Archaeopterygid bird from China
jgrehan at SCIENCEBUFF.ORG
Thu Mar 31 12:45:24 CST 2005
> Behalf Of Richard.Zander at MOBOT.ORG
> 1. You accuse scientists of being authorative when they are not.
Maybe I did, but that's not how I see my 'accusations'
> 2. You ridicule scientists who flop from one hypothesis to another
> on how new and different evidence pops up, yet that is the way we do
I guess I thought that what I was 'ridiculing' was the center of origin
since it was this that I was characterizing as a fantasy. Yes it does
seem that identification of the imagined center of origin is rather ad
hoc in relying on the oldest fossil which has no necessary link with
place of origin (the link is imagined).
> Well-supported hypotheses that fit with other hypotheses get promoted
> theory, the basis of science.
Perhaps, but whether its good science in any particular case is another
matter. I would argue that dispersalism (Darwinian centers of origin
theory) is not much of a science despite its popularity.
More information about the Taxacom