How did Flight evolve in the animal kingdom ?

[Moontanman]

you cant conclude anyting evolved into anything beacuse you cant know that a fossil gave birth to any children let alone something different to itself

 

 

Do I have some videos for you! No wait, you have made up your mind already, no point in making an effort to show you how wrong what you just asserted is but lets just say you have simply misrepresented the idea of what happens in evolution totally.... no transitional fossils huh? ... how drol....

[npbreakthrough]

markearthling

 

im no big evolution fan myself,

i find the mechanism of unguided chance mutation to simply be inadequate to explain the varieties of life and systems withing living creatures,

 

but understand that science is not interested in the theories that deal with the supernatural

science must try and solve problems with the only tools that science has, and that is the natural

 

evolution is the only theory currently available that can attempt to explain how all these things happen absent of the supernatural

 

just because evolution does not explain everything , does not give anybody the right to inject supernatural ideas into scientific query

doing so adds nothing to the debate

 

science does not necessarily explain things away from the supernatural

and the supernatural explanation is not always needed when natural explanation is inadequate

[Ringer]

The reason chance mutation is inadequate is because it's not the whole story. You forget the selection process that allows some mutations to survive and others to die off.

 

For the OP: Honestly if you want to argue flight, the wing has been done to death. At least do something less cliche like the hollow bones or keeled sternum or something more original.

Edited June 9, 2011 by Ringer

[markearthling]

Moontanman

 

I am interested in anything you would like to put my way.

 

Your effort will not be unrewarded.

 

Contrary to what our vague Mooeypoo has said above I enjoy reading science literature

or checking out any videos that you mentioned.

 

So fire away my friend as we have some work to do.

 

mooeypoo

 

You seem to be quite vague in your approach to the subject.

 

Have you even bothered to read the above thread before you come to your bizarre

conclusions ?

 

Where is your hard evidence from the scientific research literature with regard

to what you said about residual evolution of flawed human bodily systems ?

 

Or is your head just full of vague ideas and dreams ?

 

If you are going to talk about it then put your money where your mouth is

and do something about proving it or simply keep your pseudo scientific ideas

to yourself.

[mooeypoo]

You're the one making the claims; I'm waiting for YOU to pose evidence for whatever competing theory there is out there.

 

I'm not wasting my time on an argument that isn't meant to be resolved. You either have actual evidence that don't fit the current theory and fit YOUR theory, or you don't.

 

We speak science here.

[ydoaPs]

If he really wants an answer I do have some stuff to show him, this amounts to considerable time on my part spent looking up this stuff and while I do enjoy it for it's own sake having some one just ignore me or worse yet just move the goal posts by redefining the question each time is a bit of a... hmmm, how to say it....

If you already have stuff looked up and whatnot, you may as well post it now as a reference for later at the least. The guy might even read it-who knows?

[markearthling]

mooeypoo

 

You are being vague and evasive again.

 

What I suggest you do is read the thread.

 

You are totally missing the point.

 

So far all you have done is prattle on.

 

You didn't answer my question about what you said above

about evolutionary flaws in human bodily systems.

 

Where is your evidence ?

 

When I have mine together I will post it.

 

You are not talking any science so far.

 

Without evidence you are telling me bed time stories from Dr Dawkins and Co.

 

ydoaPs

 

Yes the guy will read it.

 

Arete said above

 

This is an argument from incredulity - and thus a logical fallacy.

 

end quote

 

Sounds like a quote from a proponent of one Richard Dawkins ( bed time stories Inc.).

 

Is noone allowed to comment on the awesome chemical structure and complexity

of life without being accused of being incredulous about something so amazing.

I defy anyone not to be incredulous after they learn the current knowledge of what makes

life tick.

 

What has logic got to do with incredulity anyway ?

 

I am simply not convinced that evolutionary theory as currently stated

is correct in part or full. I have lots of reading to do but when

I have seen enough hard evidence who knows I may change my mind.

 

Until then it's nose to the grind stone.

