[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: Feduccia on bird origins (again)
>From what I recognize of the names, I will make the assumption that each of
>those he acknowledges in this "paper" is a proponent of the MANIAC/BAND
>"fields:" Zhou Zhinghe, Larry Martin, Theagarten Lingham-Soliar, David
>Burnham, Stephan Czerkas. Francis James and Carla Dove are associates of
>Storrs Olsen, whose rant against the "Birds are Dinosaurs" groups (i.e., most
>scientists not named here). I previously mentioned Dove in regards to her
>paper with Lorian Straker here, where her analysis attempted to cast doubt on
>the association of feathers in Campanian amber:
Indeed, it seems this "paper" has had no review whatsoever, on top of the
absent of coherent and relevant research, or any realistic understanding of the
last decade of archosaurian systematics. Has Feduccia gained editorial freedom
to publish whatever screed he wishes?
Jaime A. Headden
The Bite Stuff (site v2)
"Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969)
"Ever since man first left his cave and met a stranger with a
different language and a new way of looking at things, the human race
has had a dream: to kill him, so we don't have to learn his language or
his new way of looking at things." --- Zapp Brannigan (Beast With a Billion
> Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 18:57:46 +0100
> From: email@example.com
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: Feduccia on bird origins (again)
> > Some of Feduccia's claims are outright lies; for example, he
> > states that the BANDit paper by James & Pourtless (2009) has never
> > been "cited in recent paleontological literature".
> Oh, I don't think that's a lie. I think it's bullshit: he doesn't know or
> care whether it's true.
> Every one of Feduccia's publications on this topic, at the very least since
> his 1996 book, provide ample demonstration that he doesn't follow the
> non-euornithean dinosaur literature, because he's simply not interested in
> those animals. And yet, he keeps making grandiose pronouncements about this
> very topic -- based on whatever he read in the 1970s or earlier -- whenever
> it suits him, as if science stagnated outside his field.
> I frankly wonder if this is the last post before Section 8c will be extended
> to include him.