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

Re: Reconstructing DNA (was Re: Dino-fuzz found in amber?)



Anthony Docimo <keenir@hotmail.com> wrote:

>  given that the manus of both is modified, can it really be considered an 
> unmodified shared
> condition? (thus leaving the pes as the only option)


Two responses:


(1) I never said it was "unmodified shared condition" - I was refuting
RT's claim that it was.


(2) No, the pes is not "the only option".  Please read what I actually
wrote.  The pes of the chicken does *not* reflect the ancestral
condition for _T. rex_ and birds, because the galliform hallux can be
used for perching, which is a condition primitive for crown Aves, but
not for _T. rex_.  Thus, a functionally tetradactyl pes is
symplesiomorphic for crown Aves.



> if there's been no evolution, then what you call a chicken, is *Tyrannosaurus
>  rex* full stop.


What a ridiculous thing to say.  Again, please read the context.  I
was referring to a single peptide, not to the entire organism.


Excuse my carping tone (maybe it's the effect of yesterday's
Oktoberfest on my brain cells), but for this post (and some of your
others), a lot of your questions would be answered if you simply read
posts thoroughly, rather than coming off half-cocked.





Cheers

Tim