How Evolution Proves a Flat Earth

  • 653 Replies
  • 163977 Views
*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9533
  • +0/-0
Re: How Evolution Proves a Flat Earth
« Reply #600 on: November 03, 2010, 03:59:28 PM »
In the case of animals there is not only you surviving. There is always the matter of descendants and the survival of the species. Finding the mate is definitely part of survival process.
I disagree. It is a benefit of the survival process. Animals that are sterile survive just fine without reproducing.
You may disagree but evolution doesn't care about that. All this talk starting from OP isn't just about one individual. It's individual and the species survival. So, suck it up and admit your defeat.

Species do not evolve to help others, the evolve to make life easier for themselves. Creatures sometimes working with other organisms is only a bi-product of this.


Are you capable of individual thought?

Okay, fine, details: short path. Say, two miles long, some in the water where there are piranhas, some on land with savage cannibals. The long path is two and a half/three miles long, protected from animals and attackers. You have no supplies, but on both roots it's possible to stop and pick up food and water.

Well gosh, that is easy. Piranhas only bite creatures that scare them, and even then there are no recorded deaths caused by piranha. So I'll just swim in slow, deliberate movements so that I glide through the water and not make a ruckus. When I get out of the water I'll strip all of my clothes off, and then smother some cherries from a nearby bush on myself so it looks as though I too, am a savage cannibal. I shall then proceed to run though the land screaming strings of sounds and syllables that don't even make sense, again, to blend in. I'll make it faster on the short path than on the longer path. Upon reaching my destination, this act of extreme survival prowess will undoubtedly impress all of the fertile women at the village I am heading towards. This will allow me to more easily spread my loin, and wage war upon the other kingdoms.
That is if you ever make it. Dreaming is nice but the one who took the safest path is already there and got the best woman. And if you ever get to the destination, ragged tired and smeared with all kind of things then you don't have very much chances to impress anyone.

I did make it in this example. You should note that safest path != fastest path. So yes, I took the shorter path and got there faster, and accomplished a more impressive feat unlike the girly man that choose to stroll through the safe zone.

*

ClockTower

  • 6455
  • +0/-0
Re: How Evolution Proves a Flat Earth
« Reply #601 on: November 03, 2010, 04:11:11 PM »
In the case of animals there is not only you surviving. There is always the matter of descendants and the survival of the species. Finding the mate is definitely part of survival process.
I disagree. It is a benefit of the survival process. Animals that are sterile survive just fine without reproducing.
You may disagree but evolution doesn't care about that. All this talk starting from OP isn't just about one individual. It's individual and the species survival. So, suck it up and admit your defeat.
Species do not evolve to help others, they evolve to make life easier for themselves. Creatures sometimes working with other organisms is only a bi-product of this.
No, evolution involves the survival of the fittest, not making life easier.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9533
  • +0/-0
Re: How Evolution Proves a Flat Earth
« Reply #602 on: November 03, 2010, 04:34:45 PM »
In the case of animals there is not only you surviving. There is always the matter of descendants and the survival of the species. Finding the mate is definitely part of survival process.
I disagree. It is a benefit of the survival process. Animals that are sterile survive just fine without reproducing.
You may disagree but evolution doesn't care about that. All this talk starting from OP isn't just about one individual. It's individual and the species survival. So, suck it up and admit your defeat.
Species do not evolve to help others, they evolve to make life easier for themselves. Creatures sometimes working with other organisms is only a bi-product of this.
No, evolution involves the survival of the fittest, not making life easier.

The animals that are most fit have the easiest time accomplishing things, so thank you for agreeing with me.  :-*

*

ClockTower

  • 6455
  • +0/-0
Re: How Evolution Proves a Flat Earth
« Reply #603 on: November 03, 2010, 04:55:56 PM »
In the case of animals there is not only you surviving. There is always the matter of descendants and the survival of the species. Finding the mate is definitely part of survival process.
I disagree. It is a benefit of the survival process. Animals that are sterile survive just fine without reproducing.
You may disagree but evolution doesn't care about that. All this talk starting from OP isn't just about one individual. It's individual and the species survival. So, suck it up and admit your defeat.
Species do not evolve to help others, they evolve to make life easier for themselves. Creatures sometimes working with other organisms is only a bi-product of this.
No, evolution involves the survival of the fittest, not making life easier.

