Re: In (premature) defense of the USNM

[philidor11@snet.net]

You commented:
<The point however is, that the "weight" of evidence is shifting 
to support
small feathered theropods in general.>
Well, not the weight of evidence, but the consistency of inference, 
Mike.  You're speaking of bracketing, which is the result of 
an argument, specifically not the result of the integumentary 
structures found.
Say you see a marking on a fossil that would, in a contemporary 
animal, indicate placement of a large, strong muscle.  Wouldn't 
drawing the inference that the dino had a large strong muscle 
at that location be closer to your source data than the whole 
panoply of logic necessary to obtain a bracket?
Once you've created a scale of degrees of inference, then couldn't 
someone reasonably draw a line after which the degree of inference 
is considered excessive?  Seems like a contrarian would appreciate 
the option.  Did you really advocate, 'Go with the flow?'
You would put hair on your human reconstruction?  Even knowing 
how much length, style, color, etc. indicate class and other 
markers that might cause people to decide they wouldn't know 
that person and so not look closely at the face?  Interesting. 
 



___________________________________________________________
Sent by ePrompter, the premier email notification software.
Free download at http://www.ePrompter.com.