Why can't a human fly?

The human body has the wrong make up of bones and muscle groups. Our bones are far too heavy and the muscles in our thoracic (chest) region are just not strong enough. Our sternum (breast bone) is no were big enough Our legs would drag us back to earth and we can not generate enough energy without over heating.

If I understand the OP question correctly, I think you're right on the spot, Guest.

The long evolution which led to flight, in both birds an mammals, created a strong selection favouring hollow, but micro-inner-beam supported, light and very strong, bones.

In addition, the muscle weight to power ratio output in flying creatures are superbly adapted to efficient flight.

Their Cardio-Vascular system (although different in birds and mammals, that is to say bats) is that of very high rate metabolism, enabling the creature to take advantage, of sustained in high energy/low effort ratio.

The required adaptation, resulted from the long selection of flyers, is deep, fundamental, intricate, taking many different aspects into near perfection, in order to produce this ability.

Not a single, basic, adaptation of the body.

It is easy enough to answer the question using scientific facts without having to rely on unproven myths. It is very silly to evoke the "long evolution which led to..." arguement when there is absolutely NO EVIDENCE to support it. There are no fossil records showing any creatures that have "protowings" or that have "semistructures" of those of flying creatures. Flyers appear in the fossil record as fully formed with all required systems available. Just like swimmers, air breathers, sexual reproducers, sonar users, and all of the other amazingly complex systems that living things possess, they always appear in the fossil record as fully formed. If this "long evolution" were valid, then we would see billions of fossils showing lifeforms in transition. Instead we see no lifeforms with evidence of transition. Archeopterix is not a transition creature. It has fully developed wings, feathers, scales and was a full flyer, according to the descriptions and fossils that are available for it. Also, how would a creature evolve the ability to fly? All of the pre-flight enabled creatures would have died throwing themselves off of cliffs and not quite flying. That is absurd. It is senseless to assume that flight systems evolved in some piecemeal fashion over billions of years, when it is far simpler and logical to posit that in agreement with the fossil records that the creatures were fully formed with the ability to fly from the onset. You don't have to believe in God if you choose not to, but you can't just say that billions of years gives the impossible time to occur.

If it can't be observed or repeated then it is NOT science and it has no place in a scientific discussion! You should keep your "evolution" comments to a philosophy message board or a discussion of the X-Men or Pokemon but in a scientific forum you should stick to things that can be repeated in a controlled experiement and that can be observed.

What you just spewed forth is the theory of creation, not very scientific of you.

To quote you..... You should keep your "Creation" comments to a philosophy message board or a discussion of the X-Men or Pokemon but in a scientific forum you should stick to things that can be repeated in a controlled experiement and that can be observed.

Yuval,

You are a most welcome member of CR4 and I always look forward to reading your comments.

Peace

.

Ok call me dense but are inferring that I am involved in pseudo science?

Dear Richard L,

...involved in pseudo science?...

On the contrary!

I was only illustrating the principle behind.

I, for one, appreciated you support, and still am. We seem to need such support, in these wacky new-age times of pseudo-everything. And thanks again!

Sorry for the misunderstanding, I was trying to complement.

Yours, Yuval

I like the picture and just busting your chops a little. I thought that maybe yet meant to poke at the "Guest" that I had replied but click on my post by mistake.

On the truth site I do like to engage in all form of science and pseudo science is the easiest and often rewarding forms (we will just ignore the fact that it is often wrong).

Btw, Yuval, I sent your Pseudo Science image to my daughter with the stern warning to never open the door to an unexpected pizza-delivery guy. She assured me that she's quite impervious to the type of ruse illustrated, as she's much too short to use those door-peephole thingies.

Euro-man,

Why can't a dog eat wood, a fish ride a bicycle, Diogenes find an honest man? I want to know, dammit! It's my right as a vermin to know these things!!!

By the way, how's it going?

I can't answer your other questions, but I do know that Diogenes made up that "honest man" business while in law school.

How am I doing? It's been one helluva roller-coaster these last 6-7 weeks. Came down with pneumonia in early April, and even now I still have a touch of pleurisy. I'm also leaving the Observatory and going back into consulting and resuming work on a couple of patents (one a toy, and one dealing with optical encoders).

If Cisco is interested in Linux driver development, let me know. I'll be available for some of that shortly (but I must telecommute, for family reasons).

Cheers, dude!

e-man

Wow! Still not a hundred percent. That sucks, but I'm guessing it something like letting your ribs heal. Correct?

