[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Greg Paul is right (again); or "Archie's not a birdy"... but Jeholornis is (not!))
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: Greg Paul is right (again); or "Archie's not a birdy"... but Jeholornis is (not!))
- From: Tim Williams <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2011 17:36:31 +1000
- Authentication-results: msg-ironport2.usc.edu; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
- In-reply-to: <email@example.com>
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Reply-to: email@example.com
- Sender: owner-DINOSAUR@usc.edu
> Tim is way off the mark here. The neoflightless hypothesis which is
> actually based on logical analysis is readily scientifically testable via the
> fossil record without cladistics.
Except when cladistics agrees with you, as happened with the
Archie-is-a-deinonychosaur cladogram. Then you'll take it - quite
> Kind of like how Charles D figured out humans are apes rather than say
> baboons without any cladograms. It's pretty obvious.
Or like when somebody else thought that therizinosaurs were
transitional to prosauropods+ornithischians without any cladograms.
How'd that work out? ;-)
> If I had followed Tim's misunderstanding of scientific methodology and gone
> cladistic way back,
I think I understand scientific methodology pretty well - including
the bit about "testability". I don't see any of that in your
methodology. Just a lot of hand-waving, and cherry-picking of
cladograms - or parts of cladograms. When a cladogram puts
_Archaeopteryx_ in with the deinonychosaurs, then all is well in the
world. But if the same cladogram fails to find a unique link between
_Sapeornis_ and oviraptorosaurs, or between _Jeholornis_ and
therizinosaurs... well, those parts of the cladogram get left for dead
- apparently. Your approach is, shall we say, "eclectic".