|
Ralph Chapman wrote under "Feduccia and friends" on 26th June
98:
< Regarding secondary flightlessness, sorry but the same
thing
applies - do the [philogenetic] analyses, otherwise it will be stay a basically unsupported idea only. > I can't speak for G & G but if they're anything like me, it would feel
a bit odd dressing up in the emperor's new clothes to impress others - when much
of the problem was caused by "philogenetic analysis" in the first
place. (Note here the use of the term "P.A.". This gives
the impression of being a worthy scientific approach, but is actually a
fashionable computerised procedure, based on a useful guiding principle but
driven way past its usefulness, often relying on circular logic, and running on
nothing but subjectively selected data. It also prevents circumstantial
evidence from being taken into account, but it's main fault is that it claims to
be more than it is.)
The main gripe of the "2ry Flightlessness" folk
though, is that their theory is NEVER EVER given ANY time at all in the
scientific press. Surely 50:50 would be fair, especially now it's reached
the dizzy heights of being accepted as "Just another theory"?
By the way, did you notice that G & G are
free thinkers in more than one sense - they aren't true products of (and I hope
they'll forgive me for saying this) the palaeontological educational
establishment. Neither is Luis Rey. In fact, I don't know of any
"2ry flightlessist" who is. There will be big kudos for the
first establishment figure to break ranks and start treating it as the null
hypothesis.
Oh yes they will!
JJ
|