[Ringer]

Start here if you want to learn;

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

[markearthling]

npbreakthrough

 

Quote

 

im no big evolution fan myself,

i find the mechanism of unguided chance mutation to simply be inadequate to explain the varieties of life and systems withing living creatures,

 

End Quote

 

At least you can see what I can.

 

Science is not interested in theories that it is not interested in.

But it is interested in evolution theory and noone has any right

( or the scientific creds or qualifications ) to challenge this set of theories

or so it seems.

 

This is not about the Supernatural. Noone is trying to prove that.

Concepts of the supernatural are simply bogus and not real.

 

This is about truth in whatever form we find it.

 

This is about scientific technique, knowledge, findings, hard evidence

and ultimately interpretation. Everything humans do is based on

perception, intelligence, knowledge and the assumptions we make.

 

If our assumptions are not rock solid

then we will not interpret our science findings correctly

and things will not work as we expect

but that is not the important thing

what is important is the truth we find

not what we choose to invent or fabricate.

[mooeypoo]

mooeypoo

 

You are being vague and evasive again.

 

What I suggest you do is read the thread.

I'm not the one making the claim - you are. You are, thereofre, in need of substantiating it. Which you don't do.

 

What I suggest you do is read our rules.

 

 

 

[markearthling]

mooeypoo

 

Have you even bothered to read the above thread ?

 

I will post my evidence if you are prepared to do the same.

 

Have you heard of the concept of freedom of speech ?

 

You will accomplish nothing by making your petty threats

and yes I have read the rules.

 

I simply disagree with you and you don't like it.

 

Tough cheese. That's life.

 

If you are not prepared to discuss the subject of this

thread then please don't bother to respond to anymore of my posts.

 

You don't seem to have any knowledge or much intellect at all.

 

So far you have made many vague allusions and talked no science at all.

 

So please don't waste my time and please

keep your pseudo intellectual dishonesty to yourself.

Your insults have no impact on me.

Water off a ducks back.

[mooeypoo]

mooeypoo

 

Have you even bothered to read the above thread ?

 

I will post my evidence if you are prepared to do the same.

 

You're the one making the claim. You can't expect us to give you a whole theory-worth of evidence becuse you're too lazy to look it up in proper peer reviewed resources online. Look for "missing links" in google and you'll find answers; look for "evolution of the wing" and you'll get answers with observations and evidence, look for "evolution of the horse" and you will get evidence, observation and explanation.

 

Look at the links Capn gave you in the other thread. You will get answers there.

 

 

YOU came to us and posted a billion threads with absolutely no information in there other than a rather disrespectful taunting "neener neener" claim that has zero backing and no evidence, and *we* need to post evidence against it? Why?

 

You are making the claims, you need to back them up. That's the way it works. Do the work, bring the evidence. We will discuss substance, not empty taunts.

 

~mooey

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Look at the links Capn gave you in the other thread. You will get answers there.

I think you're mixing him up with crazynutsx.

[Moontanman]

It seems likely this would have to start with something small and

light (insect ?) which could be lifted into the air by a strong wind/breeze and which would develop bud like appendages

which later develop into full blown wings in later generations ?

 

The question is , what is the impetus or trigger which causes

the immature wing buds to confer some kind of benefit

or advantage to the individual so it is more successfull

and survives to procreate and so wings get larger,

develop and become more and more successful and

usefull ?

 

Some animals which have the power of some kind of

flight are various insects, pteradactyl/dino etc.,

birds, gliding animals and flying fish.

 

Ok Mark, first thing I would like to point out is that you have asked a very odd question, much like how did running evolve or how did eating evolve, such things have evolved so many times independently to suggest there is a common way they evolved is a bit of a loaded question isn't it? I mean, have you stopped beating your wife yet?

 

 

But if you want a really good explanation of how Evolution works I can steer you toward some stuff that might interest you because that is what you are really asking isn't it?

Edited June 10, 2011 by Moontanman

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Have you even bothered to read the above thread ?

 

I will post my evidence if you are prepared to do the same.

