Re: Protoavis

[Jeffrey Martz <martz@holly.ColoState.EDU>]

>       After spending an evening combing the archives, and an exhaustive
> search of the internet, I have discovered that this topic has been
> discussed here repeatedly over the last three years and the rhetoric has
> not changed.

      What do you mean by "rhetoric"?  If by "rhetoric" you mean 
that we haven't changed our opinions because we haven't had reason to, 
more evidence to support the dinosaur-bird connection has come to
light, and no new fossils have appeared to flesh out the Protoavis (or 
crocodile or thecodont)-bird connection, then yes, I guess we are being
rhetorical.  The "conspiracy of science" to support dogma and squash
"scary"(?) new theories, a popular theme among both scientists whose 
viewpoints that are not commonly accepted (including creationsists, if
you want to call them "scientists"), is seriously overrated; unless the
conspiracy is to weigh the evidence rather then drop decades of research
for the flashiest new theory to come along.  Occaisionally, yes, some
scientists DO become attached to thier theories and ignore new evidence;
many or most of the people on this list might submit this is the case with
Larry Martin &/or Alan Fedduccia.  However, the scientific community is large 
enough, and generally objective enough, that any relevant and valid work
that DOES come out will work its way into popular thinking.  
     It is not impossible for a new idea to be unpopular (or, in certain
circles, popular) simply because it shakes up "dogma", but it usually it
means the more popular theory is better supported; at least by the
availible evidence. 

LN Jeff
O-