Jaime needs proof.

[David Peters <davidrpeters@earthlink.net>]

David Peters (davidrpeters@earthlink.net) wrote:

<And yet, twenty years from now, after everyone accepts tiny pteros  
as adults,
your children will have no problem understanding this form of  
evolution.>

Jaime wrote:

<There is no "this form of evolution" without proof, and one cannot  
point to
these juveniles and embryos and simply label them "adults" without  
further
proof. What the future will see is the argument from nothing, that  
someone has
asked people to suspend their disbelief and just "accept" these are  
adults,
without any primary data (none has been forthcoming). This is a  
matter of faith
and religion, and for most reasonable people, is kept well separate from
science which does not tamper in faith.>

>>>>>>

Well hold on, partner! Just 'cause they're small and cute doesn't  
mean they're juvies.
Imagine finding a ten-cent gekko in Jurassic sediment. You'd be sure  
you had a baby. Or maybe
you'd find a tiny pipestrelle bat half or quarter the size of  
Icaronycteris. Or consider the smallest hummingbirds.

How did they get that way? Did someone say paedomorphosis?

And again, let's get away from that darn word, "proof".

What I promote proves nothing, as I'm sure you are quick to agree.  
Proof requires being there. And we're not.

I am giving you a lead. A means by which you can fix the dang  
pterosaur tree so that it works in every way.

If they are juvies, then why do they bunch together only at the five  
or six major morphological transitions? And why in gradually  
increasing or decreasing series? And for that matter: why not  
consider all anurognathids juveniles (big eyes, short tail, short  
rostra)? In fact, that's a great parallel!! Let's talk about that!

I am telling you that it doesn't matter a whit if any pterosaur you  
point to is a juvies or adult. It just doesn't matter.

(And no B.S. about 'not being forthcoming' . My evidence was on the  
Internet in RGB for
years. And any data you might think to request has always been  
available.  But you never ask!)

If you simply label them juvies, as you do, you do so on faith that  
'small' means 'young.'

If you believe that juvies don't have similar proportions then you  
must show matching pairs (any 2 will do) to provide a modicum of  
evidence for your beliefs. Otherwise, you're blabbering on faith that  
Wellnhofer and Bennett were right.

If you consider them equal to adults, you can consider them in  
analysis, as I do. End of story.

That covers all the bases, doesn't it?

Really, unless you can come up with some evidence for your  
assertions, and I'm still asking for it, then let's stop beating this  
dead horse.

David