The animals that are most fit have the easiest time accomplishing things, so thank you for agreeing with me.  :-*
What evidence do you have of your outlandish claim?
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9533
  • +0/-0
Re: How Evolution Proves a Flat Earth
« Reply #604 on: November 03, 2010, 05:06:21 PM »
In the case of animals there is not only you surviving. There is always the matter of descendants and the survival of the species. Finding the mate is definitely part of survival process.
I disagree. It is a benefit of the survival process. Animals that are sterile survive just fine without reproducing.
You may disagree but evolution doesn't care about that. All this talk starting from OP isn't just about one individual. It's individual and the species survival. So, suck it up and admit your defeat.
Species do not evolve to help others, they evolve to make life easier for themselves. Creatures sometimes working with other organisms is only a bi-product of this.
No, evolution involves the survival of the fittest, not making life easier.

The animals that are most fit have the easiest time accomplishing things, so thank you for agreeing with me.  :-*
What evidence do you have of your outlandish claim?

Can you provide a valid counter-example to my claim? If not, it stands.

Good luck.

*

ClockTower

  • 6455
  • +0/-0
Re: How Evolution Proves a Flat Earth
« Reply #605 on: November 03, 2010, 05:11:04 PM »
In the case of animals there is not only you surviving. There is always the matter of descendants and the survival of the species. Finding the mate is definitely part of survival process.
I disagree. It is a benefit of the survival process. Animals that are sterile survive just fine without reproducing.
You may disagree but evolution doesn't care about that. All this talk starting from OP isn't just about one individual. It's individual and the species survival. So, suck it up and admit your defeat.
Species do not evolve to help others, they evolve to make life easier for themselves. Creatures sometimes working with other organisms is only a bi-product of this.
No, evolution involves the survival of the fittest, not making life easier.

The animals that are most fit have the easiest time accomplishing things, so thank you for agreeing with me.  :-*
What evidence do you have of your outlandish claim?

Can you provide a valid counter-example to my claim? If not, it stands.

Good luck.
Wrong. You fail at reasoning.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9533
  • +0/-0
Re: How Evolution Proves a Flat Earth
« Reply #606 on: November 03, 2010, 05:26:11 PM »
In the case of animals there is not only you surviving. There is always the matter of descendants and the survival of the species. Finding the mate is definitely part of survival process.
I disagree. It is a benefit of the survival process. Animals that are sterile survive just fine without reproducing.
You may disagree but evolution doesn't care about that. All this talk starting from OP isn't just about one individual. It's individual and the species survival. So, suck it up and admit your defeat.
Species do not evolve to help others, they evolve to make life easier for themselves. Creatures sometimes working with other organisms is only a bi-product of this.
No, evolution involves the survival of the fittest, not making life easier.

The animals that are most fit have the easiest time accomplishing things, so thank you for agreeing with me.  :-*
What evidence do you have of your outlandish claim?

Can you provide a valid counter-example to my claim? If not, it stands.

Good luck.
Wrong. You fail at reasoning.

Incorrect. It is a basic truth in logic that every claim without a counter example is valid. My reasoning is just fine.

*

ClockTower

  • 6455
  • +0/-0
Re: How Evolution Proves a Flat Earth
« Reply #607 on: November 03, 2010, 05:47:27 PM »
In the case of animals there is not only you surviving. There is always the matter of descendants and the survival of the species. Finding the mate is definitely part of survival process.
I disagree. It is a benefit of the survival process. Animals that are sterile survive just fine without reproducing.
You may disagree but evolution doesn't care about that. All this talk starting from OP isn't just about one individual. It's individual and the species survival. So, suck it up and admit your defeat.
Species do not evolve to help others, they evolve to make life easier for themselves. Creatures sometimes working with other organisms is only a bi-product of this.
No, evolution involves the survival of the fittest, not making life easier.

The animals that are most fit have the easiest time accomplishing things, so thank you for agreeing with me.  :-*
What evidence do you have of your outlandish claim?

Can you provide a valid counter-example to my claim? If not, it stands.