 

Have you heard of the concept of freedom of speech ?

As one with expertise in matters of law and civil rights, I'm sure you're aware that concepts such as "freedom of speech" are limitations on the laws and actions a sovereign government may make, not the actions of a privately owned and operated facility. We may prohibit whatever forms of speech we see fit.

 

You don't seem to have any knowledge or much intellect at all.

Since you have read and studied our forum rules, I'm sure you're aware of rule 1.a. Violate it again and you will earn yourself a suspension from this site.

 

I am not asking evolution to be logical. I am asking you to be logical. You say what if a food source is high up in trees.

I say so what. This is not the case for all animals with or without

proto wings.

Presumably this is why most animals did not evolve the ability to fly. A trait does not have to be advantageous for all animals everywhere for it to be advantageous for a few.

 

An animal with proto wings which falls and damages itself

has no breeding advantage over a ground dwelling

animal with no proto wings. That is what I am saying.

A popular hypothesis is that proto-wings gave small mammals much more effective thermal regulation, as they could easily use the nonfunctional wings as regulators. What evolved to support life in difficult climates eventually found use saving the life of animals which did fall.

 

Consider: The first animals to fly probably did so by gliding, not by flapping their wings in powered flight. Hence they began by falling and surviving due to their protowings slowing the fall. Their wings would not cause them to fall and damage themselves, as they would not be functional enough to fly under their own power.

 

Here are some resources for you:

 

http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB921_2.html

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/flight/evolve.html

[markearthling]

Your responses are both childish and pitifull.

 

Did you just read a few textbooks in high school and swallow evolution theory hook, line and sinker ? How much of the online ( or other ) peer reviewed literature have you read ?

 

Do you question nothing ? Do you just accept everything you read that appeals to you ?

 

I'm sorry but many people also have a purchase on what evolution theory says

and they aren't scientists but they have every right to question and challenge your

precious theory whether you like it or not.

 

The way it works is we discuss the subject of the thread.

That is the only reason I am here.

 

If you are not prepared to do this then I will not waste any more of my time

responding to your childish posts.

 

 

 

Capn Refsmat

 

Are you interested in openly discussing evolution theory or not ?

 

Mooeypoo made little effort to absorb the contents of this thread

and was both vague,childish and insulting in her responses

as if I don't know how to use google and look up peer reviewed material.

 

And so being officious we stamp our feet because someone doesn't agree

with us and exercise our right to expunge a valid post.

 

I simply repeat, many people are not scientists but they have every right

to challenge the claims of evolution theory.

 

I have been accused above of intellectual dishonesty

but where is this actually coming from

when people here simply don't want their precious theories questioned.

 

If you can't handle the truth then go ahead and censor away.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

The issue is not your viewpoint on evolution. The issue is your insistence on insulting other participants in the discussion.

 

You are free to go on doubting evolution, but you are not free to insult SFN members while doing so. Your tenure here will be rather short if you do not improve your attitude.

[Moontanman]

Your responses are both childish and pitifull.

 

 

Moi? Seriously? I was trying to take you seriously, oh well

[markearthling]

Capn Refsmat

 

Did you notice above that mooeypoo accused me of intellectual dishonesty

when I was simply attempting to discuss the subject of the thread ?

 

This I take as a serious and unprovoked insult. Did you reprimand mooeypoo

also about this ?

 

All I am asking for is some balance in the equation ?

 

You do have my undertaking that in future my posts will be positive

and will not be insulting.

 

Moontanman

 

So far you have been very helpfull. Thank you for your efforts.

 

I was actually responding to mooeypoo when I referred

to things she had said above.

[Moontanman]

 

Moontanman

 

So far you have been very helpfull. Thank you for your efforts.

