|
I'm going to pull these threads together and
answer a number of points/posts at once, but before I spend a couple of hours
preparing that post, I want to test my "connectivity"
now.
Two points I *will* make here are that I've had
difficulty sending direct emails to Brain (Philidor11) as well as to the list in
general, the last four not succeeding. Also, one of the many, many aspects
that people have been missing is embodied in this quote from "EARLY
EVOLUTION OF BIRDS" 7th Nov (directed to Philidor11 but copied successfully
to the list):
"Anyone mentioning the idea that any Arctos/Mani's
preceded Archae without also mentioning the possibility that Archae was the
first is really being a long way short of 'scientifically' . . .
'fair'."
I have my ideas of dino.
lineage but an equally important point (which I have made repeatedly) is why
perversely ignore the alternative (Archae -> manis vs. mani's ->
Archae) for which there is the most evidence (in terms of numbers of
skeletons)? Your current ideas on this lineage simply don't work, and
until you open your eyes, you'll never see an improvement, whatever it
is!
JJ
|