Good luck.
Wrong. You fail at reasoning.

Incorrect. It is a basic truth in logic that every claim without a counter example is valid. My reasoning is just fine.
I challenge whether you claim is true, not whether it's valid. Your claim, indeed no claim, cannot stand without evidence or logic.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9533
  • +0/-0
Re: How Evolution Proves a Flat Earth
« Reply #608 on: November 03, 2010, 05:50:27 PM »
In the case of animals there is not only you surviving. There is always the matter of descendants and the survival of the species. Finding the mate is definitely part of survival process.
I disagree. It is a benefit of the survival process. Animals that are sterile survive just fine without reproducing.
You may disagree but evolution doesn't care about that. All this talk starting from OP isn't just about one individual. It's individual and the species survival. So, suck it up and admit your defeat.
Species do not evolve to help others, they evolve to make life easier for themselves. Creatures sometimes working with other organisms is only a bi-product of this.
No, evolution involves the survival of the fittest, not making life easier.

The animals that are most fit have the easiest time accomplishing things, so thank you for agreeing with me.  :-*
What evidence do you have of your outlandish claim?

Can you provide a valid counter-example to my claim? If not, it stands.

Good luck.
Wrong. You fail at reasoning.

Incorrect. It is a basic truth in logic that every claim without a counter example is valid. My reasoning is just fine.
I challenge whether you claim is true, not whether it's valid. Your claim, indeed no claim, cannot stand without evidence or logic.

Simple evidence is the fact that there are no examples in nature where a species as a whole evolves (at a point in time evolved anyways), and life ended up getting even harder.

*

ClockTower

  • 6455
  • +0/-0
Re: How Evolution Proves a Flat Earth
« Reply #609 on: November 03, 2010, 06:03:11 PM »

Simple evidence is the fact that there are no examples in nature where a species as a whole evolves (at a point in time evolved anyways), and life ended up getting even harder.
Saying something is a fact does not make it so.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

berny_74

  • 1785
  • +0/-0
  • The IceWall! Beat that
Re: How Evolution Proves a Flat Earth
« Reply #610 on: November 03, 2010, 06:05:03 PM »
Simple evidence is the fact that there are no examples in nature where a species as a whole evolves (at a point in time evolved anyways), and life ended up getting even harder.

I think there is a post in another forum that pretty much proves that evolution does not occur - so how would you reword your answer as evolution has not been proven.

Berny
Attempting to troll
To be fair, sometimes what FE'ers say makes so little sense that it's hard to come up with a rebuttal.
Moonlight is good for you.

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9533
  • +0/-0
Re: How Evolution Proves a Flat Earth
« Reply #611 on: November 03, 2010, 06:30:55 PM »
Simple evidence is the fact that there are no examples in nature where a species as a whole evolves (at a point in time evolved anyways), and life ended up getting even harder.
I think there is a post in another forum that pretty much proves that evolution does not occur - so how would you reword your answer as evolution has not been proven.

Oh crap!!!  :o :o

 :'(

?

vhu9644

  • 1011
  • +0/-0
  • Round earth supporter
Re: How Evolution Proves a Flat Earth
« Reply #612 on: November 03, 2010, 06:44:15 PM »
englishgentleman, are you saying evolution is about ease or suvival? im getting confused...

anyways, what is the current argument with this? becuase regardless of shape, up/down is still the shortest path for different climates, and thats my counter for the op, but i dont think that is the argument anymore...

im lazy i know, im too lazy to read all 31 pages that are there sorry
people i respect: Ski, Oracle, PizzaPlanet, Wendy

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9533
  • +0/-0
Re: How Evolution Proves a Flat Earth
« Reply #613 on: November 03, 2010, 06:45:38 PM »
englishgentleman, are you saying evolution is about ease or suvival? im getting confused...

BiJane said that evolution is not about ease, but about survival.

I am stating that ease=survival.

?

vhu9644

  • 1011
  • +0/-0
  • Round earth supporter
Re: How Evolution Proves a Flat Earth
« Reply #614 on: November 03, 2010, 07:05:46 PM »
englishgentleman, are you saying evolution is about ease or suvival? im getting confused...

BiJane said that evolution is not about ease, but about survival.