LINUX driver developers are always in demand... considering most companies don't furnish LINUX drivers. I have a friend that does this for Modulus. If you've been watching the financial news, Motorola is buying 'em. He's a happy boy!

Pleurisy is an inflammation in the lining of the lungs. I had it once before, and it's no laughing matter (bad puns are their own reward). Takes a long time to heal.

I'll bet your friend at Modulus is indeed happy. A couple of guys I know were heavily vested in Tivoli software. No worries, mate. One of 'em bought an emu ranch - sans emus - just to indulge his paintball habit.

From what I've heard, a man with a paint ball gun is no match for an emu. I've heard they're notorious for kicking the crap out of their owners and even causing a few deaths! Too bad he got rid of the birds. He could have been a star on YouTube.

Good luck to you!

no comedy videos for a while for you.

milo

It is because I do have a heart and a soul, that I cherish nature so much, to the extent that I rather know what I learn, and furthermore insist on knowing the truth for certain, instead of following some childish fantasies, with no reliable way to assert what I have learned.

It is by my real-life experience, that I would advise people who truly love and cherish this graceful creation, to be sure of what they learn.

Faith demands that we believe without doubt, and there is Knowledge, to demand that we we learn and know, in order to remove our doubts.

Confidence in your knowledge is the way to to remove doubts and confusion, not just by brushing doubts aside by clinging to some stiff dogma, be it political, religious, or social.

Now, let me think... Ho do I get to be confident in what I know ?

Repeated testing perhaps?

The Establishment of widely accepted proofs?

Oh. Well, that's alright then.

Consider my chain yanked

Alastair as "guest"? How refreshing!

"...If this "long evolution" were valid, then we would see billions of fossils showing lifeforms in transition..."

Yes, if you were fed with the fairy tale, that ancient living creatures died with no structural damage, and immediately went into a fossilising machine of the angels.

In reality, about one in a million creatures manage to escape destruction of it's corpse long enough to allow for the hollow barrier volume of their once-was body, now consumed by bacterial disintegration, mineralised for a few thousand years undisturbed, required to complete the process.

Next you will be telling us humanity was created in two generations, thanks to zero point energy. Are we going in circles now?

Lay off, man. I'm not interested.

"...long enough to allow for the hollow barrier volume of their once-was body..."

Should be:"...long enough to allow for the hollow burial volume of their once-was body..." of course.

Please think a little bit before posting any comment on this site. THERE ARE certainly several ways to prove both evolution and adaption, with respect to flight; for instance if you look the skeleton of a bat you could easily see that the 5 fingers on his "hands" have grown very much in order to subtend the membrane wich constitutes its "wings", why must a bat fly?, to get his food (most of the bats eat flying insects); furthermore, some squirrels have this same kind of adaptation ir order to "fly" from one tree to the next, this could be considered as some "protowing". Archeopteryx itself clearly has, at the same time, reptilian and bird characteristics, and is a very good example of the transition between reptiles and birds. By the way, you think dinosaurs are extinct?, if you do, you are wrong, crocodiles are living dinousaurs (they belong to the same evolutiv group called ARCHOSAURIA, or "reigning reptiles", and have changed very little since then, as you can see comparing the skeleton of a Phobosuchus with that of a modern crocodile ), and also some dinosaurs evolve to become birds. If we don´t have a complete record of all this evolution is just because the number of fossils, compared with the total population is very few, and most of these fossils are very uncomplete and fragmented. Another proof, why do ostrichs and penguins don´t fly? well, because they adapted to run on earth (ostrichs), and to swin (penguins), and this adaption gave them and advantage to exploit the available resources in their environment

Finally, you have a very partial view about science, it is not just a matter of observation and repetition, science is also educated guess and creation (for example, you can´t do new mathematics, which is and exact science per se, simply by observing and repeting, first you have a guess, after you build an hyphotesis, then you test and prove it, and finally you can construct a theory upon these basement). Engineering is very creative too, our machines are designs never seen on earth before mankind; so, not all is observation and repetition

You should change your logo in "the creationist".

I find that some of the questions posted here are just plain silly. If frogs had wings they would not bump thier butts on the ground when they hopped either.

Well then they would write to CR4 asking how should they consider why can't a human fly?

Yet there are flying frogs... Based on the same design as the flying squirrel, except it utilizes very large feet with exquisitely over developed webbing between the toes. Who knows, maybe in another 100,000 years we'll have "true" flying frogs competing with the bats. Rib-bit!