 

 

Well then respond to my post, it is evolution we are really talking about, correct? Not flight? Because flight has evolved several times inside several different groups of animals, no doubt each time the circumstances would be unique to some degree would they not? Insects in particular seem to have evolved flying quite differently than say bats. Flying fish would be yet another unique evolution of flight, pterosaurs are quite different than birds and no doubt evolved differently under different circumstances. There are even flying squid, are you really suggesting that all flying animals evolved flight the same way? Even spiders have evolved a type of flight. Make it clear what you are questioning, is it evolution or the evolution of flight in a particular animal?

[mooeypoo]

I think you're mixing him up with crazynutsx.

 

You're right. Makes one wonder, doesn't it.

 

 

Here: http://www.talkorigins.org/ Start there.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

You're right. Makes one wonder, doesn't it.

 

 

Here: http://www.talkorigins.org/ Start there.

I'm fairly certain they're not the same person. I've also already directed markearthling to the right bit of TalkOrigins, as well as other resources. Being dismissive isn't conducive to convincing anyone, incidentally...

[markearthling]

Capnrefsmat

 

I agree with most of what you said above about proto wings.

 

One thing I do have a little difficulty with is

 

Quote Capnrefsmat

 

Their wings would not cause them to fall and damage themselves,

as they would not be functional enough to fly under their own power.

 

End Quote

 

There seems to be a contradiction here or maybe you meant "would cause them to fall".

 

Thanks for the links by the way.

 

Moontanman

 

The heading of this thread is, "How did Flight evolve in the animal kingdom ?"

and hence I am asking a general question i.e. I understand that flight has

evolved several times and in different forms in many different animals.

When I started the thread I presented some ideas/examples of my

own to test these ideas etc against what others think on the subject.

I wasn't just referring to evolution of flight in any particular animal.

 

Towards the end of the Dr Dawkins material above he corroborates

something I said at the beginning of this thread.

 

There are obviously many animals involved and different paths to flight

for each.

 

I was simply curious about the various evolutionary processes involved.

 

I understand natural selection and the various sources of mutation

( three I can think of at least ) of DNA but am not clear on how

point mutations can be usefull in themselves or accumulate

to build something usefull.

 

Others above have stated that gliding wings evolved into flapping wings.

I did not say that this is impossible merely that gliding wings and

flapping wings have very different structure/form and function

and that a lot has to change in the DNA for this to happen.

 

It is also not clear that the development of dogs and horses

is not the result of built in genetic variability as opposed to evolution

and yes I know that natural selection is also involved, a concept I

am happy with. Chemical resistance in bacteria is also due to genetic

variability not evolution.

 

But I digress as I am supposed to be discussing flight (my apology).

 

People here may assume that I am dead against all evolutionary theory.

Natural selection works fine as far as I can see but ideas like speciation

etc., I have problems with. When I see more hard evidence I may change

my mind, who knows.

 

Thanks again for your input Montanman

 

Mooeypoo

 

If you are prepared to be positive then so will I be.

 

Perhaps we got off to a bad start initially

but people can always improve and get better.

 

 

[Edtharan]

Noone here has presented any examples from the supposed literature

which support their arguments. All I get is quotes from Richard Dawkins

who tells a ripping yarn/story by the way.

If you bother to do research, you will find that Dawkins bases his "yarns" (as you put them) on the results of scientific experiments and observation. He also puts references to these in his books so you can go and look them up yourself.

 

What Dawkins is trying to do is condense all these thousands of studies into something most people can understand.

 

I could post up a computer program that would prove that evolution works, but most people would not understand the programming language that I use. However, most people can understand a description of what the program did, so I would use that, and you call that a "yarn".

 

An explanation is not evidence from a scientific literature which is published based

on actual research work.

A scientific theory is an explanation. However, the explanation used in forums like these when dealing with someone who does not understand something are simplified to aid basic understanding before the real details are brought up.

 

 

Until you can understand the basics (even if you don't accept them as being correct), it is completely pointless to go into the specific details.

 

It is useless to give the details if you would not be able to understand what they meant.

 

My mind is open and the only agenda here is getting at the truth.

That may be so, but you first need to understand the subject. Being open-minded but rejecting things you don't understand because you don't understand them does not work well together.

