It appears that some traits just “come along” with other useful ones—
that would not fit in to Darwinian evolution theory which I believe favors gradual mutation to a form...not spontaneous new fully functional forms occurring....
You’re saying basically that an animal could randomly sprout fully functional wings just because.....
Or a monkey, could randomly be born the next Einstein ?..
I think you would agree Darwinian evolution has to have a range or scope limitation of the viable mutation there can any given generation?
Else Darwinian evolution would have to encompass the remote possibility of self aware man spontaneously rising from dirt in one step..
And your back to the story of Adam being viable inside Darwinian evolution theory...
So given the atlantic article.. just how much of a brain capacity change is viable within evolutionary theory vs. What they think we use and dont use...
That was Darwin’s insight, yes, but we now know a lot more than he did. It’s been suggested that some traits persist that are neutral because they’re genetically associated with other traits that are positive. For instance, the gene that gives light skin, an advantage in regions without much sunlight, might also increase the tendency to have blue eyes. The blue eyes themselves may not be helpful—they just “come along” with a trait that is.
None of that has anything to do with an animal sprouting wings.
I read nothing of the sort into Ha Ha's post, so why are you inventing arguments for Ha Ha?
Current thinking on bird evolution begins with feathered dinosaurs, feathers intended, as in today's chicks, to keep the beasts warm.
Large feathers on a small critter in a windy day could help it jump further, avoiding a predator, or catching its lunch.
Once you have airborne dinos, then every small improvement in flying gives them an advantage, and hence more natural selection.
I think that's the point Ha Ha made, and don't "get" why you wish to distort it?