Re: You have got to be kidding

[Mike Habib <habib@jhmi.edu>]

As wrong as you may perceive the results to be, I do find it  
intriguing that the bone section modulus data generates a similar  
result (tried to post that earlier but the server seems to be delaying  
my messages). I actually presented those data in parallel to the  
feather analysis at SVP. Doesn't mean that neither species could fly,  
but the congruence seems worth noting.

Cheers,

--Mike H.


Sent from my iPhone

On May 14, 2010, at 10:31 PM, GSP1954@aol.com wrote:

> The Nudds & Dyke paper in Science on the supposedly weak feathers of
> Archaeopteryx and Confuciusornis is wrong, wrong, wrong. They failed  
> to do a
> proper literature search on a key factor in their calculations, and  
> the exact
> reason they are way into wrong is in Dinosaurs of the Air (which  
> they did not
> cite) if you know where to look. Am not going to say where they made  
> their
> critical mistake because am going to send in a technical comment to  
> Science.
>
> There is no evidence based on feather dimensions that basal birds  
> could not
> power fly.
>
> GSPaul</HTML>