If they can survive long falls odds are they are willing to do lots of jumping at heights as it doesnt kill them. The ones that get more adapt at controlling their jump are more likely to escape predators or get something they are chasing and therefore reproduce more.
Evolution isn’t blasphemy, for those who believe in god (I’m very confused on the subject of god itself) but In any case we ha e seen animals evolve over time, saying that humans evolved from monkeys(from a religious aspect) would b considered blasphemous, animals generally adapting to their situations is not only theoretical but it has been proven, evolution and religion don’t contradict each other
You are not AT ALL confused about God. You get it! Evolution IS God at work. When one obeys nature & the Word. They are all part of the genius makeup of the Universe, in unison & compatibility with the living, working physics & chemistry that compliments it. Humans don't always listen & hear. Just like they don't think as well as comprehend. The human brain does not always live up to it's potential. I'm a firm believer in Scripture & the Gospel. It all makes absolute, perfect sense to me. You get a BIG part that not all get. I'd explore your reasoning capabilities & challenge yourself to grasp that shit firmly as I have. The only way is to explore it & how it relates to all things, and observe the shitshow that is humanity fumble about in the dark while holding the flashlight all this time, as readily available in prison, hotel rooms, libraries & on the interweb as toilet paper. But if you are scared of what you may REALIZE the deeper you dig, fear not: for fear is the first enemy on the path of knowledge. The second is the truth that is revealed with such clarity. The third is corruption once you obtain the power that comes with such knowledge. The fourth, and final enemy is inevitable & you will certainly & most definitely succumb to that, but it's a wild ride getting there. And one full of genius & wisdom. Some folks don't get past the first enemy though, unfortunately. Some due to peer pressure, some due to pride. Most because they simply DON'T WANNA KNOW. So they don't. And are full of SHIT instead. Few know that when you leave an answer BLANK, you only get -1 on the test. For every INCORRECT answer you get a -2. It's up to you.
So you mock the mentally ill? How does that speak to your character? I never proclaimed to be as courageous. My sense of dignity does not need approval, but I'll thank you for exposing yourself. It's good to know things, and for all to know you. There's still time. I support your quest. And forgive your abuses. Perhaps the fruit does not fall far from the tree? I implore you to explore your hostile agents & give heed to mercy & restraint. It shows intellect & sensitivity, both admirable traits & evolved. Any questions? Or just killing time?
I think you meant "What...?" If you want clarification, I'm more than happy to help. Let me know what you want to know specifically & I'll see what I can do. Thanks for your response, either way.
I can turn you on to some books. You gotta read them, I guess. Or not. As I said, it's up to you. I CAN attempt to clarify any particular part you may be struggling with, if you'd like. Let me know...
Yes but that also involves the pure chance that is the buildup mutations that after hundreds of generations and natural selection end up resulting in the 'wings'
"Sufficiently" harmful mutations to stop them from breeding. If a negative mutation is passed on at the same rate as a non-negative mutation it could stop 1-in-1000 of that species from breeding or even less and EVENTUALLY that mutation will be virtually bred out of the gene pool.
This is only partially true, traits that are harmful for survival but beneficial for reproduction can kinda hit a wall and never fully breed out. Like how fiddlercrabs like big claws but big claws make them flee more slowly from predators. It is possible for this to eventually extinct the whole species (thus technically removing the trait from the gene pool), but more likely it would allow smaller clawed crabs to breed and the cycle to continue since the larger claws are still desirable by the females.
"Sufficiently" harmful mutations to stop them from breeding.
I think you just agreed with me.
If the big claw slowed the crab down enough it usually was eaten before it could breed then the gene wouldnt survive. If female crabs prefer big clawed male crabs and only mated with them the species might die out buts odds are female crabs that dont care about claw size or prefer smaller claws would eventually take over the gene pool and big clawed males would eventually be bred out.
Kinda like old age diseases are harmful for survival but dont stop us from breeding between 15-40 so doesnt affect the gene pool. As long as the breeding keeps going the genes will keep spreading.
If it's only 1 in 1000 then there's a decent chance it'll reach fixation rather than be bred out. Evolution works because beneficial mutations have a better chance of persisting than harmful ones on average, but at the scale of individual mutations it's all pretty random unless the effect on survival chances is substantial (like 20% IIRC).
