Re: birds DID NOT evolve from therapods

["Scott Hartman" <scott_hartman@hotmail.com>]

There should be some sort of rule about posting under the influence...

The antagonism-come-mirth that is exhibited throughout your post suggests 
that you are either a) attemtping to get a reaction or b) inexperienced at 
debating in scientific forums.  I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and 
play it straight.

> > > I have been reading the archives recently and I have been struck by the 
> > > venomousness of the attacks on anyone who DARES contradict the fanciful 
> > > notion that birds evolved from therapod dinosaurs. I was so disgusted I 
> > > opened a hotmail account and subscribed to this list, just to air my 
> > > views.<<<

Congratulations on your experience exercising first amendment rights.  While 
the tone of posts on the list is playful, using terms like "fanciful" while 
disputing a nearly unanimously held concept in science does not bolster your 
air of impartiality.

> > > Such self-appointed ?experts? as Thomas Holtz, Jaime Haedden, Mickey 
> > > Mortimer, Tim Williams, and George Olshevky seem barely able to disguise 
> > > theiur contempt for such a esteemed, world-respected scientist as John 
> > > Ruben. <<<

    This is what's known as an "ad hominem" attack, meaning you are 
attacking the people who advocate an idea, not the idea itself.  This is 
widely considered by experts (self styled and otherwise) to be one of the 
fastest ways to lose credibility in a scientific debate.  Interestingly, the 
"world-respected" scientist John Ruben (however you quantify THAT) submitted 
an abstract this year on the politics of dinosaur paleontology.  I'll let 
your draw your own conclusions. (actually, Ruben's paper is probably a 
reflection of his frusturation with collegues who disagree with him.  
However, when "everyone is lost but you" in science, the burden of proof is 
on the minority, and like it or not, the "birds are not dinosaurs" group has 
failed to make an overwhelming case, no matter how badly they wish it to be 
true).

> > > Laugh all you want buddy. Ruben and his colleagues now far more about 
> > > vertebrate metabolism than you ever will. Birds are WARM-BLOODED. 
> > > Therapod dinosaurs were COLD-BLOODED.<<<

    Although Ruben has a previous history publishing fairly mainstream 
works on non-mammalian synapsid metabolism, I'm not sure I could attest to 
his (et al.) omniescence when it comes to vertebrate physiology.  For 
example, from shaky taphanomic data they concluded largely unsubstantiatable 
inferences about pulmonary function in theropods, (e.g. they inferred that 
the stain in a Sinosauropteryx specimen represented an orthographic 
representation of the outline  of the liver in life, even though in the same 
specimen the stain representing  the eye  is larger than the orbit).

> > > Didn?t you read his two papers in Science...??? No I suppose not - too 
> > > busy spitting venom at Ruben and co. <<<

    Obviously many people on the list have read his Science articles, 
although some of them may have been too busy reading papers in Nature...

> > > Longisquama is about as close as we?re going to get to the origin of 
> > > birds. Get used to that fact. Ruben is ON THE BALL!!> And Al Feduccia 
> > > too. try reading his book - you'll actually learn something guys! <<<

    There's not much I can respond to here.  The use of facts will never 
hurt your case; give it a shot.  Re Fedducia's book:  I'm sorry, but the 
first few chapters are the sorriest excuse for scientific discourse I have 
ever had the misfortune of reading.  And I'm not referring to his 
conclusions, but rather the methodlology.  Attempting to discredit all 
cladistic studies by selectively quoting a few he thinks were wrong, for 
example.  Or referring to a problem with stratigraphic incongruity, even 
though there would be a larger gap in the fossil record from Longisquama to 
Archaeopteryx than from Deinonychus to Archaeopteryx.



> > > Not content with putting feathers on therapods now you want to put wings 
> > > on them as well.  <<<

   Had you actually been at SVP Boseman you might have glimpsed a new 
specimen of dromaeosaur that obviously had wings, and strongly looked like a 
barbed and rachied feather.  So yup, they had wings, which probably 
preceeded flight, although some groups may have been secondarily flightless.

> > > As for the rest of you ? WAKE UP!! Therapods couldn?t leap from trees 
> > > (pay attention TW and GO !!), no matter how vivid your imagination is.<<<

    Actually, I agree, which is why I presented a plausible aerodynamic 
model for a ground up origin of aerodynamic surfaces.  And this year a 
plausible (and charismatic!) hypothesis was put forward on the transition 
from winged non-flyers to flyers from the ground up.
   The rest of your post was a bunch of personal attacks on people you 
disagree with, so I won't respond to them.  I, and I suspect the rest of the 
list, would welcome you to actually present evidence that would disprove the 
dinosaur-bird link.  But that requires data, not name calling.  Give it a 
shot.  The worst that could happen is you may gain a better understanding of 
the issues, and at best, you might be the Gallileo of paleontology.

Scott Hartman
Tate Museum
Casper College

"In order to be the next Gallileo, it is not enough merely to be persecuted 
by an orthodoxy; you also have to be right." -C. Sagan




_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp