Re: It's the early bird that fits the bill

Jim Foley (jimf@vangelis.ncrmicro.ncr.com)
Fri, 1 Dec 95 11:37:59 MST

>>>>> On Thu, 30 Nov 95 21:34:10 EST, sjones@iinet.net.au (Stephen
>>>>> Jones) said:

>> I don't have a problem with the loss of teeth. As a PC I don't even
>> have a problem with God developing a bird from a reptilian archetype.
>> My problem is understanding how and why this would happen according to
>> a *100% naturalistic Darwinian* scenario. Why should a bird losing
>> its teeth have a selective advantage over those birds which did have
>> teeth?

Isn't there an obvious answer: weight? Not only the weight of the teeth
themselves, but of the jaw bones need to hold them. Replacing all that
with a lightweight keratin structure would surely help birds fly better
(regardless of whether you think it could happen naturistically). Ditto
for the hollow bones. I won't hazard a guess about the other
adaptations you mentioned.

-- Jim Foley                         Symbios Logic, Fort Collins, COJim.Foley@symbios.com                        (303) 223-5100 x9765  I've got a plan so cunning you could put a tail on it and call  it a weasel.      -- Edmund Blackadder