[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]


>One thing we can do is simply list all the different ways that flight could
>have evolved and rate them--by vote, perhaps--as to their plausibility. The=
>we could set aside the most outlandish of them and concentrate on the three
>or four ways deemed most likely.

The problem is that even if we decide what idea makes the most sense, there=
 will always be the nagging question of what *actually* happened (just=
 because something doesn't make sense, doesn't mean that nature didn't go=
 that way; logic has it's limits).  As Rowe pointed out, the only problem=
 here is with our inability to imagine what went on.  My question: how close=
 was Archy to the true origin of flight?  This may give us a clue.  If it=
 turns out that there were no trees in the place where flight evolved, then=
 any arboreal explanation falls flat.  I suspect that we know so little=
 about flight evolution that only the most outlandish of theories should be=
 ignored (look at poor Wegener, for example).  Just a few suggestions to=
 keep egg off our faces.

"Lord, I was born a rambling man."
        -Almand Bros.