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.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469228/direct/01/