Re: All this flying talk---then comes the why..or something

[Dinogeorge <Dinogeorge@aol.com>]

In a message dated 98-04-15 03:12:55 EDT, ornstn@inforamp.net writes:

<<  In
 fact I can think of no case in which any living species moved into a new
niche
 (as opposed to developing defences) purely to avoid predators. >>

How could you tell one way or the other? I've decided, after all, to avoid
these kinds of Just So Stories. Any more, I could care less >why< an animal
heads for the trees to live, because there's simply no way to confirm any
hypothesis. One thing that allows me to reject a hypothesis outright is if it
is stated in such as way that the future causes the past. An animal is prey
>before< it goes up into the trees, so this hypothesis will carry more weight
with me than one in which an animal goes up into the trees and >then< finds
food. You can't have the cause of an event occurring after the event itself.
I'd accept a "pushing the envelope" hypothesis for an arboreal lifestyle
anytime--the animal goes up into the trees for >no< reason--just because the
trees are there and an unfilled niche exists. That might be the best reason of
all.