Doesn't George have a point?

[Larry Dunn <majestic_cheese@yahoo.com>]

Not that I believe that dinosaurs evolved from birds
per se (?A planet where apes evolved from men?!?!??),
but doesn?t George have a point when he says that the
lack of a suitable known dinosaur ancestor of birds in
the appropriate time period raises some really serious
doubts as to the dinosaur ancestry of dinosaurs?  

I guess this is actually a question about the
scientific method as it relates to paleontology. 
Doesn?t the formation of this hypothesis require that
the temporal bit fall into place as well?  As I
understand the facts, there currently isn?t any
specimen of a suitable coelurosaur predating the
earliest fossil birds.  Doesn?t that have any bearing
on the formation of a hypothesis?  (Or is this wrong?)
  Can scientists say, ?other things look very good for
our hypothesis, but we?ll need to keep looking for an
appropriately early ancestor,? and still have a valid
hypothesis?

And what is the status of the idea until the suitable
piece of information comes along?

This is not a rhetorical question, or a statement of a
position.  It is a quest ... for the truth (dramatic
music).


=====
Larry

"I've been ionized, but I'm OK now."

http://members.tripod.com/~megalania/index.html

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere!
http://mail.yahoo.com/