Ecurb: I just want to note, in case you missed it before, that Aaron is 14 years old. Given that, his early attempt at understanding evolution is quite admirable.
That being said, Aaron, Ecurb is a very knowledgable fellow, and you can learn a lot from his critique. Since he has covered all of what I would have cautioned you about in terms of biology, I will just make the stylistic suggestion that you remove the word "basically" and "basic" from your essay. These words are often (as here) unnecessary and make what would otherwise be keen and powerful sentences a bit flabby. Always question these words when you write (unless you are writing dialogue). They are seldom necessary and best avoided.
Clopin (and Easy): I'm no biologist, either, but I am not as troubled about the evolution of flight as you are. Clearly some transitional forms are missing, but that is to be expected in light of how rarely fossils form. It requires rather precise environmental conditions (usually involving the dead organism being almost immediately covered with some kind of geological matrix), that the fossil be spared destruction in the earth, and that it be found at all--a pretty rare combination when you think about it. Compare the few fossils that make it through that gauntlet to the total number of organisms that have died on the planet and you'll see my point. It's not unusual that many transitional forms would be missing (although we do have some). In fact, it would be expected.
Okay, but I get it that that is not what you were asking about. It seems to me (in my no doubt naive "science for Classics majors" sort of way) that natural selection could have turned the trick of flight quite handily. Critters scurry after lunch, and those with less dense bones are fast enough to catch it (and the others don't live long enough to reproduce as much). Their descendants keep on scurrying for lunch, and those who leap better catch it. Their descendants scurry after lunch and those with more fluffy scales leap even better, and catch it. Their descendants scurry after lunch, and those whose feathery scaled limbs more facilitate short glides catch it. Their descendants scurry and glide after lunch, and those who can manage a simple form of low flight for very short distances catch it. Their descendants scurry and glide and fly, and those who manage to climb trees and ambush lunch by flying down on it catch it, and avoid predators on the ground to boot. Their ancestors find more stuff to eat, and are safer from predators, and meet a lot more girls by flying from tree to tree. As Woody Allen said of nature, "it's like an enormous restaurant." Maybe a pick up bar is more like it. In any case, it's all based on individual traits among members of a given species. You don't need half wings that don't do anything (although presumably you might find them on birds who have lost the ability to fly because over the eons they found a better way to do business. Now I know it didn't all work exactly like that. The point is that natural selection
could have managed the job. It would not have required flight to have been the objective all along.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Clopin
