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

Re: origin of bats/reply 2 to TMK



This is an assertion, not really a robust conclusion.

No this is a question followed by red flag because a leap of logic has appeared in traditional thinking.

<chorus>*Onychonycteris*... *Onychonycteris*... *Onychonycteris*...</chorus>

This is science here. Logic always comes second; empirical evidence comes first. This is because reality is practically _always_ stranger than fiction.

In hindsight, reality does always turn out to be logical, but it's also almost always something nobody ever thought of.

There is not reason to think that climbing hands can't evolve dual
function under specific selective regimes.

Dual function? Name an analogous situation.


<chorus>*Onychonycteris*... *Onychonycteris*... *Onychonycteris*...</chorus>

Evolution always chooses the best
solution to a problem. Try climbing with only your thumbs or ask a
cat to do so and you'll see that's not the best solution.

Evolution always chooses a solution that works _well enough_ and is _attainable_ -- and it's not to a single problem, but always to several at once. Bat forelimbs are a compromise between the functions of climbing and flying; modern bats are more on the flying side, *Onychonycteris* was a bit more on the climbing side than today's bats.


Look at your legs. They aren't really good for anything other than playing soccer, and even for that they aren't optimal. Now don't tell me you've never wondered why.

To determine how a standard climbing hand gets to that point, we need more fossil evidence and phylogenetic analysis.

True. We don't know the transition. But at the transition, bats were at liberty to do something else with their hands.

So you think they stopped using their hands at all before they started using them for flying? Where would the advantage in that be?


Just assuming that there has to be a bipedal stage is not
recommendable.

Except that we have two examples of bipedal vertebrates that grew wings.

Well, we have one and _possibly_ another. But so what? Induction doesn't work. There's always a first time.


And bats are inverted bipeds. That's irrefutable.

I'd rather say it's semantics. They don't even walk that way -- that they do quadrupedally. They just hang.


And their outgroups were experimenting with holding prey in their forepaws.

Perhaps.

Hey, I'm just the messenger. It's just a new idea. That's all.

If you're the messenger, why don't you publish? _That_ would deliver the message. Simply asserting that bats and tree shrews are civets doesn't deliver any content, it's just an empty assertion that we may choose to believe or not. We will gladly W4tP.