[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Campbell's even crazier than a MANIAC? (archeopteryx climbing)
----- Original Message -----
From: "don ohmes" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2008 1:56 AM
Question: if you were going to attempt to falsify an
for flight in a given group, how would you go about it?
I wouldn't. Way too hard.
You have missed the point of this question. Ideas that are not falsifiable
are, you see, utterly worthless. The basic question of science is "if I were
wrong, how would I know?"; if you were wrong about an arboreal origin for
flight in any of the four clades that have evolved flight, how would you
find that out?
Besides, my argument is that Arch. (or more to the point Arch. ancestors)
could _definitely_ climb certain tree species (ie, they were not
"mechanically constrained" from it), and those trees were common.
Not among the fossils of Solnhofen & Eichstätt, though, AFAIK.
Teeth and four sets of claws will get you up a cycad.
Sure. Still, if you do that for a living, then having a few extra
adaptations like actual grasping feet would help -- would be selected for.
We find the opposite in the fossil record. How come?