nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 57:
Line 57: + + + + + +
→Reverting: Caution is more appropriate, especially with National Geographic
* A good article describing the '''''detailed''''' relationship - not at all a coarse sequence - between the evolution of theropod/bird anatomy and the evolution of feathers was in ''National Geographic'' in the last few years, probably sometime between 2004 and 2006 (possibly 2007). Anyone seriously interested in the one of the most exciting developments in biological evolution in recent years will be able to find it in a public library. Also plenty of material in peer-reviewed journals.
* A good article describing the '''''detailed''''' relationship - not at all a coarse sequence - between the evolution of theropod/bird anatomy and the evolution of feathers was in ''National Geographic'' in the last few years, probably sometime between 2004 and 2006 (possibly 2007). Anyone seriously interested in the one of the most exciting developments in biological evolution in recent years will be able to find it in a public library. Also plenty of material in peer-reviewed journals.
* It really doesn't matter whether a hypothesis was proposed by someone as eminent as Ernst Mayr - if it's disproved by the evidence, it's wrong. Any scientist with a decent amount of imagination will have proposed several hypotheses which have turned out the be wrong. In this case, the hypothesis that it strains one's credulity to understand how feathers could have evolved from simple structures is wrong, because it's disproved by the fossil evidence of feather evolution in last 20 years. This is one of very many 'missing links' in biological evolution which are constantly being filled. There was a good article about 'myths of evolution' in ''New Scientist'' recently (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn13620-evolution-24-myths-and-misconceptions.html). [[User:JimBob61|JimBob61]] 16:34, 11 May 2008 (EDT)
* It really doesn't matter whether a hypothesis was proposed by someone as eminent as Ernst Mayr - if it's disproved by the evidence, it's wrong. Any scientist with a decent amount of imagination will have proposed several hypotheses which have turned out the be wrong. In this case, the hypothesis that it strains one's credulity to understand how feathers could have evolved from simple structures is wrong, because it's disproved by the fossil evidence of feather evolution in last 20 years. This is one of very many 'missing links' in biological evolution which are constantly being filled. There was a good article about 'myths of evolution' in ''New Scientist'' recently (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn13620-evolution-24-myths-and-misconceptions.html). [[User:JimBob61|JimBob61]] 16:34, 11 May 2008 (EDT)
: I'm extremely sceptical of such a finely-graded sequence, especially if it's in ''National Geographic'', as it is a popular magazine and is unlikely to go into ''that much'' detail, and is the same publication panned by Storrs Olson as "highly biased". Nevertheless, if you can tell me the specific issue, I will try and have a look at it.
: According to your own comments, Mayr's "hypothesis" has not been disproved by the evidence. That it is very hard to believe something could have occurred is not disproven by showing that it has occurred: it can still be very hard to believe.
: As for "keeping up to date" (in your edit comment), it's wiser to keep a little (or lot) ''behind'' the claims, as so many turn out to be overstated if not outright wrong after further investigation. [[Piltdown Man]], anyone? Or, more appropriately here, [[Archaeoraptor]]? I'm not saying that every claim about feathers on dinosaurs is fraudulent, but there's been sufficient fraudulent and mistaken claims that caution is warranted instead of immediately accepting the very latest claims at face value.
: I had seen the print copy of the New Scientist article, but not the expanded Internet version. But I reject that it is a "good article", with absolute nonsense being included, such as claiming that the Bible says that the Earth is flat and that the moon generates its own light. They should be ashamed of having published this rubbish.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:12, 11 May 2008 (EDT)