Can birds evolve without trees?A Bird that Never Touches GroundWhat natural defenses might an ecosystem evolve against dragons?Wing-design for a Bird that Needs No LiftHow can a vertebrate animal evolve for extended flight before living on land?Evolving an intelligent avian race with a human-like appearancePlanet of the Aves: AquabirdsHow does gravity affect evolution of life?How will birds be different on a <1g world?How to evolve a reptile into a wyvern, 100 million years in the future?Plausibility Check: Kite Trees?

Really bizarre dystopian children’s film with hundreds of young boys forced to play piano

Are humans superior to machines in chess?

Trying to find a comic strip about "What your clothes say about you"

Equipment replacement problem

Is policy routing bad?

Doubt on pronunciation of verbs (stressing)

Is energy more fundamental than force?

Show the acid nature of hydrogen sulfide

Bo Derek in texbook.tex?

When the direction of a movement changes, is the object at rest at some time?

Short story about two entangled quantum physicists

Just bought HD650's with Scarlet 2i2 solo and it sounds too QUIET

Identify the Eeveelutions

Which battle was the most lopsided result in terms of casualties?

How to implement the five star notation in Latex

Can you have a permanent become all permanent types at the same time?

Why rounding odd font sizes to even?

Why did Han Solo change his mind in the end of New Hope?

What is a dropfile?

What is the meaning of 奥手 here?

At what point in time would humans notice a 21st century satellite observing them?

How to avoid after work hours team dinner?

Object Oriented Programming - how to avoid duplication in processes that differ slightly depending on a variable

Why was the DC-9-80 so successful despite being obsolete almost from birth?



Can birds evolve without trees?


A Bird that Never Touches GroundWhat natural defenses might an ecosystem evolve against dragons?Wing-design for a Bird that Needs No LiftHow can a vertebrate animal evolve for extended flight before living on land?Evolving an intelligent avian race with a human-like appearancePlanet of the Aves: AquabirdsHow does gravity affect evolution of life?How will birds be different on a <1g world?How to evolve a reptile into a wyvern, 100 million years in the future?Plausibility Check: Kite Trees?






.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty
margin-bottom:0;

.everyonelovesstackoverflowposition:absolute;height:1px;width:1px;opacity:0;top:0;left:0;pointer-events:none;








14














$begingroup$


I wonder whether the birds or other flying animals heavier than air could evolve without trees of other protruding objects?










share|improve this question












$endgroup$










  • 11




    $begingroup$
    What makes you think trees are needed to evolve flight?
    $endgroup$
    – John
    Aug 1 at 22:37






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    How many trees are on Antartica?
    $endgroup$
    – Cyn says reinstate Monica
    Aug 2 at 0:17






  • 12




    $begingroup$
    @Cyn: How many flying birds evolved on Antarctica? (Disregarding those times when plate tectonics had it in a warmer location, so there were trees.)
    $endgroup$
    – jamesqf
    Aug 2 at 4:08






  • 5




    $begingroup$
    @jamesqf The Antarctic Petrel, and the South Polar Skua. And, of course, there are plenty of other locations with no naturally growing trees, such as the Falkland Island (home of the Falkland Steamer Duck), although with extensive windbreaks it is sometimes possible to cultivate trees.
    $endgroup$
    – Chronocidal
    Aug 2 at 10:26







  • 10




    $begingroup$
    Many sea birds in don't use trees for nesting, though they do use ledges on cliffs etc. In fact sea birds with webbed feet are pretty much incapable of landing on anything that resembles a tree, and certainly incapable of building a nest in one - many of them don't build nests at all.
    $endgroup$
    – alephzero
    Aug 2 at 11:08


















14














$begingroup$


I wonder whether the birds or other flying animals heavier than air could evolve without trees of other protruding objects?










share|improve this question












$endgroup$










  • 11




    $begingroup$
    What makes you think trees are needed to evolve flight?
    $endgroup$
    – John
    Aug 1 at 22:37






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    How many trees are on Antartica?
    $endgroup$
    – Cyn says reinstate Monica
    Aug 2 at 0:17






  • 12




    $begingroup$
    @Cyn: How many flying birds evolved on Antarctica? (Disregarding those times when plate tectonics had it in a warmer location, so there were trees.)
    $endgroup$
    – jamesqf
    Aug 2 at 4:08






  • 5




    $begingroup$
    @jamesqf The Antarctic Petrel, and the South Polar Skua. And, of course, there are plenty of other locations with no naturally growing trees, such as the Falkland Island (home of the Falkland Steamer Duck), although with extensive windbreaks it is sometimes possible to cultivate trees.
    $endgroup$
    – Chronocidal
    Aug 2 at 10:26







  • 10




    $begingroup$
    Many sea birds in don't use trees for nesting, though they do use ledges on cliffs etc. In fact sea birds with webbed feet are pretty much incapable of landing on anything that resembles a tree, and certainly incapable of building a nest in one - many of them don't build nests at all.
    $endgroup$
    – alephzero
    Aug 2 at 11:08














14












14








14





$begingroup$


I wonder whether the birds or other flying animals heavier than air could evolve without trees of other protruding objects?










share|improve this question












$endgroup$




I wonder whether the birds or other flying animals heavier than air could evolve without trees of other protruding objects?







evolution flight avian






share|improve this question
















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Aug 2 at 0:17









Cyn says reinstate Monica

19.3k2 gold badges38 silver badges88 bronze badges




19.3k2 gold badges38 silver badges88 bronze badges










asked Aug 1 at 21:33









AnixxAnixx

2,58010 silver badges30 bronze badges




2,58010 silver badges30 bronze badges










  • 11




    $begingroup$
    What makes you think trees are needed to evolve flight?
    $endgroup$
    – John
    Aug 1 at 22:37






