropods, and arthropod-velvet worm hybridisation hypothesis on the
> origin of larvae. Now this. Is peer review alive and well at PNAS?
> Denver Fowler
Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service.
- FW: PNAS
- From: dale mcinnes <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- RE: PNAS
- From: evelyn sobielski <email@example.com>
- Re: PNAS
- From: Dan Chure <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- From: Denver Fowler <email@example.com>