Re: bat/ptero wings

[Tim Williams <twilliams_alpha@hotmail.com>]

David Peters wrote:

> Tim, you really do need to see and think about both sides of an argument
> before promoting one side over the other.

I have looked at both sides.  For example, I have read Peters (2000), and 
was actually quite taken with the idea that pterosaurs *might* be winged 
protorosaurs/prolacertiforms.  However, in light of more recent studies, I 
am leaning more toward the traditional hypothesis that pterosaurs are 
actually closer to dinosauromorphs.  Therefore, I do believe that I have 
thought about both sides of the argument - it's just that I like the other 
side better.

> To do so puts you in the realm of science. With all due respect, to not do 
> so puts you outside of
> science, perhaps somewhere between politics, statistics and religion.

Hmmm... I think the "with all due respect" comment is negated by the rest of 
your response.  Anyways, I appreciate you taking the time to explain to me 
what "science" is all about.  I wasn't aware that my skepticism of your pet 
hypothesis put me outside the realm of science.  There you go.  I'm so 
ashamed of my non-scientific conduct that I'm thinking of returning my Ph.D.

> Read the papers and get back to me.

Done and done.


Tim