Yes of course, but WHY "at some point does it just not work" and at what point, and why aren't there more animals flying up to that point and frankly a few a fraction beyond this arbitrary point? When airplanes first flew, it made no sense that we saw 747's flying within 2 weeks of the Wright brothers, but this is ga-jillions of years we're talking about...we should be seeing more animals flying, heavier animals flying and for that matter animals swimming, AND flying and running their own businesses on the side by now, logically speaking.
Moreover, when it DOES work, why not say for instance didn't all mice, or even some mice or some rats, etc. develop wings like their bat cousins did?Or how about little foxes? Wombats? Why didn't they develop pouches like kangaroos, this would be very useful I would think when flying.
But if it is random, then asking why we didn't get a certain result is like asking why the dice didn't come up 11. They just didn't, that's all.
WOW, how utterly convenient for you! They just didn't that's all? Kind of like all the belly-aching from libs: "God-did-it" only in reverse! GOT it.
No animals just "sprouted wings." If you look at the non-insect animals that fly, you'll notice that they have four limbs, just like us, and the two front limbs (or part of them) act as wings. So given that we're stuck with a four-limb body plan, we'd have to be in an ecological niche in which the changes necessary to turn our arms or hands into wings were favored over keeping them the way they are.
Yeah, I know, I know, ga-jillions of years, wings didn't just sprout overnight, which is missing the point, what determined wings in some animals and not in others? And your ecological niche argument falls flat because mice and bats, before bats developed wings, were living in the same eco-niche. The same premise falls flat with humans losing tails. There's no magical eco-niche that determines this either. It's all made up pie in the sky nonsense.
I tend to agree that it's a philosophical difficulty with evolution that we don't know what features natural selection favors until after the fact. But it's not a practical difficulty, just a philosophical one. It's like asking why a river follows a certain course--because it's the path of least resistance. How do we know it's the path of least resistance? Because the river followed it.
LOL! Circular reasoning at it's best! And make no mistake very much indeed it is a practical problem, so much so that people are doubting your excuses and nonsense. PRACTICALLY SPEAKING even small children know better. NO WONDER it's necessary to silence all dissent!
Very enlightening, thanks!
Really? Okay: because what we have to make animal wings out of is bone, muscle, and skin. At a certain size, a wing made out of those materials is going to be unable to support its own weight--the structural material (bone) isn't strong enough. And at a certain size, the muscles that make those wings flap are going to have to be attached to the body at a place strong enough to support the stresses involved. Do you understand that there are similar limitations to the size of an airplane?
hould be seeing more animals flying, heavier animals flying and for that matter animals swimming, AND flying and running their own businesses on the side by now, logically speaking.
Um...why? Just because something could evolve, doesn't mean it will evolve. This is something you made up, not something evolution promises.
why not say for instance didn't all mice, or even some mice or some rats, etc. develop wings like their bat cousins did?
Because there are still ecological niches for mice and rats as they are. The bats managed to exploit a new one, but that doesn't mean the old one disappeared. You're stuck on this idea that there is some standard of "better" that evolution always tends towards and that every animal has to always be changing in that direction.
Why didn't they develop pouches like kangaroos, this would be very useful I would think when flying.
There is, in fact, a flying marsupial.
WOW, how utterly convenient for you!
You asked a dumb question--don't blame me because you don't like the answer. You really think there's an answer for why a random event doesn't happen?
As the rest of your post trails off into your usual combination of ignorance, bluster, and rudeness, I'm starting to regret that I ever tried to answer your questions reasonably and respectfully.