Re: Flight SPECULATION

[Dinogeorge@aol.com]

In a message dated 95-12-03 01:35:59 EST, martz@holly.ColoState.EDU (Jeffrey
Martz) writes:

>The dozens of complicated and 
>imaginiative ideas we've been tossing around shows just how little is 
>known about how the process might get started.  The unambiguous evidence
just
>isn't there.  The simple fact that no good protobirds previous to 
>Archaeopteryx are known renders the entire bird origins debate to complete 
>speculation.  Tossing around ideas are fun, but we shouldn't loose sight of 
>the fact that the unknowns are too numerous to take this debate very
>seriously.

One thing we can do is simply list all the different ways that flight could
have evolved and rate them--by vote, perhaps--as to their plausibility. Then
we could set aside the most outlandish of them and concentrate on the three
or four ways deemed most likely.