Re: Campbell's even crazier than a MANIAC? (archeopteryx climbing)

[don ohmes <d_ohmes@yahoo.com>]

--- On Sat, 9/27/08, David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at> wrote:

> 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?

I did not miss his point at all. 

I know of no successful attempt to falsify either route, including the current 
"bird evolution cannot be gravity-driven because they are not purely arboreal 
in origin" attempt, which is itself falsified by the fact that early birds 
could have readily utilized trees in the way I describe.

I tried to falsify arboreal origin years ago, and failed. Ditto ground-up. 
Concluded it couldn't be done ("way too hard"), and am very skeptical of claims 
to the contrary. It is all 'best guess', afaik. But it is fun to falsify the 
attempts to "solve" the mystery.

> > 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?

If you spend all day climbing around in them, grasping feet will help. 

Ground foragers and cursorial hunters are known to seek out high places to 
roost. Intermittent perch-hunting is also an option. Therefore the feet remain 
cursorial. It is called compromise selection.

Turkeys fly up to roost. Why wouldn't their distant ancestors climb up, if it 
is easy to do? 

David the Science Cop; "You say you were at a motel last night; how could this 
be true if you don't carry a mop?" 

Archie's ancestors: "I don't work in motels for a living, I just sleep there, 
and sometimes order-in pizza. Don't you think you are jumping to conclusions?"

Don