There are no fossil records showing any creatures that have "protowings" or that have "semistructures" of those of flying creatures.

This is simply false. There are hundreds. Please put aside your Institute for Creation Research pornography and read some paleontology.

Flyers appear all fully formed?

Penguin? Ostrich? Emu?

You can't have your argument both ways....

These have either lost their flight through evolution or are the proto flyers which you deny the existence of....

Ooooh no ...sorry your creationist idea (for it is not a theory...as it can't be dissproven [read see the philosopher Popper]) can just say they were made that way...

I have to agree with the cat... Evolution makes many branches and moves in many ways. As I've posted before, the fossil record and the anatomy of dolphins and whales seem to strongly indicate that these water creatures were once land mammals (of the bovine family) that evolved to go back to the sea.

So, there is some possibility that when the flight niche was filled, some birds found it more favorable to lose flight for, say, size or running speed. Sorry, but that's how it works.

Evolutionary theory does have its thorns. Not all is sweetness and light. One particularly nasty thorn is the development of cilia - those little hairs lining the brachia - that coordinate the movement of phlegm and inhaled debris out of the lungs. In order to be effective, these would have to have developed all at once. A patch here and there would not have given their owner any survival advantage over another. These type of cilia are one of those "all-or-nothing" adaptations that must be complete in order to be effective at all. Incremental adaptations don't work for these types of evolutionary developments. Has anyone seen this issue addressed adequately?

Not so fast, bucko! So an animal could have bread a small ring within an organ with vestigial cilia, as the organism mutated, both the organ and the cilia became elongated. Cilia may also have been evolved slowly by filter feeders, such as tube worms and corals. Just because there's about a 600 million years between what they used them for and what you use them for is not an either-or thing.

Okay. Reasonable answer. As I'm not a biologist, the whole thing is a bit out of my field. But it is something I've wondered about.

Interesting to think that some of my ancestors may have been tube worms and corals. In fact, I think some of them still are. I know for a fact that one of my cousins is a bottom-feeder.

Also, just get some dirty water and throw it under a microscope. You'll see a lot of little guys in there that are distantly related to you that use cilia very effectively for getting around. At that level, water is like snot. So cilia has been used for many things. We just eventually got around to using them for our particular purpose.

Speaking of microscopes, I designed the GUI for an electron microscope years ago, and consequently got to play with the microscope. Most EMs require the sample to be under ultra-high vacuum, but our microscope worked at 20 millitorr. Just for grins, I took the dishrag from the breakroom sink and took a peek. I'll never use a dishrag again.

The more ancient the creature, the more it's genes are represented in everyone's DNA.

We all have cucumber, radish and fern genes in our DNA.

Not to mention others, to avoid further embarrassment.

No, "Speak for yourself" would not apply here. We all have it. "All" is anyone more modern than those three.

"...600 million years between what they used them for..."

Cambrian Explosion (the rise of multicelled organisms)?

Cambrian Explosion: the sudden rise of many varied species... Also, the rise of predators.

And Humans can't fly... Because...

Because the secret cat mafia doesn't want them to.

"...Incremental adaptations don't work for these types of evolutionary developments. Has anyone seen this issue addressed adequately?..."

Stephen Jay Gould - Panda's Thumb

Richard Dawkins - Selfish Gene

John Maynard Smith - Evolution and the Theory of Games

Penguins are optimized for swimming. They are as adapted for swimming as gulls are for flight.

and your point?

In support of "the flight niche being filled, etc." Are we feeling a bit cheeky tonight? Not enough sleep?

Btw, have you been up all night, too? I haven't slept a wink.

Yep, and I got work in the morning. Woof!!!

I'm getting ready for work now (you'd never know it, as I seem to be typing this post at the moment). I leave here at five and arrive at work at 6:20 and 85 miles later. Leaving at this hour is the only way to find a parking spot without trading my firstborn for it in one of the garages. (UT has 50,000 students and 20,000 staff and faculty, and parking for fewer than 4000 cars).

Well, that's what higher education is for, so you can make someone else suffer.

HEY SUP OY

But if for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, then we should atleast be able to levitate ourselves atleast 9.8 m/s. i believe that if we had 1% more brain activity or usage the things the human beings will be able to do are extraordinary. To some this might sound like crazy talk and everyone is looking for scientific reasoning behind everything. maybe somethings cannot be proven by science. EVERYTHING IS POSSIBLE

WASSIM BAZZI

9/16/07

If everything was possible, our world would be very, very different. This is nice wishful thinking but not very realistic.

