Re: Colbert & Ostrom Talk (fwd)

[Stan Friesen <swf@ElSegundoCA.ATTGIS.COM>]

From: Tony Thulborn <paswamp@mailbox.uq.oz.au> (by way of Colin McHenry <s > 
 > Please remember refutation is different from ridicule and despite the 
 > Palaeontological qualifications of H&W their contributions to the field of 
 > science merits 
 > a little more respect.

Only when they can demonstrate they have some clue as to what they
are talking about.  In astronomy I will give Hoyle *some* respect,
but given his continued insistance on a steady-state model even there
he must be taken with a large grain of salt.

In paleontology all he has demonstrated is ignorance.  If their book
had actually brought up meaningful evidence things might be different,
but everything they say is based on either misunderstanding, poor
investigation, or ignorance.


This is one of those cases where an argument sounds reasonable to
those who have little knowledge of the subject, and is totally
absurd to anybody with in-depth knowledge.  This sort of thing is
quite common, and is easy for an intelligent dilletante to achieve.

A good example of this is found in Velikovsky's writings. Historians
reading his books have been known to say "his astronomy sounds reasonable
but his history is atrocious", and astronomers have been known to say
"his history looks substantial but his astronomy is absurd".  Guess
what? Velikovsky is out to lunch in *both* fields!

 > I find a lot of the 
 > "knowledgable" comments on a fossil that in fact has very few
 > "birdlike" characters

I suggest you read Ostrom's discussion of this matter!
There are some 20 to 30 avian synapomorphies found in Archaopteryx.
Most are not obvious in phorographs - but they are there.  For
example: opisthopubic pelvis, furcula, avian-styke fused wrist
structure (what is the technical term here?), to name just the
most obvious.  Brain casts show a very bird-like brain structure
as well.

swf@elsegundoca.attgis.com              sarima@netcom.com

The peace of God be with you.