I'm not familiar with Preservation Magazine either, but I know how to use an internet search engine... Preservation Online. Mr. Byers' statement is not posted in the online edition.

I'm afraid your estimate regarding hundreds or thousands of similar finds is extreme to the point of bizarre. The number of "similar finds" amounts to a handful, which is why National Geographic made such a publishing gaffe in 1999 with their composite fossil reconstruction (previously linked in post #817). There is an urgency, a desperation to find corroboration that is shown by the current media event over the little Chinese fossil and the guesses about what it was and what it might mean. There is no "evolutionary record" of anything "filled in" or otherwise, but there is a lot of wishful thinking and guesswork. Apparently hyperbole is to be taken for granted in your assertions, Susan.

essay wrote: Responding to your specific question, I'm not familiar with Mr. Byers or 'Preservation' magazine, which I assume is a scientific and not a religious publication. What he probably means is that zoological evoltution in evident in anatomy, and one can program computer simulations beginning with the simplest animals and going right up to man, everything falling neatly into place. (I think this is called 'morphing'). That would enable a good guess to be made with regard to missing portions of discovered fossils. Not having seen the article, that's the best I can do. The important thing is that science marches on, constantly being updated, while superstition and ignorance remain the same always.

Well, it's a statement of blind faith, but I suppose in a sense it is a response to Craig's post, except just the opposite of what I thought he asked for. I can't imagine getting what you put forth from what Craig reported and what Craig asked. I'll be curious to see his response. It looked to me like Byers was saying dinosaurs are a bit like Santa Clause. Things believed by children often end up not being true when you become an adult. What we thought we knew wasn't true. A whole lot of fiction was included with the facts. Brontosaurus never exactly existed, and had the wrong head on the reconstructed museum exhibit in any case, for about 100 years. Half its bones are "informed reconstructions" because nothing ever found comes close to a complete skeleton. Have you ever built a three dimensional puzzle? How about a three dimensional puzzle representing something you've never seen before, with half the pieces missing and no picture of what the finished project is supposed to look like, with many of the pieces you do have incomplete, distended, twisted, stretched and flattened? This is typical, not exceptional. But faith and credulity prevail, to believe the whole scheme is nailed down, sorted out, and scientifically proven. Yes, essay, there is a Santa Clause.

The following, an excerpt from APATOSAURUS (Brontosaurus)
Skull Problems and Scientific Bullying: The original Brontosaurus fossil, found in 1879, lacked a skull (as many fossils do). Othniel Marsh added a skull found miles away (this skull did not belong to the Brontosaurus, but to a Camarasaurus ). In 1900, Henry Osborn assembled another skull-less Brontosaurus at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City, adding a cast of Marsh's skull. In 1915, Earl Douglass of the Carnegie Museum found a Brontosaurus fossil that included the skull, but because of Osborn's influence, the Carnegie displayed the fossil skull-less. When Douglas died in 1932, the incorrect skull was put on display! It wasn't until 1975 that the proper skull was mounted on Brontosaurus/Apatosaurus fossils in museums.
Remember: The important thing is that science marches on, constantly being updated, while superstition and ignorance remain the same always.