It's not just that some things cannot be proven by science, however true that may be. It's that some things we wish we could do, simply cannot be approved by practical reality.

The imagination is very inspiring and ambitious, but it has to be sharply separated from rational thought as mere folklore, otherwise chaos will prevail, a state in which there is no difference between real and delusion.

That's just an old, old, old myth. We do use all our brain capacity. You've got to wait until humans evolve a bigger or more complex brain. Of course, that leaves you and me out.

By the way, on that "action/reaction" thingy... You are right. We try to fall toward the center of the Earth at 9.8 m/s², and as a reaction, the ground provides an equal force that says "Oh no you won't either!"

everyone is looking for scientific reasoning behind everything. maybe somethings cannot be proven by science.

well, this means our knowledge is still lacking.

When u start believing this magical saying 'maybe somethings cannot be proven by science', we start moving away from reasoning (turnng a blind eye towards our in-capability) - it always ends up with a firm belief 'GOD is still there'.

Wait!!! Let me prepare a picnic lunch! I can watch the faithful walking off the top of this building all day!!!

i read your story...and the question would be ...what if the person found enough energy to lift its self off the ground is it possible for that and do more,,even other abilities liquid9058@hotmail.com please give me a commet back

\ Joe

"...what if the person found enough energy to lift its self off the ground..."

Most Jet-Powered supersonic planes, are based on the premise of "Raw-Power".

Other than those of Delta-Design, most have zero Glide-Lift, and are streamlined to rely on the relative stability of lots and lots of power. Once that power is cut off, they fall off the sky like a stone, since their aerodynamics are practically that of "inherent-stall"...

The aerodynamics of feasible glide lift, are suitable for speeds much lower than those of jet powered planes, hence the design constrains to strip the plane off it's lift, in order to gain speed.

Some planes, tried to benefit from both worlds by adopting the so-called "Variable-Geometry", that is, glide lift for low speed and arrow-like streamline for supersonics

I have witnessed a house, horse and sausage fly.

And on more than one occasion have spotted JB Weld boarding a small plane with some young Peruvian Nuns on missionary trip to Santiago, and a full bottle of Pimms.

Surely not with JB's reputation

Apart from a loose connection to a Disney film , I am completely baffled by this.

Just as an afterthought , I thought those doinosaurs were just dodgy gliders.

I know that only "mad dogs and English men" go out in the noon day sun, but how mad do you have to be to make a cocktail that contains a liver toxin aside from alcohol?!

Get a cucumber!

Del Boy is played by David Jason ( a great actor in anything ) in Only Fools and Horses. This is a poor imitation of his tipple. Personally I think anything solid in a glass is an absurd waste of space.

The English love to think they are viewed as eccentric 'mad-dogs' (the actual song is a little risque if I recall ). Eccentric= unrecognized genius here. So far , the former is not causing the latter for me.

That's OK though , because I must otherwise be a recognized genius. It stands to reason.

I am still baffled. Is JB = Jim Bean ? Where do the nuns fit in (apart from your salacious fruit/vegetable/seeded thing - which go's strangely well if accompanying a chili )

JB Weld is touted as like the strongest epoxy-like stuff known to man. On the ~6"X6" card it comes on (within two tubes), are plastered testimonies from customers that have used it to fix a broken shovel, sealing a cracked engine block, packing ships at sea, you name it. I has the reputation of what gets stuck together with JB Weld, never comes apart. It's especially touted for fixing stripped out head bolt holes - Fill it with JB, let it set, then drill it out and tap it... It's as good as the original steel or so we're led to believe.

I'm assuming that the guest is trying to make some randy reference here. Make more sense?

JB Weld -Wow , sounds like good stuff if true. We used to have a great TV advert for some kind of household adhesive which was demonstrated by gluing some sucker in a boiler suit to a board and flying him around under a Helicopter. It must have been rigged for H&S approval but was funny to see. DON'T LOOK HERE IF EASILY OFFENDED - 'No-Nails (YOU CAN LOOK NOW) is pretty handy around the house. That advert probably killed their sales. It is very useful gunk though. I achieved an amazing repair on a fancy architrave that fell to the floor in a zillion bits - saved me having to laboriously create a Victorian moulding.

Guest has me even more baffled now ! (OK it's easily done , even without language differences)

It is called "plastic-metal" here. It is a strong thermoset polymer with some mixture of powdered metals in it, and comes as a tough dark paste with an attached accelerator paste tube, like epoxy.