 

You have to first try to understand what is being discussed before you reject it or accept it.

 

If we both climbed a tall tree and I had small winglike protuberances on my back

and you didn't I am sure we would both likely die in a fall or both be seriously

injured to the extent we could die later or not be healthy enough to maybe have kids later.

It is known that cats can survive falls of quite long drops. We can investigate this and we find that it is due to air resistance from their fur, their ability to control their fall and their flexibility that allows them to absorb the impact better.

 

But we know that cats have variation in the length of their fur. Would short hair (or hairless) cats survive a fall better or worse than a long furred cat?

 

I think the long haired cats would survive better as would have greater air resistance.

 

This is a known variation in a known species. We can show that selective breeding for the trait of length of hair is possible.

 

So, armed with this knowledge, that fur length varies among cats, and that the length of fur will influence survival rates of falls: Would you think that if cats were in a situation where falling was likely (say climbing after birds in trees), would cats with long hair or short hair be more likely to survive?

 

If you accept that long haired cats would be more likely to survive, then you have just accepted evolution as being true and accepted a direct example of it occurring.

 

To say that proto wings would save more animals from falls than not is simply

a gross assumption. Where is the research which backs this assumption up ?

And I am the one who is being illogical.

Protowings can take many forms. One such is a flap of skin between the legs of an animal. There are many animals with such protowings, from squirrel, to lizards, to possums and many more.

 

As you can see from the cat example above, air resistance would be important for the survivability of a falling animal. Although smaller, there is still a natural variation in the length of skin over the body. So animals that had slightly looser skin would end up with more air resistance. Also as control of the fall is also a survival factor (landing on your head is not as good as landing on your feet), then animals that had some ability to control their decent would have an advantage and their genes would come to dominate the gene pool.

 

For control you need some musculature and rigid structures by which to exert that control, so limbs (legs and arms) or a tail would be good places where mutations in skin length would allow some basic control (and basic control is better than no control, and good control is better than basic control).

 

Also noone bothered to respond to my question above regarding gliding and

flapping wings. They are vastly different in form/structure and function

and yet according to Richard Dawkins there is an evolutionary progression

from gliding wing to flapping. I would also like to see the research whixch has been

done on this one.

Yes, gliding and flapping are different, but one can lead to the other.

 

If you want a direct example, go do some research on bat evolution. As bat evolution has occurred fairly recently (as compared to birds and insects), there is more fossil evidence for it (because fossils degrade over time, especially if they are still in the Earth).

 

However, the simplified explanation for people who don't quite understand evolution is:

Bats developed the flaps of skin between their legs to help their survival in falls from trees as they hunted insects.

 

Over time, those that had more control over their falls, would land with less injuries than those that couldn't. As more and more control was achieved, it was possible for them to leap and to safe enough in their falls to survive. This enables them to catch more insects because they could catch the insects even if they tried to escape by flying or jumping away from the tree.

 

Over time, the proto-bats that could leap and glide better would catch more insects and survive falls better. Bats with bigger proto-wings would have more surface area to give them air resistance, and to exert control during the fall. This means that the proto-bats with longer wings would have the advantage and dominate the gene pool.

 

As exerting control would require stronger and stronger muscles that control the proto-wings, and that the proto-bats that could use this extra strength to flap slightly to extend their glides would have an advantage (they could now deliberately target already flying insects which the others could not). Thus the proto-bats with more "wing" strength and ability to flap would have an advantage and dominate the gene pool.

 

Over time, there has been a definite chain of advantages that would allow natural variations in skin length, bone length and hair length and patterns to allow a tree living mammal that hunts insects to develop wings and flight with flapping.

 

You might think of this as "just a yarn", but the variations that have been describes would not be objectionable to any biologist (or anyone with even basic knowledge of biology) and are all known to occur naturally in mammals, including bats themselves. Also, at each stage, there has been a clear advantage over the old form of the animal in both survivability and access to food.

 

The only thing that one might object to is the concept of survivability. that even a small advantage is enough to confer a significant influence on the genetic make up of a species.

