[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Flight SPECULATION
>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."