[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Deinonychus claw, er, no, still Catch-22, really...
This brings up a more pertinent point. You have to admit that the
whole "pretty much everything can climb, so surely theropods could
too" argument is not really science in the strictest sense. For
something to qualify as a scientific hypothesis it has to be testable.
What evidence could possibly *disprove* the hypothesis that say,
_Compsognathus_ could climb into branches to roost? Based on the fact
that even turtles and goats could get into trees, it seems that by
admission, there is no anatomical evidence that would suggest
_Compsognathus_ could not. While that makes it very likely at least
some theropods could get into trees, it also means that this idea can
never, by definition, move beyond the realm of speculation.
So from one perspective, it is a catch-22. From another it's simply a
non-scientific, non-testable, but plausible idea. In other words, we
can never really know for sure either way.
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 12:06 AM, Anthony Docimo <email@example.com> wrote:
>> Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 15:01:31 +1100
>> From: firstname.lastname@example.org
>> To: email@example.com
>> Subject: Re: Deinonychus claw, er, no, still Catch-22, really...
>> > No one argues (in this thread) that theropods were arboreal - or if they
>> > did, I missed it...
>> No, you didn't miss it. But if we going to put non-avian theropods in
>> trees (such as to sleep, seek refuge, or perch-hunt), I want to see
>> *positive evidence* for an ability to climb or roost in trees.
> Well, there was a dinosaur-written confession engraved on a tyrannosaurid
> bone found back in the 1830s, giving abundant evidence for those very
> abilities. unfortunately nobody believed it because it was written in Ubykh.