[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 
totally unknown.

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.

~ Michael

> Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 01:51:26 +0000
> From: df9465@yahoo.co.uk
> To: dinosaur@usc.edu; vrtpaleo@usc.edu
> 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:
> http://www.physorg.com/news184959295.html
> 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
> df9465@yahoo.co.uk
> http://www.denverfowler.com
> -----------------------------------
Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service.