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    How many trees are on Antartica?
    $endgroup$
    – Cyn says reinstate Monica
    Aug 2 at 0:17






  • 12




    $begingroup$
    @Cyn: How many flying birds evolved on Antarctica? (Disregarding those times when plate tectonics had it in a warmer location, so there were trees.)
    $endgroup$
    – jamesqf
    Aug 2 at 4:08






  • 5




    $begingroup$
    @jamesqf The Antarctic Petrel, and the South Polar Skua. And, of course, there are plenty of other locations with no naturally growing trees, such as the Falkland Island (home of the Falkland Steamer Duck), although with extensive windbreaks it is sometimes possible to cultivate trees.
    $endgroup$
    – Chronocidal
    Aug 2 at 10:26







  • 10




    $begingroup$
    Many sea birds in don't use trees for nesting, though they do use ledges on cliffs etc. In fact sea birds with webbed feet are pretty much incapable of landing on anything that resembles a tree, and certainly incapable of building a nest in one - many of them don't build nests at all.
    $endgroup$
    – alephzero
    Aug 2 at 11:08













  • 11




    $begingroup$
    What makes you think trees are needed to evolve flight?
    $endgroup$
    – John
    Aug 1 at 22:37






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    How many trees are on Antartica?
    $endgroup$
    – Cyn says reinstate Monica
    Aug 2 at 0:17






  • 12




    $begingroup$
    @Cyn: How many flying birds evolved on Antarctica? (Disregarding those times when plate tectonics had it in a warmer location, so there were trees.)
    $endgroup$
    – jamesqf
    Aug 2 at 4:08






  • 5




    $begingroup$
    @jamesqf The Antarctic Petrel, and the South Polar Skua. And, of course, there are plenty of other locations with no naturally growing trees, such as the Falkland Island (home of the Falkland Steamer Duck), although with extensive windbreaks it is sometimes possible to cultivate trees.
    $endgroup$
    – Chronocidal
    Aug 2 at 10:26







  • 10




    $begingroup$
    Many sea birds in don't use trees for nesting, though they do use ledges on cliffs etc. In fact sea birds with webbed feet are pretty much incapable of landing on anything that resembles a tree, and certainly incapable of building a nest in one - many of them don't build nests at all.
    $endgroup$
    – alephzero
    Aug 2 at 11:08








11




11




$begingroup$
What makes you think trees are needed to evolve flight?
$endgroup$
– John
Aug 1 at 22:37




$begingroup$
What makes you think trees are needed to evolve flight?
$endgroup$
– John
Aug 1 at 22:37




4




4




$begingroup$
How many trees are on Antartica?
$endgroup$
– Cyn says reinstate Monica
Aug 2 at 0:17




$begingroup$
How many trees are on Antartica?
$endgroup$
– Cyn says reinstate Monica
Aug 2 at 0:17




12




12




$begingroup$
@Cyn: How many flying birds evolved on Antarctica? (Disregarding those times when plate tectonics had it in a warmer location, so there were trees.)
$endgroup$
– jamesqf
Aug 2 at 4:08




$begingroup$
@Cyn: How many flying birds evolved on Antarctica? (Disregarding those times when plate tectonics had it in a warmer location, so there were trees.)
$endgroup$
– jamesqf
Aug 2 at 4:08




5




5




$begingroup$
@jamesqf The Antarctic Petrel, and the South Polar Skua. And, of course, there are plenty of other locations with no naturally growing trees, such as the Falkland Island (home of the Falkland Steamer Duck), although with extensive windbreaks it is sometimes possible to cultivate trees.
$endgroup$
– Chronocidal
Aug 2 at 10:26





$begingroup$
@jamesqf The Antarctic Petrel, and the South Polar Skua. And, of course, there are plenty of other locations with no naturally growing trees, such as the Falkland Island (home of the Falkland Steamer Duck), although with extensive windbreaks it is sometimes possible to cultivate trees.
$endgroup$
– Chronocidal
Aug 2 at 10:26





10




10




$begingroup$
Many sea birds in don't use trees for nesting, though they do use ledges on cliffs etc. In fact sea birds with webbed feet are pretty much incapable of landing on anything that resembles a tree, and certainly incapable of building a nest in one - many of them don't build nests at all.
$endgroup$
– alephzero
Aug 2 at 11:08





$begingroup$
Many sea birds in don't use trees for nesting, though they do use ledges on cliffs etc. In fact sea birds with webbed feet are pretty much incapable of landing on anything that resembles a tree, and certainly incapable of building a nest in one - many of them don't build nests at all.
$endgroup$
– alephzero
Aug 2 at 11:08











6 Answers
6






active

oldest

votes


















49
















$begingroup$

Trees were not involved with the evolution of flight in birds.



Birds did not evolve flight from gliders but likely from ground running predatory jumpers, birds and maniraptoran dinosaurs are about the most poorly designed climbers you could imagine there is zero support for tree climbing in early birds or their ancestors. So yes bird flight can and did evolve without the use of trees.



