[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
From: George Olshevsky <DinoGeorge@aol.com>
> ... but why--IF THEY NEEDED INSULATION--did they SPECIFICALLY
> acquire FEATHERS for insulation rather than hair, fat, asbestos
> linings, fiberglass, etc.
Accident, serendipity, historical reasons.
In short, why does the *have* to be an adaptive reason? (This is
one of Stephen J. Gould's major bugaboos). If hair, feathers and fat
are all about equally effective as insulation, which one developes
may be more a question of what went before and what mutations occured
at the citical points in time than any relative merits of the three.
> Nobody has explained why feathers are BETTER insulators than hair,
They probably aren't particularly.
The peace of God be with you.