I am stating that ease=survival.

ok gotcha

but still regardless of wether it is sperical or flat, up and down is still the shortest path to traverse different climates
people i respect: Ski, Oracle, PizzaPlanet, Wendy

?

zork

  • 3338
  • +0/-0
Re: How Evolution Proves a Flat Earth
« Reply #615 on: November 03, 2010, 10:48:59 PM »
Species do not evolve to help others, the evolve to make life easier for themselves. Creatures sometimes working with other organisms is only a bi-product of this.
You are so wrong that there is no point in arguing with you anymore.

I did make it in this example. You should note that safest path != fastest path. So yes, I took the shorter path and got there faster, and accomplished a more impressive feat unlike the girly man that choose to stroll through the safe zone.
And you still don't get it. Shorter path != fastest path. At least not in this case. So, you are either dead or arrive later and ragged and tired and unable to get any women. That's all.
Rowbotham had bad eyesight
-
http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf - Visually discerning the curvature of the Earth
http://thulescientific.com/TurbulentShipWakes_Lynch_AO_2005.pdf - Turbulent ship wakes:further evidence that the Earth is round.

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9533
  • +0/-0
Re: How Evolution Proves a Flat Earth
« Reply #616 on: November 03, 2010, 10:50:45 PM »
I did make it in this example. You should note that safest path != fastest path. So yes, I took the shorter path and got there faster, and accomplished a more impressive feat unlike the girly man that choose to stroll through the safe zone.
And you still don't get it. Shorter path != fastest path. At least not in this case.

When did I ever suggest this?

?

zork

  • 3338
  • +0/-0
Re: How Evolution Proves a Flat Earth
« Reply #617 on: November 03, 2010, 11:09:01 PM »
I did make it in this example. You should note that safest path != fastest path. So yes, I took the shorter path and got there faster, and accomplished a more impressive feat unlike the girly man that choose to stroll through the safe zone.
And you still don't get it. Shorter path != fastest path. At least not in this case.

When did I ever suggest this?

I did make it in this example. You should note that safest path != fastest path. So yes, I took the shorter path and got there faster, and accomplished a more impressive feat unlike the girly man that choose to stroll through the safe zone.
Rowbotham had bad eyesight
-
http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf - Visually discerning the curvature of the Earth
http://thulescientific.com/TurbulentShipWakes_Lynch_AO_2005.pdf - Turbulent ship wakes:further evidence that the Earth is round.

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9533
  • +0/-0
Re: How Evolution Proves a Flat Earth
« Reply #618 on: November 03, 2010, 11:13:58 PM »
I argued that in this situation it did. Where did I state that in every situation it would?

?

zork

  • 3338
  • +0/-0
Re: How Evolution Proves a Flat Earth
« Reply #619 on: November 03, 2010, 11:17:04 PM »
I argued that in this situation it did. Where did I state that in every situation it would?
And I argued that in this situation it didn't  - Shorter path != fastest path. At least not in this case.
Rowbotham had bad eyesight
-
http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf - Visually discerning the curvature of the Earth
http://thulescientific.com/TurbulentShipWakes_Lynch_AO_2005.pdf - Turbulent ship wakes:further evidence that the Earth is round.

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9533
  • +0/-0
Re: How Evolution Proves a Flat Earth
« Reply #620 on: November 03, 2010, 11:25:57 PM »
I argued that in this situation it did. Where did I state that in every situation it would?
And I argued that in this situation it didn't  - Shorter path != fastest path. At least not in this case.


Running an extra mile and a half would take the average person probably 8 minutes. Stripping your clothing off and swimming does not take this much time.

?

zork

  • 3338
  • +0/-0
Re: How Evolution Proves a Flat Earth
« Reply #621 on: November 04, 2010, 01:37:20 AM »
I argued that in this situation it did. Where did I state that in every situation it would?
And I argued that in this situation it didn't  - Shorter path != fastest path. At least not in this case.