I should note birds are the only group of flying vertebrate this is true for, pterosaurs and bats did evolve from climbers.






share|improve this answer












$endgroup$










  • 13




    $begingroup$
    One should emphasize that opinions on this subject vary quite a lot.
    $endgroup$
    – AlexP
    Aug 2 at 8:45






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    @AlexP opinions, perhaps, but not reasoned facts. Birds & dinosaurs are on the same branch, and no evidence I'm aware of that either ever developed climbing capabilities.
    $endgroup$
    – Carl Witthoft
    Aug 2 at 12:31






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @jamesqf I'm an experienced birder. To the best of my knowledge, these birds developed their trunk-climbing abilities long after their ancestors took tothe air.
    $endgroup$
    – Carl Witthoft
    Aug 2 at 16:59






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    There is a theory that wing assisted incline running evolved first, and then flight grew out of that. Youtube has some good videos of WAIR videos, like this one: youtube.com/watch?v=b1dekSaGhlc and this one youtube.com/watch?v=JMuzlEQz3uo.
    $endgroup$
    – Garrett Motzner
    Aug 2 at 17:36






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    That is one way to look at it: wings created for flight are useful for incline running. But the theory proposes the opposite: wings created for WAIR are useful for flight, and then the usefulness of flight eventually becomes the primary purpose, with WAIR being a latent trait. This seems plausible because WAIR needs simpler structures than fully developed wings to provide an evolutionary advantage. Eventually those structure improve, adding to the advantage of WAIR with each step, eventually leading to flight.
    $endgroup$
    – Garrett Motzner
    Aug 2 at 18:52


















23
















$begingroup$

The first tree is probably 385 million years old. The first winged insect is probably 400 million years old.



These numbers are approximate, but our understanding of geology and palaeontology should mean these are accurate enough. Insects seem to predate trees by 15 million years. That is a lot of time - about the same distance in time between now and the release of the last book in the Game of Throne series!



To be honest, though... About 430 million years ago there were fungi whose fruiting bodies could reach up to 8m in height. They could have served the same role as trees for insects. And they predate insects by about 30 million years, or about the timespan between the roman empire and the release of Half Life 3.






share|improve this answer










$endgroup$










  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Possibly, there were high grasses as well.
    $endgroup$
    – Anixx
    Aug 1 at 21:57






  • 8




    $begingroup$
    The aerodynamics of insects - especially the smaller ones - is much different than that of birds, though.
    $endgroup$
    – jamesqf
    Aug 2 at 4:10






  • 5




    $begingroup$
    @jamesqf yeah but OP said "birds or other flying animals heavier than air could"
    $endgroup$
    – Renan
    Aug 2 at 11:59






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    I see what you did there...
    $endgroup$
    – TzeraFNX
    Aug 2 at 13:28






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @barbecue Considering that that would exclude cliffs, mountains/hills, moderately-sized boulders, and large waves (in case a small dolphin-like creature developed fins akin to a flying fish, and then learned to extend airtime by flapping), I think "protruding objects" is a bit too vague.
    $endgroup$
    – Chronocidal
    Aug 4 at 12:24


















12
















$begingroup$

Probably.



The most accurate answer to a question like this is always going to be “We don’t know.” Evolution is an incredibly complex and fundamentally random process so there are no definitive answers here. But, that said, I think there’s good reason to believe flight probably would have evolved even without trees or other protrusions.



Flight is thought to have evolved 4 separate times on Earth. In insects, pterosaurs, bats, and birds. This suggests that flight isn’t extraordinarily difficult to evolve and serves as a useful adaptation in a variety of environments for a variety of organisms.



While trees certainly play a large part in the lives of plenty of birds, many birds thrive in treeless environments. Waterfowl like ducks spend their time swimming and generally build their nests on the ground. Seabirds like cormorants spend their lives fishing and often nest in colonies on the ground. There are also ground birds such as quails that nest and feed on the ground often in treeless areas. In all of these cases, some of the birds in these habitats have lost their ability to fly which implies that in the absence of trees flight isn't perhaps as critical to their survival. But most of these bird species living in treeless environments have retained their ability to fly which implies that it remains a useful ability for these organisms to find food, escape predators, or migrate.



Birds certainly tend to take advantage of trees when they are available but their success in treeless environments tells us that the safety of trees is not the only advantage of flight and suggests that there is ample reason for flight to evolve even in the absence of trees.






share|improve this answer










$endgroup$










  • 1




    $begingroup$
    You can also add Pteromys volans and Exocoetidae, while not fully developed fly, a step towards it, definitely.
    $endgroup$
    – Anixx
    Aug 1 at 22:45






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    If you count gliders as parallel evolutions of flight, then flying toads Rhacophorus nigropalmatus, flying snakes Chrysopelea and flying geckos Ptychozoon kuhli should not be left out. Probably there end up being dozens of independent evolutions of flight.
    $endgroup$
    – Oxy
    Aug 2 at 9:44






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I think you forgot humans. Without wood as a building material, human flight would have evolved much differently.
    $endgroup$
    – emory
    Aug 3 at 0:38


















5
















$begingroup$

Well, flying fish evolved without trees or other protruding objects to help lift them out of the water, so I'm going to say "yes". And the initial motivations would probably be the same: to better avoid predators.






share|improve this answer










$endgroup$










  • 3




    $begingroup$
    Flying fish don't use powered flight, though. They glide. Aerodynamics is not that much different from hydrodynamics, but both are greatly different from running around on land.
    $endgroup$
    – jamesqf
    Aug 2 at 4:10







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Non-flying birds also evolved. The ostrich and emu, for example do have trees around themselves but there are (usually) little to no trees around penguins. The roadrunner birds tend to live in the desert. And occasionally run on actual roads and be chased by a coyote. At any rate, they can fly but prefer running. Then we have ordinary chickens which are not completely flightless but almost never engage in it. Birds are not only defined by flying.
    $endgroup$
    – VLAZ
    Aug 2 at 10:46






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @jamesqf Give 'em another hundred million years with no competition from seabirds.
    $endgroup$
    – Logan R. Kearsley
    Aug 2 at 15:29










  • $begingroup$
    @VLAZ: But all those non-flying, or seldom flying, birds evolved from ancestors that flew.
    $endgroup$
    – jamesqf
    Aug 2 at 16:53






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @jamesqf Sure there is. While the precise sequence of the evolutionary path of bird flight is still debated, the cursorial origin, with proto-wings developing as balance assistants for high-speed running, then to control surfaces, then allowing short hopping flight, is a well-established theory in that space. For insects, it's even easier, starting with uncontrolled jumping--which is still seen without the addition of gliding or flight control in, e.g., fleas.
    $endgroup$
    – Logan R. Kearsley
    Aug 2 at 17:03


















1
















$begingroup$

While I agree with the existing answers, what it comes down to is the question of what benefit does a creature get that makes the adaptation of flight worth it?



