Re: Jaime needs proof.

[Phil Bigelow <bigelowp@juno.com>]

On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 20:15:07 -0500 David Peters
<davidrpeters@earthlink.net> writes:
> 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.


I wouldn't assume *anything* of its age from a first inspection.  I would
first look at the following:
- Paedomorphic features (if any, and if there are some, how many
features, and are they unambiguous paedomorphic features).
- Ontogenetic features (if any).
- I would focus, in particular, on the ontogeny of bone fusion and bone
histology.

Oh, and I wouldn't rely on photographs to provide reliable data (but that
caveat is a given, wouldn't you agree?).

Only then would I address the issue of whether the animal was a baby, a
juvie, or an adult.  But I'm not a paleontologist, so take my post with a
large grain of salt.

<pb>
--
Stigmata free since 1972.
Oh wait....maybe it was only a Catsup stain.