Joined: Dec. 2006
|Quote (Paul Nelson @ July 17 2007,05:23)|
Do you have a copy of EE? The passage in question refers not to any claim about linear increase in size, but to the practice of depicting fossil taxa on the same scale (in illustrations), without informing the reader that the actual specimens vary considerably in size.
Yeah, up until you actually read it. The change in scale would be a pointless criticism of the reptile/mammal transition - unless one thinks the transition was based on an increase in size. The piece I quoted implies that this is the case, particularly the part about "...features appear closer in size than they really are, and creates the impression of a close genealogical relationship..." This is false. Traits characterizing the reptile/mammal transition are not based on similarity in size. Rather the reptile mammal transition is based on things like the evolution of the secondary palate, evolution of the mammalian ear from the reptilian jaw, evolution of the incisors, canines and check teeth -along with specific patterns of occlusion- , evolution of a bony skull from a skull mainly formed by cartilage, changes in the pectoral and pelvic girdles towards more upright posture, etc. So the question is what does the fact the scientists produce a few pictures in different scales (which even EE admits is clearly indicated by the folks producing the pictures) have to do with, well, anything?
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.