There are two basic benefits that I can see that a flying animal may have over a land based animal; protection and ambush.



The first is obvious; if you can take flight, you can scan a larger area for threats, but also you can escape those threats if you're on the ground via a vector your attacker probably can't follow. As for the second, well if there aren't a lot of other fliers out there yet, perhaps your prey doesn't know to look up from time to time and won't see you coming.



Of course, this makes the most sense if the energy tradeoff is small, therefore it follows that the first flying creatures would be as small as is practicable, taking advantage of the square cube law. It's little wonder therefore that the first flying creatures were small insects.






share|improve this answer










$endgroup$










  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Insects have to move their wings at very high rate when they fly (unlike birds and flying mammals). I have no idea of how worm-like creature could develop fast-moving wings.
    $endgroup$
    – Anixx
    Aug 2 at 9:11










  • $begingroup$
    lets not forget that hummingbirds exist.
    $endgroup$
    – candied_orange
    Aug 2 at 9:58










  • $begingroup$
    @Anixx: Not all flying insects move their wings at high speeds. Butterflies, for instance. Which coincidentally spend a large part of their life as worm-like creatures :-)
    $endgroup$
    – jamesqf
    Aug 4 at 17:40










  • $begingroup$
    @jamesqf butterflies have huge wing area to their body ratio compared to birds.
    $endgroup$
    – Anixx
    Aug 4 at 19:16







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Anixx: Yes, it's a tradeoff between area and speed. You see much the same tradeoff in birds, where you have a range from very fast flappers like hummingbirds to soaring birds like hawks & albatrosses that can fly for long periods without flapping.
    $endgroup$
    – jamesqf
    Aug 6 at 3:33


















0
















$begingroup$

Since plants need light, and the tallest plant gets the best light, then if there were no trees there would inevitably be very tall plants that aren’t technically trees. However, they would function much like trees for ecological purposes, and animals would still climb them, jump between them and fall off them, so the evolution of flying animals of any kind would be unchanged. If you’re going to arbitrarily change the way evolution works to rule out tall plants, then you can equally arbitrarily rule birds in our out, depending on what you want — you’ve already given up on evolutionary plausibility.






share|improve this answer










$endgroup$
















    Your Answer








    StackExchange.ready(function()
    var channelOptions =
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "579"
    ;
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
    createEditor();
    );

    else
    createEditor();

    );

    function createEditor()
    StackExchange.prepareEditor(
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader:
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"u003ecc by-sa 4.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    ,
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    );



    );














    draft saved

    draft discarded
















    StackExchange.ready(
    function ()
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f152111%2fcan-birds-evolve-without-trees%23new-answer', 'question_page');

    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown


























    6 Answers
    6






    active

    oldest

    votes








    6 Answers
    6






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    49
















    $begingroup$

    Trees were not involved with the evolution of flight in birds.



    Birds did not evolve flight from gliders but likely from ground running predatory jumpers, birds and maniraptoran dinosaurs are about the most poorly designed climbers you could imagine there is zero support for tree climbing in early birds or their ancestors. So yes bird flight can and did evolve without the use of trees.



    I should note birds are the only group of flying vertebrate this is true for, pterosaurs and bats did evolve from climbers.






    share|improve this answer












    $endgroup$










    • 13




      $begingroup$
      One should emphasize that opinions on this subject vary quite a lot.
      $endgroup$
      – AlexP
      Aug 2 at 8:45






    • 3




      $begingroup$
      @AlexP opinions, perhaps, but not reasoned facts. Birds & dinosaurs are on the same branch, and no evidence I'm aware of that either ever developed climbing capabilities.
      $endgroup$
      – Carl Witthoft
      Aug 2 at 12:31






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @jamesqf I'm an experienced birder. To the best of my knowledge, these birds developed their trunk-climbing abilities long after their ancestors took tothe air.
      $endgroup$
      – Carl Witthoft
      Aug 2 at 16:59






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      There is a theory that wing assisted incline running evolved first, and then flight grew out of that. Youtube has some good videos of WAIR videos, like this one: youtube.com/watch?v=b1dekSaGhlc and this one youtube.com/watch?v=JMuzlEQz3uo.
      $endgroup$
      – Garrett Motzner
      Aug 2 at 17:36






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      That is one way to look at it: wings created for flight are useful for incline running. But the theory proposes the opposite: wings created for WAIR are useful for flight, and then the usefulness of flight eventually becomes the primary purpose, with WAIR being a latent trait. This seems plausible because WAIR needs simpler structures than fully developed wings to provide an evolutionary advantage. Eventually those structure improve, adding to the advantage of WAIR with each step, eventually leading to flight.
      $endgroup$
      – Garrett Motzner
      Aug 2 at 18:52















    49
















    $begingroup$

    Trees were not involved with the evolution of flight in birds.



    Birds did not evolve flight from gliders but likely from ground running predatory jumpers, birds and maniraptoran dinosaurs are about the most poorly designed climbers you could imagine there is zero support for tree climbing in early birds or their ancestors. So yes bird flight can and did evolve without the use of trees.



