dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (04/24/85)
>>>> For example, if a limb were to evolve into a >>>> wing, it would become a bad limb long before it became a >>>> good wing. >>> >>> Try telling that to flying squirrels and see how far it gets you. >> >>[DuBois] >>Try asking them to really fly and see how far it gets you. What, do >>you think they have "wings"? > [Isaac Dimitrovsky] > The point of the flying squirrel example is NOT that the squirrel can > really fly. After all, if it could, you would just say it was an example > of an animal with a fully developed wing. The point of the example is > precisely that the squirrel can't fly. In other words, it may be useful > to an animal to have a limb which is both a bad wing and a reasonably > good limb. In other other words, at least in the case of wings, > it is possible to have intermediate forms which are useful for > gliding and short flights but are not capable of full flight. And, at > least in this case, I don't think you can dispute that this point has > been established. Can you? I will not dispute that they can glide and that they are not capable of full flight. That is obvious. I am of course unconvinced that they are intermediates (that is, intermediates which developed from a non-intermediate). The skin flaps are not wings and there is no evidence that they ever will be. There is also (as far as I am aware) no evidence that they ever were anything but skin flaps. Perhaps you will say that there is not evidence that they were *not* something besides skin flaps. I think you would be right in this, but that is not a very strong position to argue from. This puts us at a standoff, because we simply do not know whether they were ever any different than they are now. If it suits you to be an agnostic in this matter, fine. That makes two of us. But if you wish to use this as evidence of an "intermediate" to press your case, I will object and demand evidence which, I think, you shall be unable to produce. -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | "Danger signs, a creeping independence" |
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (04/26/85)
In article <975@uwmacc.UUCP> dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) writes: > >>>> For example, if a limb were to evolve into a > >>>> wing, it would become a bad limb long before it became a > >>>> good wing. Here Paul is (for convenience perhaps) speaking as if evolution is true. > >>> Try telling that to flying squirrels and see how far it gets you. > >> > >>[DuBois] > >>Try asking them to really fly and see how far it gets you. What, do > >>you think they have "wings"? Here Paul is asking for criteria that he should have specified himself. Such as what makes a wing, or what makes a bad limb. My dictionary gives as examples of wings the structures of flying fish and flying lemurs, which can only glide like flying squirrels. > > [Isaac Dimitrovsky] > > The point of the flying squirrel example is NOT that the squirrel can > > really fly. After all, if it could, you would just say it was an example > > of an animal with a fully developed wing. The point of the example is > > precisely that the squirrel can't fly. In other words, it may be useful > > to an animal to have a limb which is both a bad wing and a reasonably > > good limb. In other other words, at least in the case of wings, > > it is possible to have intermediate forms which are useful for > > gliding and short flights but are not capable of full flight. And, at > > least in this case, I don't think you can dispute that this point has > > been established. Can you? An excellent and well justified point. Isaac (for convenience perhaps) uses the term "intermediate" which is based on evolutionary assumptions, and which wasn't necessary to his rebuttal. > I will not dispute that they can glide and that they are not capable of > full flight. That is obvious. I am of course unconvinced that they > are intermediates (that is, intermediates which developed from a > non-intermediate). Here Paul attacks because Isaac used the same evolutionary context that Paul did. Paul is criticizing the idea of a historical intermediate, while the example in question is a FUNCTIONAL intermediate. Which Paul said would be a "bad limb" before it would be a good wing. Perhaps Paul would like to explain why.... > The skin flaps are not wings and there is no > evidence that they ever will be. There is also (as far as I am aware) > no evidence that they ever were anything but skin flaps. Bat wings (by that same standard) are nothing but skin flaps. I think Paul needs to choose a better definition for "wings" than "anything Paul chooses to call wings and nothing else." I also responded to Paul's request for intermediates, with examples from the Dryinidae (wasps) and the Glycypagid subfamily Ewinginae (hermit crab mites.) And another person brought up the intermediates between reptilian and mammalian inner ear bones. The fact is that there are innumerable examples of functional intermediates, that are best explained as relicts of historical intermediate ancestors. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
lonetto@phri.UUCP (Michael Lonetto) (05/05/85)
> full flight. That is obvious. I am of course unconvinced that they > are intermediates (that is, intermediates which developed from a > non-intermediate). The skin flaps are not wings and there is no > evidence that they ever will be. There is also (as far as I am aware) > no evidence that they ever were anything but skin flaps. Perhaps you > will say that there is not evidence that they were *not* something > besides skin flaps. > Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- I am getting quite tired of reading this type of argument. Both ends of this dispute are arguing from speculation. To each of the antagonists the burden of proof rests on the other, since one is "religious" and the other is not. I wish that when people had a point to make they would choose well documented examples to support it. It is obvious from the tone of exchange in this net that any speculation will be pounced upon by one side or the other, most certainly by the soft spoken (though somewhat intractable) Mr. DuBois. While speculation has its place in both science and religion, that place is not in presenting a point of view in the presence of hostile criticism. Life goes on. Michael Lonetto PHRI
ward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward) (05/07/85)
> > Life goes on. > Will you please present some documentation to back this up?