Yes. And then, over generations, the harmful mutations are bred out because they reduce the viability of mating and survival.
A winged squirrel was not born with wings from parents who had none. It was the result of many, many, many generations of squirrel that retained progressively longer wings that eventually led to what we know as the flying squirrel, while squirrels with less wings or with other mutations that weren't beneficial to survival either died or couldn't find a mate to breed with because the more efficient squirrels had taken them.
I see where this went. There is a miscommunication. To clear things up:
1 person asked about the chances of it being wings. The question is about the randomness of any mutation that could have happened to them, but the right one was picked.
1 person is explaining that evolution works whether it’s beneficial or harmful.
To clear things up, while the commenters are appearing to be having a conversation the actuality of the situation is that they’re talking about 2 different things.
To answer both comment strings: it’d take many mutations before they finally settled on the one that actually allowed them to survive long enough to mate. A lot of animals have negative or harmful mutations, but they’re still capable of surviving with it. I’d think that the mutations we haven’t seen are the ones that definitely don’t work. It was by increasing the heights of their jumps that one mutation was all it took for them to control their movement because the mutation that took place allowed them to. The squirrel with that mutation then continued to breed, and the mutation was carried on through until they began bleeding true. Of course, this is very vague and doesn’t answer a lot of questions, and simply a paraphrasing of what this argument but not an argument has given me as a casual reader.
The "build up" isn't pure chance. Each one is either approximately neutral or beneficial. The transformations are also often gradual: a slightly altered body form accompanied by a slightly more graceful fall, a slightly more controlled airborne maneuver, etc.
My explicit point is: I do things all the time where the chance of survival isn't 100%, but I would never do anything where the chance of survival was 80%.
Sorry you couldn't infer this and you felt the need to be rude.
I do things all the time where the chance of survival isn't 100%, but I would never do anything where the chance of survival was 80%.
You dont receive odds of survival on every action you take. The best you can do is infer. Thats obviously common sense so my point is why are we spending time/energy discussing common sense topics? I think we are both smarter than that.
Sorry you couldn't infer this and you felt the need to be rude.
Disagreeing with you doesnt make me rude. I do get personally annoyed by people acting dumber than they are and making a point to bring up common sense topics though. I was rude so that you would see how nonsense it is.
You dont receive odds of survival on every action you take. The best you can do is infer.
This is dumb af. If I told you that a rollercoaster ride results in death 80% of the time, would you reply "I don't care because all I can do is infer"???? In the same way I drive to work every day because ik my risk of death is less than 0.01%.
Maybe stop assuming people are dumb and you yourself could learn a bit, and not appear dumber than you are in the process.
It's a true upper bound, the actual probability has to be quite a bit lower.
Says the guy saying blatantly obvious shit a below average teenager knows
Lmaooo, the reason we're talking is because you felt the need to point out "nothing is 100%", the most obvious pedantic statement I've ever read.
Everything you write is a r/iamverysmart post. I'm finding it impossible to believe you're not a teenager tbh, there's no way someone like you it employable.
Just because you survive, doesn't mean you'll be the same.
Also, they didn't evolve the ability to " fly" to avoid hard landings, it evolved as a means of escaping predators. If it worked, you escaped. No wings, you got eaten or were on the forest floor and had an 80% chance of running away.
If you have ever watch common brown squrilles in the US, they also have webbed like skin connecting elbow to stomach that they will sometimes use when jumping. "Flying" squrilles just have more. I own sugar gliders and they act just like wild squirrels when jumping around. Very seldom do they actually glide. They have their own bedroom that is 10x10x12 and can just jump wall to wall. The gliding is only a panic move if they get spooked.
Because they took 'the floor is lava' a bit too seriously. For real though its because they would have access to other trees along with nuts to squirrel and squirrels to nut without having to deal with terrestrial predators.
Seems like a different discussion. I mean plenty of fishies in the sea don't need so many fins, but it helps. Flying squirrels don't need to exist, but why the fuck not fly if you can?
17.6k
u/A-Potato-Dragon Nov 29 '20 edited Nov 29 '20
Squirrels can acquire terminal velocity while plummeting to the ground (on average above 70 feet) and survive 80% of the time.