    I should note birds are the only group of flying vertebrate this is true for, pterosaurs and bats did evolve from climbers.






    share|improve this answer












    $endgroup$










    • 13




      $begingroup$
      One should emphasize that opinions on this subject vary quite a lot.
      $endgroup$
      – AlexP
      Aug 2 at 8:45






    • 3




      $begingroup$
      @AlexP opinions, perhaps, but not reasoned facts. Birds & dinosaurs are on the same branch, and no evidence I'm aware of that either ever developed climbing capabilities.
      $endgroup$
      – Carl Witthoft
      Aug 2 at 12:31






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @jamesqf I'm an experienced birder. To the best of my knowledge, these birds developed their trunk-climbing abilities long after their ancestors took tothe air.
      $endgroup$
      – Carl Witthoft
      Aug 2 at 16:59






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      There is a theory that wing assisted incline running evolved first, and then flight grew out of that. Youtube has some good videos of WAIR videos, like this one: youtube.com/watch?v=b1dekSaGhlc and this one youtube.com/watch?v=JMuzlEQz3uo.
      $endgroup$
      – Garrett Motzner
      Aug 2 at 17:36






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      That is one way to look at it: wings created for flight are useful for incline running. But the theory proposes the opposite: wings created for WAIR are useful for flight, and then the usefulness of flight eventually becomes the primary purpose, with WAIR being a latent trait. This seems plausible because WAIR needs simpler structures than fully developed wings to provide an evolutionary advantage. Eventually those structure improve, adding to the advantage of WAIR with each step, eventually leading to flight.
      $endgroup$
      – Garrett Motzner
      Aug 2 at 18:52













    49














    49










    49







    $begingroup$

    Trees were not involved with the evolution of flight in birds.



    Birds did not evolve flight from gliders but likely from ground running predatory jumpers, birds and maniraptoran dinosaurs are about the most poorly designed climbers you could imagine there is zero support for tree climbing in early birds or their ancestors. So yes bird flight can and did evolve without the use of trees.



    I should note birds are the only group of flying vertebrate this is true for, pterosaurs and bats did evolve from climbers.






    share|improve this answer












    $endgroup$



    Trees were not involved with the evolution of flight in birds.



    Birds did not evolve flight from gliders but likely from ground running predatory jumpers, birds and maniraptoran dinosaurs are about the most poorly designed climbers you could imagine there is zero support for tree climbing in early birds or their ancestors. So yes bird flight can and did evolve without the use of trees.



    I should note birds are the only group of flying vertebrate this is true for, pterosaurs and bats did evolve from climbers.







    share|improve this answer















    share|improve this answer




    share|improve this answer








    edited Aug 2 at 19:16

























    answered Aug 1 at 22:36









    JohnJohn

    45.6k11 gold badges67 silver badges153 bronze badges




    45.6k11 gold badges67 silver badges153 bronze badges










    • 13




      $begingroup$
      One should emphasize that opinions on this subject vary quite a lot.
      $endgroup$
      – AlexP
      Aug 2 at 8:45






    • 3




      $begingroup$
      @AlexP opinions, perhaps, but not reasoned facts. Birds & dinosaurs are on the same branch, and no evidence I'm aware of that either ever developed climbing capabilities.
      $endgroup$
      – Carl Witthoft
      Aug 2 at 12:31






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @jamesqf I'm an experienced birder. To the best of my knowledge, these birds developed their trunk-climbing abilities long after their ancestors took tothe air.
      $endgroup$
      – Carl Witthoft
      Aug 2 at 16:59






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      There is a theory that wing assisted incline running evolved first, and then flight grew out of that. Youtube has some good videos of WAIR videos, like this one: youtube.com/watch?v=b1dekSaGhlc and this one youtube.com/watch?v=JMuzlEQz3uo.
      $endgroup$
      – Garrett Motzner
      Aug 2 at 17:36






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      That is one way to look at it: wings created for flight are useful for incline running. But the theory proposes the opposite: wings created for WAIR are useful for flight, and then the usefulness of flight eventually becomes the primary purpose, with WAIR being a latent trait. This seems plausible because WAIR needs simpler structures than fully developed wings to provide an evolutionary advantage. Eventually those structure improve, adding to the advantage of WAIR with each step, eventually leading to flight.
      $endgroup$
      – Garrett Motzner
      Aug 2 at 18:52












    • 13




      $begingroup$
      One should emphasize that opinions on this subject vary quite a lot.
      $endgroup$
      – AlexP
      Aug 2 at 8:45






    • 3




      $begingroup$
      @AlexP opinions, perhaps, but not reasoned facts. Birds & dinosaurs are on the same branch, and no evidence I'm aware of that either ever developed climbing capabilities.
      $endgroup$
      – Carl Witthoft
      Aug 2 at 12:31






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @jamesqf I'm an experienced birder. To the best of my knowledge, these birds developed their trunk-climbing abilities long after their ancestors took tothe air.
      $endgroup$
      – Carl Witthoft
      Aug 2 at 16:59






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      There is a theory that wing assisted incline running evolved first, and then flight grew out of that. Youtube has some good videos of WAIR videos, like this one: youtube.com/watch?v=b1dekSaGhlc and this one youtube.com/watch?v=JMuzlEQz3uo.
      $endgroup$
      – Garrett Motzner
      Aug 2 at 17:36






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      That is one way to look at it: wings created for flight are useful for incline running. But the theory proposes the opposite: wings created for WAIR are useful for flight, and then the usefulness of flight eventually becomes the primary purpose, with WAIR being a latent trait. This seems plausible because WAIR needs simpler structures than fully developed wings to provide an evolutionary advantage. Eventually those structure improve, adding to the advantage of WAIR with each step, eventually leading to flight.
      $endgroup$
      – Garrett Motzner
      Aug 2 at 18:52







    13




    13




    $begingroup$
    One should emphasize that opinions on this subject vary quite a lot.
    $endgroup$
    – AlexP
    Aug 2 at 8:45




    $begingroup$
    One should emphasize that opinions on this subject vary quite a lot.
    $endgroup$
    – AlexP
    Aug 2 at 8:45