 

the answer to this is numbers. If you look at small mammals that bats evolved from (or if you don't accept evolution yet, the animals that bats are claimed to have evolved from), they have large number of young (as an average around 4 to 5, but probably much higher) each breeding season. And, the animals might be fertile for 5 or 6 breeding seasons. Which would give a lifetime average of around 25 young.

 

If more than 2 of these young survive to breed, then the population will increase in number. If there are less than 2 that survive, then the population will diminish (because there are 2 parents and to maintain a stable population you need to replace the current breeding population).

 

This means that out of the 25 that are born, 23 must die if the population is to remain stable. In reality the population level will fluctuate, but for the sake of the example we don't really need to take that into account.

 

So, what would a 1% advantage really give in this situation? Well it would mean that 1 extra offspring would survive every 4 generations or so, and in 8 generations this would give an entire breeding pair extra.

 

This means there is an geometric growth, and a geometric growth means even a 1% advantage would, over the course of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years would quickly end up being a massive advantage.

 

So, give a population of say 10,000. A 1% advantage would mean that if you started with a stable population, then it would end up being a increasing population.

 

Remember a 1% advantage is that 1 out of 100 falls is less harmful, and that is not much of a difference really. Think of it like this: A 1% increase in wing length or muscle bulk every 100 generates would still allow a doubling of flight potential 10,000 generations. If a generation is 5 years, then the flight potential of these animals could increase their flight potential by 100% every 50,000 years. Over the millions of years that bats evolved from the proto-bat into modern bats, 50,000 years is nothing. In 1,000,000 years, at that rate, the proto-bats could increase their flight potential by 2,000 percent (and bats have been evolving for more than 1 million years).

 

It isn't real science until you can present conclusive evidence in the literature.

Your whole problem is that you aren't accepting the scientific literature.

 

First of all, you create strawmen not based on scientific literature (which was pointed out does exist for your question, you just didn't seem to read it) and then shoot down that strawman (which is what the strawman argument is about). When it was pointed out your concept of evolution is wrong, you proceeded to reject both the attempt to correct your misrepresentation and the literature that was pointed out to help you understand it and get the right concept of evolution.

 

As I said above, before we can go into the details of the literature, you first have to understand evolution (whether at this stage you accept it or not is not important, only that you have the correct understanding of what the theory of evolution is).

 

Until you stop using your incorrect (strawman) version of evolution, then no amount of evidence based on the correct version of evolution will make any difference to you, because the results will be different when the information is applied to the different versions of evolution.

 

Think of this in terms of maths:

 

If I had the equation A+C=C, but you though it was A*B=C, then even if I gave you the same values of A and B that I used, we would very likely get different results.

 

Your version of evolution is like the A*B=C, but we keep trying to tell you that was not the equation is. However, dispute all the explanation, links to literature and all the effort we present to you, you keep insisting that we are wrong and that the equation is really A*B=C.

 

This stalls up the discussion because what you are trying to understand is the value of C. But because you refuse to accept that your version of the equation is wrong, we can never agree on the value of C. This means any discussion about C is pointless until we both use the same equation.

 

So, first step. Learn what the real theory of evolution is, and leave your strawman version alone.

[Arete]

 

Arete said above

 

This is an argument from incredulity - and thus a logical fallacy.

 

end quote

 

Sounds like a quote from a proponent of one Richard Dawkins ( bed time stories Inc.).

 

This is another intellectual dishonesty. It's called "Guilt by association" http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/guilt-by-association.html. The fact Dawkins might use the term and you dislike his books is not a valid counter-argument, it's a sidestep.

 

Arumentum ad Ignoratum - or the argument from incredulity - has been around a lot longer than Dawkins - "Another way that Men ordinarily use to drive others, and force them to submit their Judgments. And receive the Opinion in debate, is to require the Adversary to admit what they alledge [sic] as a Proof, or assign a better. And this I call Argumentum ad Ignorantum" – John Locke. 1690. An essay in Human Understanding Book IV.