It is used as a filler for die-cast fissures, mainly, but you may used it for whatever.

JB Weld is your basic two-tube (3 or 4 inches long) epoxy mix with powdered metal mixed in (as Yuval said). It's not thermo-set, though. Mix equal parts, smear it where you want it, then come back in the morning. There's another one like it that comes in two small paint-type cans. That one is called Marine-Tek. Don't know if they still make it.

This just in...

"Lois Griffin says Adolf Hitler is plotting with the Legion of Doom to kidnap Jesus!"

More at 11:00

Hey , you looked !

JB is just poxy resin. Check

toons are taking over. Check. (Unless it's that LoD , bit I don't think they're that kind of nuts -and where does AH fit in ?)

I got mail.......need to look at nutty post again first.

Beats me. I don't write "Family Guy."

Take pity on a Brit and Hyperlink me an episode next time !My attention click-span is limited . Otherwise I'l bring out 'Noggin the Nog' , and a whole bunch of stuff to make you lot dance around on google.

Does Family Guy play in England?

Not sure. If it does it would be on chanell 4 - I'll have a look sometime.

We get some great American programs , but they do get buried in a lot of the crud we have. With only 4/5 main channels we get some excellent stuff, a lot of repeats , and a lot of dross. You need to chanell-hop a lot. fyi - anybody with a TV or radio here has to pay about 120GBP/year license fee to the BBC (even if you're blind etc !). I'd like to see the BBC off general transmission and payed for via my cable provider . That way people only have to pay if they use it. Unfortunately the 'beeb' has long been a cash-cow for the Goverment. Even the excellent documentaries (Like Attenburgh) can't justify the existing funding method.

Why don't you fight back?! Crap! That's a lot of money for just 5 channels! Is there a black market for TVs? What happens if you get caught? Isn't there a politician that you can get on your side? What if you make your own TV from scratch? Fight, damn it!!!

We are helpless - I think they have about SIX detector vans ruthlessly patrolling the whole country. Also , if you don't renew each year , they will bury you in a mountain of letters. Hopefully it may pass when the whole country go's digital and analogue is turned off . I shall not hold my breath though. Stealth tax is UK policy, and the one person you can't afford to piss off is the Tax man , whatever disguise he's wearing.

Amazing isn't it , I get all the basic Sky channels for the same cost as BBC1+BBC2 (oh yeah , mustn't forget BBC radio). They will never risk charging people for how much of the beeb they want - it would kill the BBC . The few customers who remained would have to pat to much extra. Oddly enough , I would pay a considerable extra premium to have BBC on cable. I just want the option dammit.

People selling TV's have to send the buyers details in. It would be easy to dodge paying if you only use an aerial. The roll-in of digital will probably stop that (which is no bad thing). You are right , us Brits like to winge. I shall compose a letter to somebody appropriate. You inspire me vermin ! Next time I find myself winging , I'm going to think American. Scrub that. I'm going to do it American. Kick bottom.

Heck! You could take out six vans in one day.

Brits (and Japs) not allowed to privately own or carry arms.

They would have to lure them with a honey trap of some kind.

Someone there, please correct me.

before the internet, I always listened to BBC world sevice on my Kenwood shortwave. It was great content, though it seemed they were always moaning about Mr. Robert Mugabe and crap in South Africa....

The BBC shows that make it over here is too highbrow for my tastes, and ends up on the liberal channel, er, PBS, our liberal Propaganda Broadcasting Service; although a lot of the BBC environmental shows seem to be coproduced with our Discover channel. I suspect that they have a different sound track for north american audience...

sorry for you, but then, you don't have to put up with commercials for incontinence products and the like on the BEEB, do you?

milo

BBC without adverts is good , but they manage to cram in a lot of stuff advertising themselves (and loads of other tricks to cut down the ammount of air time devoted to programmes ) . I suppose my gripe is that BBC1 & BBC2 (which is the only beeb services most use ) work out at about 10 GBP/month , and basic cable or sky is not much more. If BBC was piped through cable or sat then it would have to operate in a market environment . Saying it makes good documentaries is not justification alone for it's existing license structure. If I go to a music store I wouldn't want somebody saying I have to buy a BBC cd every week for a whole year just to get the latest Kylie song (OK the last bit was a joke , I already have them all)

HETY SUP OY

♥But if humans could fly things would be much easier because we wouldn't need cars and airplanes and all that stuff and if we don't need those the air wouldn't be polluted.

sir i can understand the above problems n i agree with the, bt wht if we made a dress which can help us to protect our body while the process of flying. and also after that we can work on some flying machines also which can help us. sir i don't know why bt b4 few min. i get a very energetic ideas abt this topic. n i also want to contribute ma brain in this research. sir will u pls suggest me some steps by i can know more abt this research ?