    3




    3




    $begingroup$
    @AlexP opinions, perhaps, but not reasoned facts. Birds & dinosaurs are on the same branch, and no evidence I'm aware of that either ever developed climbing capabilities.
    $endgroup$
    – Carl Witthoft
    Aug 2 at 12:31




    $begingroup$
    @AlexP opinions, perhaps, but not reasoned facts. Birds & dinosaurs are on the same branch, and no evidence I'm aware of that either ever developed climbing capabilities.
    $endgroup$
    – Carl Witthoft
    Aug 2 at 12:31




    1




    1




    $begingroup$
    @jamesqf I'm an experienced birder. To the best of my knowledge, these birds developed their trunk-climbing abilities long after their ancestors took tothe air.
    $endgroup$
    – Carl Witthoft
    Aug 2 at 16:59




    $begingroup$
    @jamesqf I'm an experienced birder. To the best of my knowledge, these birds developed their trunk-climbing abilities long after their ancestors took tothe air.
    $endgroup$
    – Carl Witthoft
    Aug 2 at 16:59




    1




    1




    $begingroup$
    There is a theory that wing assisted incline running evolved first, and then flight grew out of that. Youtube has some good videos of WAIR videos, like this one: youtube.com/watch?v=b1dekSaGhlc and this one youtube.com/watch?v=JMuzlEQz3uo.
    $endgroup$
    – Garrett Motzner
    Aug 2 at 17:36




    $begingroup$
    There is a theory that wing assisted incline running evolved first, and then flight grew out of that. Youtube has some good videos of WAIR videos, like this one: youtube.com/watch?v=b1dekSaGhlc and this one youtube.com/watch?v=JMuzlEQz3uo.
    $endgroup$
    – Garrett Motzner
    Aug 2 at 17:36




    1




    1




    $begingroup$
    That is one way to look at it: wings created for flight are useful for incline running. But the theory proposes the opposite: wings created for WAIR are useful for flight, and then the usefulness of flight eventually becomes the primary purpose, with WAIR being a latent trait. This seems plausible because WAIR needs simpler structures than fully developed wings to provide an evolutionary advantage. Eventually those structure improve, adding to the advantage of WAIR with each step, eventually leading to flight.
    $endgroup$
    – Garrett Motzner
    Aug 2 at 18:52




    $begingroup$
    That is one way to look at it: wings created for flight are useful for incline running. But the theory proposes the opposite: wings created for WAIR are useful for flight, and then the usefulness of flight eventually becomes the primary purpose, with WAIR being a latent trait. This seems plausible because WAIR needs simpler structures than fully developed wings to provide an evolutionary advantage. Eventually those structure improve, adding to the advantage of WAIR with each step, eventually leading to flight.
    $endgroup$
    – Garrett Motzner
    Aug 2 at 18:52













    23
















    $begingroup$

    The first tree is probably 385 million years old. The first winged insect is probably 400 million years old.



    These numbers are approximate, but our understanding of geology and palaeontology should mean these are accurate enough. Insects seem to predate trees by 15 million years. That is a lot of time - about the same distance in time between now and the release of the last book in the Game of Throne series!



    To be honest, though... About 430 million years ago there were fungi whose fruiting bodies could reach up to 8m in height. They could have served the same role as trees for insects. And they predate insects by about 30 million years, or about the timespan between the roman empire and the release of Half Life 3.






    share|improve this answer










    $endgroup$










    • 2




      $begingroup$
      Possibly, there were high grasses as well.
      $endgroup$
      – Anixx
      Aug 1 at 21:57






    • 8




      $begingroup$
      The aerodynamics of insects - especially the smaller ones - is much different than that of birds, though.
      $endgroup$
      – jamesqf
      Aug 2 at 4:10






    • 5




      $begingroup$
      @jamesqf yeah but OP said "birds or other flying animals heavier than air could"
      $endgroup$
      – Renan
      Aug 2 at 11:59






    • 3




      $begingroup$
      I see what you did there...
      $endgroup$
      – TzeraFNX
      Aug 2 at 13:28






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @barbecue Considering that that would exclude cliffs, mountains/hills, moderately-sized boulders, and large waves (in case a small dolphin-like creature developed fins akin to a flying fish, and then learned to extend airtime by flapping), I think "protruding objects" is a bit too vague.
      $endgroup$
      – Chronocidal
      Aug 4 at 12:24















    23
















    $begingroup$

    The first tree is probably 385 million years old. The first winged insect is probably 400 million years old.



    These numbers are approximate, but our understanding of geology and palaeontology should mean these are accurate enough. Insects seem to predate trees by 15 million years. That is a lot of time - about the same distance in time between now and the release of the last book in the Game of Throne series!



    To be honest, though... About 430 million years ago there were fungi whose fruiting bodies could reach up to 8m in height. They could have served the same role as trees for insects. And they predate insects by about 30 million years, or about the timespan between the roman empire and the release of Half Life 3.






    share|improve this answer










    $endgroup$










    • 2




      $begingroup$
      Possibly, there were high grasses as well.
      $endgroup$
      – Anixx
      Aug 1 at 21:57






    • 8




      $begingroup$
      The aerodynamics of insects - especially the smaller ones - is much different than that of birds, though.
      $endgroup$
      – jamesqf
      Aug 2 at 4:10






    • 5




      $begingroup$
      @jamesqf yeah but OP said "birds or other flying animals heavier than air could"
      $endgroup$
      – Renan
      Aug 2 at 11:59






    • 3




      $begingroup$
      I see what you did there...
      $endgroup$
      – TzeraFNX
      Aug 2 at 13:28






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @barbecue Considering that that would exclude cliffs, mountains/hills, moderately-sized boulders, and large waves (in case a small dolphin-like creature developed fins akin to a flying fish, and then learned to extend airtime by flapping), I think "protruding objects" is a bit too vague.
      $endgroup$
      – Chronocidal
      Aug 4 at 12:24













    23














    23










    23







    $begingroup$

    The first tree is probably 385 million years old. The first winged insect is probably 400 million years old.



