You are correct regarding the transcription errors but not in the
conclusion. Thanks for the correction.
In describing Ichthyostega, you ommitted gills. I'll now assume that
that is what you meant by "much like Acanthestega"
"Much like" does not exactly say... "has gills"... for the sake of
avoiding an emotional argument I'll say that I should have asked you for
further clarification.
GR>>558-552 MYR A fossil found in Pennsylvania which is the second oldest
GR>>amphibian, has only lungs and no gills and is fully capable of walking on
GR>>land. (Washington Post, 117:(239): A2, Mnday Aug. 1, 1994)
GR>Have you read the original articles I cited? I would strongly suggest that
GR>you do so because you are missing several important pieces of information.
Here we go again...
If they were that important in the first place, Glenn, why do you omit
them when making your point? You specifically used only 3 to 4 traits to
try to prove your point. If your posts do require reading the full
articles than say so... maybe someone will read them, maybe not, but
please say that your few points will not suffice. We can then respond
to the writers of the articles instead of to you. Besides, if you really
believe that we have to search all of the known literature that you post
on a subject to respond to you, then...
one... no-one would have the time to respond to the mass of posts, and
two.. you subject yourself to researching every single scrap of
literature in order to also grant yourself authority to comment on a
subject.
I have been under the impression that this reflector was open for a more
free-flowing exchange of ideas. If we are bound to a priestly-robes
approach, the others can let me know. I'd be happy to ablige and let the
priests slug it out.
GR>You left off the fact that during this time the panderichthids only had 4 fi
GR>(all other fish had dorsal and anal fins) These four fins were where the
GR>limbs are on tetrapods.
Again, you ommitted something when making your point. Do this still
contribute much... probably not.
GR>You didn't get this correct either. The 368 had gills. I said this was muc
GR>like the acanthostega. They had gills also.
Again... "much like" left a lot unsaid.
Paul
to: IN:GRMorton@gnn.com
cc: IN:evolution@calvin.edu