Running an extra mile and a half would take the average person probably 8 minutes. Stripping your clothing off and swimming does not take this much time.
  Take account that the terrain is rougher, harder to run. Stripping off and swimming very carefully, managing cannibals, which isn't so easy as you describe and no one said that there is only one body of water or one cannibal camp. You lose your 8 minutes like nothing.
Rowbotham had bad eyesight
-
http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf - Visually discerning the curvature of the Earth
http://thulescientific.com/TurbulentShipWakes_Lynch_AO_2005.pdf - Turbulent ship wakes:further evidence that the Earth is round.

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9533
  • +0/-0
Re: How Evolution Proves a Flat Earth
« Reply #622 on: November 04, 2010, 01:44:37 AM »
I argued that in this situation it did. Where did I state that in every situation it would?
And I argued that in this situation it didn't  - Shorter path != fastest path. At least not in this case.


Running an extra mile and a half would take the average person probably 8 minutes. Stripping your clothing off and swimming does not take this much time.
  Take account that the terrain is rougher, harder to run. Stripping off and swimming very carefully, managing cannibals, which isn't so easy as you describe and no one said that there is only one body of water or one cannibal camp. You lose your 8 minutes like nothing.

The distance is only two miles. If there are separate bodies of water, and multiple cannibal camp, the distances are not going to be very far in each part.

It is also non-sequiter to try and compare a distance between running on land and having to swim. The distance from the beginning to end for the "short" path could only be a meter and the long path 10 meters, but you have to clime a 2000 meter cliff in order to go the short route. Because of this, the short path actually isn't shorter the shorter path because in reality it requires you to cover more terrain.

So in reality the "shorter" path as BiJane described it would not actually be shorter.

?

zork

  • 3338
  • +0/-0
Re: How Evolution Proves a Flat Earth
« Reply #623 on: November 04, 2010, 01:57:40 AM »
The distance is only two miles. If there are separate bodies of water, and multiple cannibal camp, the distances are not going to be very far in each part.

It is also non-sequiter to try and compare a distance between running on land and having to swim. The distance from the beginning to end for the "short" path could only be a meter and the long path 10 meters, but you have to clime a 2000 meter cliff in order to go the short route. Because of this, the short path actually isn't shorter the shorter path because in reality it requires you to cover more terrain.

So in reality the "shorter" path as BiJane described it would not actually be shorter.

 It's not only two mile, it's two miles which you have to survive. And don't bring absurd situations in play where there were none described in starting message. But for the shorter path there was clear description - Say, two miles long, some in the water where there are piranhas, some on land with savage cannibals. And longer - The long path is two and a half/three miles long, protected from animals and attackers.
 If both are in vicinity of each other then there is no way that the longer has 2000m rock on its way. And stop bringing constantly in some new variables. Fact is that the longer path assures 100% surviving while the shorter path gives you only some probability and there is no way that you get to the destination faster. You may if you are in very good shape and lucky but not surely.
Rowbotham had bad eyesight
-
http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf - Visually discerning the curvature of the Earth
http://thulescientific.com/TurbulentShipWakes_Lynch_AO_2005.pdf - Turbulent ship wakes:further evidence that the Earth is round.

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9533
  • +0/-0
Re: How Evolution Proves a Flat Earth
« Reply #624 on: November 04, 2010, 02:33:56 AM »
The distance is only two miles. If there are separate bodies of water, and multiple cannibal camp, the distances are not going to be very far in each part.

It is also non-sequiter to try and compare a distance between running on land and having to swim. The distance from the beginning to end for the "short" path could only be a meter and the long path 10 meters, but you have to clime a 2000 meter cliff in order to go the short route. Because of this, the short path actually isn't shorter the shorter path because in reality it requires you to cover more terrain.

So in reality the "shorter" path as BiJane described it would not actually be shorter.

 It's not only two mile, it's two miles which you have to survive. And don't bring absurd situations in play where there were none described in starting message. But for the shorter path there was clear description - Say, two miles long, some in the water where there are piranhas, some on land with savage cannibals. And longer - The long path is two and a half/three miles long, protected from animals and attackers.
 If both are in vicinity of each other then there is no way that the longer has 2000m rock on its way. And stop bringing constantly in some new variables. Fact is that the longer path assures 100% surviving while the shorter path gives you only some probability and there is no way that you get to the destination faster. You may if you are in very good shape and lucky but not surely.


