Piorokrat <piorokrat@autograf.pl> wrote:
> news:3feff342$1_4@corp.newsgroups.com...
> > Piorokrat wrote:
> > > news:bsn2kv$elk73$1@ID-35161.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > >
> > >>"Constance Vigilant" <anybodyleft@arthurandersen.com> wrote in message
> > >>news:bsmtie$d0d$0@pita.alt.net...
> > >>
> > >>sniipping
> > >>
> > >>>>However, I think your point stands. The simple fact that one delves
> > >>>>in aquaria does not make one an expert in anything unless that
> > >>>>expertise is actually shown.
> > >>>
> > >>>Maybe someone can e-mail him and then he can see this and we'll see
> > >>>if he knows about fish or not.
> > >>
> > >>I'm sure he's quite knowlegeable about aquarium catfish. However, I
> > >>don't think you should be looking to Davy for support on anything
> > >>else. After his recent Archaeopteryx/Hoazin debacle, his credibility
> > >>on anything other than catfish is highly in doubt.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>DJT
> > >>
> > >>
> > > How many Archaeopteryx fossils are there again?
> > >
> >
> > Eight.
> >
> > Plus Caudipteryx and about a dozen other species.
> >
>
> That's not good news, I have to say.
>
> I liked it better when there was only one.
>
And no doubt even better when there were none, had you been around at
the time. But they exist, and they are evidence that kinds are not
static or unbridgeable. You get feathered dinosaurs without wings, with
wings and with teeth. And you get almost indiscernibly different
skeletons of birds.
--
John Wilkins
"And this is a damnable doctrine" - Charles Darwin, Autobiography
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 |
|