    These numbers are approximate, but our understanding of geology and palaeontology should mean these are accurate enough. Insects seem to predate trees by 15 million years. That is a lot of time - about the same distance in time between now and the release of the last book in the Game of Throne series!



    To be honest, though... About 430 million years ago there were fungi whose fruiting bodies could reach up to 8m in height. They could have served the same role as trees for insects. And they predate insects by about 30 million years, or about the timespan between the roman empire and the release of Half Life 3.






    share|improve this answer










    $endgroup$



    The first tree is probably 385 million years old. The first winged insect is probably 400 million years old.



    These numbers are approximate, but our understanding of geology and palaeontology should mean these are accurate enough. Insects seem to predate trees by 15 million years. That is a lot of time - about the same distance in time between now and the release of the last book in the Game of Throne series!



    To be honest, though... About 430 million years ago there were fungi whose fruiting bodies could reach up to 8m in height. They could have served the same role as trees for insects. And they predate insects by about 30 million years, or about the timespan between the roman empire and the release of Half Life 3.







    share|improve this answer













    share|improve this answer




    share|improve this answer










    answered Aug 1 at 21:42









    RenanRenan

    72.3k21 gold badges164 silver badges345 bronze badges




    72.3k21 gold badges164 silver badges345 bronze badges










    • 2




      $begingroup$
      Possibly, there were high grasses as well.
      $endgroup$
      – Anixx
      Aug 1 at 21:57






    • 8




      $begingroup$
      The aerodynamics of insects - especially the smaller ones - is much different than that of birds, though.
      $endgroup$
      – jamesqf
      Aug 2 at 4:10






    • 5




      $begingroup$
      @jamesqf yeah but OP said "birds or other flying animals heavier than air could"
      $endgroup$
      – Renan
      Aug 2 at 11:59






    • 3




      $begingroup$
      I see what you did there...
      $endgroup$
      – TzeraFNX
      Aug 2 at 13:28






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @barbecue Considering that that would exclude cliffs, mountains/hills, moderately-sized boulders, and large waves (in case a small dolphin-like creature developed fins akin to a flying fish, and then learned to extend airtime by flapping), I think "protruding objects" is a bit too vague.
      $endgroup$
      – Chronocidal
      Aug 4 at 12:24












    • 2




      $begingroup$
      Possibly, there were high grasses as well.
      $endgroup$
      – Anixx
      Aug 1 at 21:57






    • 8




      $begingroup$
      The aerodynamics of insects - especially the smaller ones - is much different than that of birds, though.
      $endgroup$
      – jamesqf
      Aug 2 at 4:10






    • 5




      $begingroup$
      @jamesqf yeah but OP said "birds or other flying animals heavier than air could"
      $endgroup$
      – Renan
      Aug 2 at 11:59






    • 3




      $begingroup$
      I see what you did there...
      $endgroup$
      – TzeraFNX
      Aug 2 at 13:28






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @barbecue Considering that that would exclude cliffs, mountains/hills, moderately-sized boulders, and large waves (in case a small dolphin-like creature developed fins akin to a flying fish, and then learned to extend airtime by flapping), I think "protruding objects" is a bit too vague.
      $endgroup$
      – Chronocidal
      Aug 4 at 12:24







    2




    2




    $begingroup$
    Possibly, there were high grasses as well.
    $endgroup$
    – Anixx
    Aug 1 at 21:57




    $begingroup$
    Possibly, there were high grasses as well.
    $endgroup$
    – Anixx
    Aug 1 at 21:57




    8




    8




    $begingroup$
    The aerodynamics of insects - especially the smaller ones - is much different than that of birds, though.
    $endgroup$
    – jamesqf
    Aug 2 at 4:10




    $begingroup$
    The aerodynamics of insects - especially the smaller ones - is much different than that of birds, though.
    $endgroup$
    – jamesqf
    Aug 2 at 4:10




    5




    5




    $begingroup$
    @jamesqf yeah but OP said "birds or other flying animals heavier than air could"
    $endgroup$
    – Renan
    Aug 2 at 11:59




    $begingroup$
    @jamesqf yeah but OP said "birds or other flying animals heavier than air could"
    $endgroup$
    – Renan
    Aug 2 at 11:59




    3




    3




    $begingroup$
    I see what you did there...
    $endgroup$
    – TzeraFNX
    Aug 2 at 13:28




    $begingroup$
    I see what you did there...
    $endgroup$
    – TzeraFNX
    Aug 2 at 13:28




    1




    1




    $begingroup$
    @barbecue Considering that that would exclude cliffs, mountains/hills, moderately-sized boulders, and large waves (in case a small dolphin-like creature developed fins akin to a flying fish, and then learned to extend airtime by flapping), I think "protruding objects" is a bit too vague.
    $endgroup$
    – Chronocidal
    Aug 4 at 12:24




    $begingroup$
    @barbecue Considering that that would exclude cliffs, mountains/hills, moderately-sized boulders, and large waves (in case a small dolphin-like creature developed fins akin to a flying fish, and then learned to extend airtime by flapping), I think "protruding objects" is a bit too vague.
    $endgroup$
    – Chronocidal
    Aug 4 at 12:24











    12
















    $begingroup$

    Probably.



    The most accurate answer to a question like this is always going to be “We don’t know.” Evolution is an incredibly complex and fundamentally random process so there are no definitive answers here. But, that said, I think there’s good reason to believe flight probably would have evolved even without trees or other protrusions.



