Re: Who Once Were Called, Thecodonts


"deowll" <deowll@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:iF1Wf.266$I7.255@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Alan Kellogg" <mythusmage@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:mythusmage-C4E5C8.12341322032006@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From my searching on the Web I do know that the paraphyletic group
called Thecodonts have been rearranged into (at least) 4 (more or less)
monophyletic groups. However, information found on the Web is infamously
disorganized, haphazardly updated, and contradictory in a way that makes
Soviet history texts seem models of agreement. We'll leave
disagreements, pet theories, ideology, and recalcitrance well enough
alone. (And you thought creationists loved to move the goalposts.)

Then you have the mystery thecodontoid groups who are just not important
enough to be named. Like they had no impact on the world when they were
around. Having no descendents of your own doesn't mean you aren't
relative when you're alive.

Does anybody have leads to all known thecodontoid groups? Taxonomy,
anatomy, geological era, ancestors, descendents, close and distant
relatives? I'm especially interested in learning about the groups that
did not lead to crocodilians, dinosaurs, or pterosaurs. Small
thecodontoids that could be or were forced into the background with the
appearance of the large suchians and dinosaurs.

This is for a project. But the project is not strictly scientific. The
philosophy of science enters into the picture, if you are willing to
allow that a fantasy setting can have science while, at the same time,
containing phenomena and lifeforms that real world conditions do not
allow for.

It's all for a small, but still important part of a "counterfactual"*
Earth. The history, paleontology, and evolution of a creature that can
not exist in the real world.
---
*Are you aware of how ignorant "counterfactual" sounds to someone who
deals with possible alternate realities on a quasi professional basis?
We know our proposed alternatives didn't happen. We're not dealing with
what did occur, but with what could have occured if things had happened
differently. What did happen in 1759 has no relevance to what might have
happened if a 1953 Buick had landed on King George III of Britain in
1758. (Sorry about that, but I just had to vent)

On several occasions after combat Washington found bullet holes in his
cloths. They missed. If one had made a direct hit our world would be very
different and events as small as quamtum made have changed where some of
those bullets landed. I get the idea.

How would the world be very different? That's like believing that the wings
of a butterfly in Kansas can ultimately cause a hurricane in the Atlantic.
The only two other possibilities are that he would have either been injured
or killed. In either case he might have been seen with even more awe, but
that hardly could have changed history. If wounded he might have been off
the field for awhile, but you imply that no other general could have filled
his shoes. If killed the same argument applies, and you seem to say that no
other person was capable of leadership.

Your premise says that the American Revolution could not have occured
without him. If that is true then he was the only person wanting it enough
to make it happen and that there was no popular desire for independance
absent his rhetoric. That is a contradiction to what is taught in your
schools, that most of the people wanted it to happen. According to Wikepedia
only 40-45% of the population supported the revolution so it was a tyrany of
the minority. Do you believe that if Washington had died that this minority
would not have prevailed?

Z


.

Quantcast