Joined: Dec. 2006
|Quote (Paul Nelson @ July 18 2007,07:37)|
|Funny thing about the reptile-mammal illustration comparison, which Afarensis and other find puzzling and irrelevant. Several people who did not know that the fossils were being scaled (without their knowledge), to make the morphological transition appear smoother, have told me they regard this practice as objectionable.|
Why weren't we shown just how different in size these groups were? they ask.
Sigh. No Paul, this is completely wrong. The morphology that was transitioning was not based on size so "smoothing" the scaling to make them look similar is irrelevant. To give an example, in pelycosaurs the occipital condyle is single and hemispheric shaped. It evolves into a double condyle in mammals and an intermediate stage is seen in therapsids. None of this has anything to do with size. The mammal condyle is not just an allometrically scaled version of the pelycosaur. So explain how
is a relevant criticism of this particular transition or of transitional sequences in general?
|...fossils were being scaled (without their knowledge), to make the morphological transition appear smoother...|
Church burning ebola boy
FTK: I Didn't answer your questions because it beats the hell out of me.
PaV: I suppose for me to be pried away from what I do to focus long and hard on that particular problem would take, quite honestly, hundreds of thousands of dollars to begin to pique my interest.