Biologists don't know why spiders can't fly. Which

bump for interest

Biologist here, it's because they don't have wings.

>>2004212
sorry link - http://askentomologists.com/2015/11/23/why-dont-spiders-have-wings/

>>2004195

...

>>2004216


/thread

Perhaps bugguy can inform us

>>2004232
wait, isn't he a big meanie though?

>>2004217
My first thought after reading that article was "what animal wouldn't benefit from flight?"

Flight offers a huge advantage in most situations, but requires compromise in other areas, like how birds have fragile hollow bones.

More legs = more weight, and I may be wrong because bees, but Id guess that spiders have a fatter abdomen section than other flying little critters relative to body size.

This means for wings to evolve, millions of generations of spiders would also need to endure harmful, less successful traits, which is impossible.

Am I close?

>>2004242
No. He's actually pretty chill. People get mad when he proves them wrong or talks over their heads. Then the entire thread devolves into fighting against bugguy.

>>2004244
hi bugguy

>>2004243
I would think it has to do with a lack of a thorax.

>>2004244

>repeating the same bs in 2 different threads.

>>2004195
But OP, they can fly. Just look up "ballooning".

>>2004243
I think it has to do with THEY DON'T FUCKING NEED TO FLY. THey can parachute as a hatchling but that's about it.

they can, they just don't use wings for it because they don't need to.

many species are known to use air currents, why do you think they're spread around the entire globe and populate islands.

I'd imagine being so soft and fragile would make landing dangerous, also most spiders being extremely sedentary.

Jumping spiders could reasonably evolve flight.
>legs evolve hairs or projections that allow controlled gliding
>muscular changes for finer control, no longer relying entirely on hydraulic pressure for extension

File: 1448307388083.png (618KB, 546x720px) Image search: [Google]

618KB, 546x720px

>>2004244
Nice try bugguy

But there are flying spiders.

>>2005011
Where?

File: spider_logn_arms.jpg (531KB, 810x543px) Image search: [Google]

531KB, 810x543px

>>2005011
The link provides a video of a gliding spider.

Not a flying spider.

>>2004195
Not being an asshole, but it's basic biology. Just because an organism would greatly benefit by having a certain trait doesn't mean it's going to develop said trait. I'd greatly benefit from having another arm, but humans evolved to have only two. Would it be a great convenience? Yes. Does that mean humans will at any point adapt to having 3 arms? I cannot say 100% certainty, but most likely, no.

>>2005123
gliding is a type of flight, idiot.

>>2005128
in biology it's usually called volplaning, and it's distinguished from flight in that it lacks power and generally doesn't produce lift.

So when biologists say spiders don't fly, they mean they don't engage in powered flight. Lots of animals volplane. That's just falling with style.

>>2005133
everything that 'flies' essentially glides.

if you distinguish it from powered flight it loses it's meaning and you've only got controlled falling left.

biologists don't have this conversation, because it's retarded.

File: 968641968416354.gif (879KB, 400x212px) Image search: [Google]

879KB, 400x212px

>>2005139

>>2005139
>everything that 'flies' essentially glides.
that doesn't mean that everything that glides also flies.
>if you distinguish it from powered flight it loses it's meaning and you've only got controlled falling left
no, you have powered flight and volplaning. Two completely different words for completely different modes of travel.
>biologists don't have this conversation, because it's retarded
yep.
and we aren't biologists. I'm a biologist and you're not. We aren't having a conversation, I'm correcting you.

File: 1376771054082.gif (2MB, 216x144px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 216x144px

>>2005142
>and we aren't biologists. I'm a biologist and you're not. We aren't having a conversation, I'm correcting you.

File: 1779119_10203159941829070_1414212853_n.jpg (17KB, 468x325px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 468x325px

>>2005142
>We aren't having a conversation, I'm correcting you
Fucking savage.

>>2005142
>that doesn't mean that everything that glides also flies.
gliding is a type of flight, it's just not powered flight.

they're both subclasses of falling.

straight from wiki:
>Gliding flight is heavier-than-air flight without the use of thrust; the term volplaning also refers to this mode of flight in animals

your degree is in dunning kruger, not biology.

File: buggy.png (301KB, 726x1000px) Image search: [Google]

301KB, 726x1000px

>>2005191

>uses wiki when convenient
>disregards it when someone uses it against him

>>2005191
>Gets destroyed in an argument
>Uses insignificant semantics as damage control
Classic bugfaggot

For ages, why bees could fly was a fucking confusing subject but it didn't mean they were going to stop flying at any point.

>>2005219
Well, they would if their antigravity belts shorted out...

>>2005219
So do we know now why they are able to fly?

>>2005223
I'm pretty sure, yeah. I don't care for the science of it but I read that they worked it out with high speed photography and robotic/computerised models.

>>2005219
>>2005220
>>2005223
>>2005226
http://www.snopes.com/science/bumblebees.asp

>>2005141
laughed out loud

>>2005212
>using semantics in a semantic argument.

you should keep at what you're good at, shitposting.

>>2005273
oh shucks, we learnt from the very best! none other than you senpai!

File: image.jpg (41KB, 306x345px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 306x345px

>>2005142
> I'm a biologist and you're not. We aren't having a conversation, I'm correcting you.
Fucking savage
>>2005191
>resorting to semantics to save face on a borderline technicality
>>2005273
>w-whatever shitposter
Annihilated. Put some ointment on those burns. Oh wait, that burn shouldn't be possible, only the very young or old, or those with compromised immune systems, should be able to be that fucking destroyed by such a correction.
Oh well, we all mistakes, right?

>>2005191
As usual you're using a non-technical definition to try to refute a technical one.

we aren't discussing "gliding."
In biology it's "volplaning."

>>2004244
Except for when bugguy is wrong and won't be reasoned with

>>2005191
Using Toy Story to define flight, bugguy you are a classic fuck tard

>>2005191
Flying organisms include insects, birds, and bats, all of which evolved the ability to fly (and the wings that flight requires) independently. Flying squirrels, flying fish, and other animals that only glide are not considered capable of true flight. In general, flight requires an animal to generate enough lift to overcome the force of gravity. Unless it is hovering, the animal also needs to generate directional thrust, to move once it is in the air. The different groups of animals manage these tasks in different ways.

>animals that only glide are not considered capable of true flight.

http://www.biologyreference.com/Ep-Fl/Flight.html#ixzz3scxWAVFn

File: 5820a8e19c83b0bcdd3e879d379b27a9.jpg (31KB, 454x455px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 454x455px

>>2005403

File: image.jpg (550KB, 1914x1382px) Image search: [Google]

550KB, 1914x1382px

>>2005142
To commemorate this momentous occasion of sick-burns, I give you all this.
Use it in good health. Happy thanksgiving /an/

>>2004244
Lol when bugguy doesn't tripfag

>>2005139

You are literally retarded.

>>2005385
there's no technical or non-technical definition, there's many definitions of the same word.

it's you pretending one is correct while another is applicable.
>>2005407
'true flight' isn't a thing, it isn't a taxonomic group.