Re: historical origins of BCF [was Re: Feduccia's delusion]

[Dinogeorge@aol.com]

In a message dated 12/1/01 0:57:23 AM EST, vita0015@umn.edu writes:

<< > Whatever the trackmakers were, we now know they are dinosaurs, but in 
1802
 > they were thought to be birds.
 
 Yes, like ancient Greeks thought that mammoth skulls were cyclops skulls.>>

Well, no Greek ever saw a cyclops, but we have all seen birds. The Greeks 
>did< recognize that mammoths were unlike anything else they had ever seen 
and acted appropriately within their cultural milieu. If the term "mammoth" 
weren't so entrenched, one could actually make a case for renaming mammoths 
"cyclopes."

<< > So in 1802 dinosaurs were thought to be giant
 > birds. (Sometime before that, they were thought to be giant people.) They
 > weren't known as dinosaurs until 1842.
 
 In 1802 they weren't talking about dinosaurs, they were talking about "bird"
 footprints.  The idea that they weren't birds didn't occur to them.>>

Good thing, too. Because, you see, dinosaurs >are< birds. They got that part 
right.
 
<< A discussion about what a dinosaur is, before dinosaurs were identified, is
 not a commentary on dinosaur-bird (boy, taking into account both sides of
 this discussion, the terms "dinosaur" and "bird" are mutually
 inclusive...that's potentially confusing) relationships.  They didn't think
 in terms of the dinosaur-bird issue because there wasn't an issue to them.
 They were not talking about what we are talking about, so they shouldn't be
 seen to have done so. >>

When you go back into the historical origins of a topic, you cannot expect to 
find the same concepts that we have, which have evolved after some 200 years 
of research and discovery. They were >indeed< talking >exactly< about what we 
are talking about, namely dinosaurs, but without the additional 200 years' 
perspective we have on the subject.