The fact that different species have developed the means to fly doesn't, to me, at all obviate the "intentionality" of flying and the purposiveness of "wings". To the contrary, imho. I don't believe wings are accidental or random...that's more or less my whole point.
OK, I'll try again, briefly.
Movement which approaches flight has been found in every major animal group which has made it out of water. We can see different stages of this adaptation in different animals, at different times. There is benefit to the animal with the adaptation, and the benefit aids survival so the mutation survives. The non-beneficial adaptations do not survive. E.g., the light-coloured pepper moth nearly died out in the Industrial Revolution, as air pollution grew, because it was too visible to predators: but then recovered in the UK after various laws on air pollution and fuel burning saw an end to smog. This is documented within a 200-year period... you want to doubt millions of years?
It need not be 'intentional' any more than it's intentional that cows are good at digesting grass. Suppose you're looking at a series of die rolls which ran 6,3,2,4,2,3,2,5,1,5,5,6,2,3,1,6,4 - is that 'intentional'? It's what happened, and the result is what we see. Genetic adaptation via bisexual reproduction works for rapid change, hence it is so common in animals.
Why invoke an invisible, indetectable, incomprehensible agent directing these changes to some unknowable aim? If it can't be proven, or disproven, and it won't help - why invent it? |
