Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: bela_ghoulashi who wrote (3903)	3/21/2002 8:06:34 AM
From: Bald Eagle	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

RE:There's no such thing as "sort of" flying How about flying fish? They fly for very short periods then drop back into the water. Remember, evolution took a lot longer than it took for us to develop cars like Rolls Royces. I'm not taking a position here, just musing.

To: bela_ghoulashi who wrote (3903)	3/21/2002 8:10:57 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

Wings: how do you explain the evolution of wings solely as the result of the process of natural selection? Neo brought up the subject of wings in our most recent discussion of intelligent design. Wings are certainly amazing things. So are blood and eyes. Way cool. Karen

To: bela_ghoulashi who wrote (3903)	3/22/2002 8:09:00 PM
From: thames_sider	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 21057

Wings: how do you explain the evolution of wings solely as the result of the process of natural selection? How many millions of failures would have to take place to produce the single first success? And how could all of those failures continue to press toward success without any of the positive feedback of success, generation after generation? There's no such thing as "sort of" flying. You either have wings that work or you don't. Bear in mind that I'm not an expert... but: Three distinct vertebrate families have developed true wings - birds, reptiles, mammals . Fish and amphibians have also managed gliding (and what about tree squirrels, or some of the smaller primates, which are clearly on the way). And multiple arthropods have also managed with very different wings, and gliding or sailing methods. Note how some tree snakes have flattened bodies, which they can flex outwards and hold thus, and hence have limited gliding ability when moving from one tree limb to another. Notice how bats and pterodactyls are very similar, with stretched 'forepaws' and membranes, whereas birds have a longer forelimb. Early birds, from fossil evidence, were weak fliers but could glide. Note the draco lizard, which has expanded ribs, and can breathe in to hold them out, and glide further (200m along for 80m downwards). Gliding is a big step towards flying. Not far from that to - say - early pterodactyls, with their semi-rigid wings. Fossil evidence shows how they got better at flying, gradually - but they died out too early. Also note how archaeopteryx, that heavy glider, is extinct, but more advanced descendants flutter by your window every day. Hence, now, the hummingbird, falcon and albatross. Gliding IS 'sort of' flying. And the survival advantage is very obvious. And the better it gets, the more advantage. Millions of years... one new generation every year... and we've seen evolution occur in human timespans (e.g., the salt-and-pepper moth), that was after a hundred generations or so not millions. As for millions of failures... who cares? Nature doesn't, that's why each generation has so many children. As long as - overall - more live than die, the losers are irrelevant. We see the winners - the ones which did learn to fly. It's not random. Sand gains nothing by being shaped into a RR. But animals do gain by escaping predators, and if an enhancement happens then they are more likely to escape. As for enhancements being rare, or strange - compare the height and weight of children born in 1980 to the 1920 generation... large variation, and still on average taller. that's how selection works. Do you doubt which ones (on average) would survive in the wild? As for humans - well, the brain is a risky development, because it takes so long to give advantage. But as it happened, the ability to choose a response or tool or action rather than rely on instinct alone, the communication and learning abilities, have outweighed the evolutionary drawbacks (long dependency period, rate of miscarriages due to infant head size, long dependency period etc). If they hadn't, we wouldn't be here now. No need for any designer. The advantaged win.