"...bt wht if we made a dress which can help us to protect our body while the process of flying and also after that we can work on some flying machines also which can help us..." - We have all sorts of flying machines, commutative and personal, for the last hundred years.

Your will to further develop flying contraptions is most welcome.

Go ahead, study the laws of aerodynamics (this is to save you from painful trial-and-error - it's most likely tried before) and apply these laws with new, inspired ideas.

"Regular application of verified knowledge is the shortest way to success" - Yours truly, right here and now...

I can imagine some battery operated high speed flapping wings or some kind of rotor (but, if it is rotating right above my head, my hairs will get messy-so not much interested).

But, i think it will take another 100 years, to develop that kind of Battery.

Best way is to have some overhead wire continuously feeding electricity to my wings just like some tram. Of course it will have a fixed route (like some bird with rope tied around its neck)

what about a hang glider? It is a human with big artificial wings! I think that is the closest we will ever come to flight without the aid of a separate power source. The hang glider is kept up by using brains (and air currents of course) and muscle power (dragging the whole contraption up to a high point and running down a ramp) Birds also uses their brains, air currents and muscles.... How is that!

Gliding and flying are different in that in the former you use height gained on land to the allow you to fall back down again without hopefully crashing in a heap. Flying would mean you could in theory go great distances without needing to land. What is the greatest distance travelled by an unpowered hang glider. Ie: not a micro light.

With a hang glider gravity is always trying to force you to go straight down. Thermals can be exploited when available, but you require favourable terrain for that. Very hard to find any thermals on a winters day with a howling blizzard going on.

Robert A. Heinlein wrote a book a few decades ago that described where and how humans could fly like the birds. His story takes place on the moon were our weight is 1/6 that of when on earth thus making flight possible. Of course mass remains constant so one must still be careful about collisions.

Yea..... but where is the air on the moon to support the flight ???

Robert A. Heinlein wrote a book a few decades ago that described where and how humans could fly like the birds. His story takes place on the moon were our weight is 1/6 that of when on earth thus making flight possible. Of course mass remains constant so one must still be careful about collisions.

Since it is a sci-fi story I guess you can say that there are domes on the moon that contain air. The book is called "The Menace from Earth". Note the fancy wings.

I the question is are humans able to fly without the aid of any mechanics the I agree, we just aren't built for it. A bird heart beats 100s of times a minute, they have a higher metabolic rate, more streangth and in my case more coordination-thats according to my flight instructor-he let me solo just to get out of the plane I'm sure.

but if the question is, has a man powered aircraft flown the answer is yes, even flew the english channel-beleive called the Gosamor Condor-beleive its at Air and Space DC. it didn't flap, but proppeled by a bike peddeled prop.

Ah, yes, that brings back memories of when I first soloed. My heart was beating 100's of times a minute also.

Why is the sky blue?

Why is water wet?

Why are you wearing mommy's makeup?

Why do I even bother answering this?

You got a choice to either be able to fly and have huge pectorial muscles,hollow bones (these are also used as a adjunct to increase respiratory ability) skinny legs and skin flaps like a bat or feathers like a hawk and also advised that not ALL birds fly-ostrich,penguin etc. or be given better mental capacity like us poor humans and invent things like the airplane that sucks birds and bats into their engines. So the moral to this story is take a airplane next time you have a quest to fly and don't try jumping off a tall cliff in the hopes that you will have instantaneous evolution that will grant you the gift of flight!

if god wanted us to fly he would have given us more money

Guest-I have been looking for God's Bank all my life-seems organized religion groups are the only ones that know where it is located.

...organized religion groups are the only ones that know where it is located...

- ?

- In people's pockets, of course.

Dr. TOM, I do enjoy your comments.

Hey!, Superman can fly...

Oh, yeah, it's true, he isn't human, right?

The fact is that humans aren't made to fly: we should have bones like birds, and also muscles are different. Not only in how many muscle do we have (which is too few by far), but also the thing is that human's and bird's muscles are different, chicken doesn't have fat in middle of his flesh, while we do.

we traded wings for brains a long time ago....still don't know if we did the right thing