And I pointed out that a mile across water is not a mile on flat land so there is no point trying to compare which is longest/shortest. I gave the example of the 2000m rock to prove this point of how distance when traveling isn't decided on how the crow flies, but rather the terrain you will be having to go through.

?

zork

  • 3338
  • +0/-0
Re: How Evolution Proves a Flat Earth
« Reply #625 on: November 04, 2010, 03:16:55 AM »
 So, I guess we may stop the arguing.
Rowbotham had bad eyesight
-
http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf - Visually discerning the curvature of the Earth
http://thulescientific.com/TurbulentShipWakes_Lynch_AO_2005.pdf - Turbulent ship wakes:further evidence that the Earth is round.

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9533
  • +0/-0
Re: How Evolution Proves a Flat Earth
« Reply #626 on: November 04, 2010, 10:25:32 AM »
 :)

?

vhu9644

  • 1011
  • +0/-0
  • Round earth supporter
Re: How Evolution Proves a Flat Earth
« Reply #627 on: November 04, 2010, 06:32:51 PM »
how does movment prove flat earth?  if the op is about the shortest distance, tell me how on a round earth, straight from point a to point b in climate zones is not the easiest

im getting confused...
people i respect: Ski, Oracle, PizzaPlanet, Wendy

*

Hessy

  • 1184
  • +0/-0
  • My alts: Edgeworth, any/all spambots
Re: How Evolution Proves a Flat Earth
« Reply #628 on: November 05, 2010, 10:03:13 AM »
how does movment prove flat earth?  if the op is about the shortest distance, tell me how on a round earth, straight from point a to point b in climate zones is not the easiest

im getting confused...

The good news is that it doesn't.  But I'll try to explain the point is attempting to make:

Animals throughout history have adapted to become as efficient as possible.  For example, birds have developed superious senses of direction (among other things) to aid them in their long migrations.  The idea of Natural Selection basically says that organisms that cannot adapt will die out.

Pongo argues that, if the Earth is indeed round, birds are not being as efficient as possible because they fly so high in the sky when they migrate (ergo, they technically travel a longer distance than if they flew closer to the ground).  However, if the Earth was flat, high-altitude migrations would be perfectly efficient.  Pongo then argues that, if the Earth truly was round, Natural Selection would kill of the birds.  Since birds are clearly still around, he incorrectly asserts that the Earth must be flat.

He's completely incorrect for the following reasons:

- Birds only fly .01-.1% farther by flying at higher altitudes
- Birds may very well fly at higher altitudes for reasons we don't know (e.g. riding air currents, staying in fairer weather, depending on the areas they fly over, or to avoid predators)
- The Earth is round.

Does that help?

*

gotham

  • 3624
  • +2/-6
Re: How Evolution Proves a Flat Earth
« Reply #629 on: November 05, 2010, 12:22:53 PM »
how does movment prove flat earth?  if the op is about the shortest distance, tell me how on a round earth, straight from point a to point b in climate zones is not the easiest

im getting confused...

The good news is that it doesn't.  But I'll try to explain the point is attempting to make:

Animals throughout history have adapted to become as efficient as possible.  For example, birds have developed superious senses of direction (among other things) to aid them in their long migrations.  The idea of Natural Selection basically says that organisms that cannot adapt will die out.

Pongo argues that, if the Earth is indeed round, birds are not being as efficient as possible because they fly so high in the sky when they migrate (ergo, they technically travel a longer distance than if they flew closer to the ground).  However, if the Earth was flat, high-altitude migrations would be perfectly efficient.  Pongo then argues that, if the Earth truly was round, Natural Selection would kill of the birds.  Since birds are clearly still around, he incorrectly asserts that the Earth must be flat.

He's completely incorrect for the following reasons:

- Birds only fly .01-.1% farther by flying at higher altitudes
- Birds may very well fly at higher altitudes for reasons we don't know (e.g. riding air currents, staying in fairer weather, depending on the areas they fly over, or to avoid predators)
- The Earth is round.

Does that help?

It is natural selection acting upon genetic diversity that determines if adaptability is successful or not for survival.  On a flat earth, birds look like they do.  On a round earth, birds would probably have developed unknown genetic characteristics and adapted for survival.