    Flight is thought to have evolved 4 separate times on Earth. In insects, pterosaurs, bats, and birds. This suggests that flight isn’t extraordinarily difficult to evolve and serves as a useful adaptation in a variety of environments for a variety of organisms.



    While trees certainly play a large part in the lives of plenty of birds, many birds thrive in treeless environments. Waterfowl like ducks spend their time swimming and generally build their nests on the ground. Seabirds like cormorants spend their lives fishing and often nest in colonies on the ground. There are also ground birds such as quails that nest and feed on the ground often in treeless areas. In all of these cases, some of the birds in these habitats have lost their ability to fly which implies that in the absence of trees flight isn't perhaps as critical to their survival. But most of these bird species living in treeless environments have retained their ability to fly which implies that it remains a useful ability for these organisms to find food, escape predators, or migrate.



    Birds certainly tend to take advantage of trees when they are available but their success in treeless environments tells us that the safety of trees is not the only advantage of flight and suggests that there is ample reason for flight to evolve even in the absence of trees.






    share|improve this answer










    $endgroup$










    • 1




      $begingroup$
      You can also add Pteromys volans and Exocoetidae, while not fully developed fly, a step towards it, definitely.
      $endgroup$
      – Anixx
      Aug 1 at 22:45






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      If you count gliders as parallel evolutions of flight, then flying toads Rhacophorus nigropalmatus, flying snakes Chrysopelea and flying geckos Ptychozoon kuhli should not be left out. Probably there end up being dozens of independent evolutions of flight.
      $endgroup$
      – Oxy
      Aug 2 at 9:44






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      I think you forgot humans. Without wood as a building material, human flight would have evolved much differently.
      $endgroup$
      – emory
      Aug 3 at 0:38















    12
















    $begingroup$

    Probably.



    The most accurate answer to a question like this is always going to be “We don’t know.” Evolution is an incredibly complex and fundamentally random process so there are no definitive answers here. But, that said, I think there’s good reason to believe flight probably would have evolved even without trees or other protrusions.



    Flight is thought to have evolved 4 separate times on Earth. In insects, pterosaurs, bats, and birds. This suggests that flight isn’t extraordinarily difficult to evolve and serves as a useful adaptation in a variety of environments for a variety of organisms.



    While trees certainly play a large part in the lives of plenty of birds, many birds thrive in treeless environments. Waterfowl like ducks spend their time swimming and generally build their nests on the ground. Seabirds like cormorants spend their lives fishing and often nest in colonies on the ground. There are also ground birds such as quails that nest and feed on the ground often in treeless areas. In all of these cases, some of the birds in these habitats have lost their ability to fly which implies that in the absence of trees flight isn't perhaps as critical to their survival. But most of these bird species living in treeless environments have retained their ability to fly which implies that it remains a useful ability for these organisms to find food, escape predators, or migrate.



    Birds certainly tend to take advantage of trees when they are available but their success in treeless environments tells us that the safety of trees is not the only advantage of flight and suggests that there is ample reason for flight to evolve even in the absence of trees.






    share|improve this answer










    $endgroup$










    • 1




      $begingroup$
      You can also add Pteromys volans and Exocoetidae, while not fully developed fly, a step towards it, definitely.
      $endgroup$
      – Anixx
      Aug 1 at 22:45






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      If you count gliders as parallel evolutions of flight, then flying toads Rhacophorus nigropalmatus, flying snakes Chrysopelea and flying geckos Ptychozoon kuhli should not be left out. Probably there end up being dozens of independent evolutions of flight.
      $endgroup$
      – Oxy
      Aug 2 at 9:44






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      I think you forgot humans. Without wood as a building material, human flight would have evolved much differently.
      $endgroup$
      – emory
      Aug 3 at 0:38













    12














    12










    12







    $begingroup$

    Probably.



    The most accurate answer to a question like this is always going to be “We don’t know.” Evolution is an incredibly complex and fundamentally random process so there are no definitive answers here. But, that said, I think there’s good reason to believe flight probably would have evolved even without trees or other protrusions.



    Flight is thought to have evolved 4 separate times on Earth. In insects, pterosaurs, bats, and birds. This suggests that flight isn’t extraordinarily difficult to evolve and serves as a useful adaptation in a variety of environments for a variety of organisms.



    While trees certainly play a large part in the lives of plenty of birds, many birds thrive in treeless environments. Waterfowl like ducks spend their time swimming and generally build their nests on the ground. Seabirds like cormorants spend their lives fishing and often nest in colonies on the ground. There are also ground birds such as quails that nest and feed on the ground often in treeless areas. In all of these cases, some of the birds in these habitats have lost their ability to fly which implies that in the absence of trees flight isn't perhaps as critical to their survival. But most of these bird species living in treeless environments have retained their ability to fly which implies that it remains a useful ability for these organisms to find food, escape predators, or migrate.



    Birds certainly tend to take advantage of trees when they are available but their success in treeless environments tells us that the safety of trees is not the only advantage of flight and suggests that there is ample reason for flight to evolve even in the absence of trees.






    share|improve this answer










    $endgroup$



    Probably.



    The most accurate answer to a question like this is always going to be “We don’t know.” Evolution is an incredibly complex and fundamentally random process so there are no definitive answers here. But, that said, I think there’s good reason to believe flight probably would have evolved even without trees or other protrusions.



    Flight is thought to have evolved 4 separate times on Earth. In insects, pterosaurs, bats, and birds. This suggests that flight isn’t extraordinarily difficult to evolve and serves as a useful adaptation in a variety of environments for a variety of organisms.



    While trees certainly play a large part in the lives of plenty of birds, many birds thrive in treeless environments. Waterfowl like ducks spend their time swimming and generally build their nests on the ground. Seabirds like cormorants spend their lives fishing and often nest in colonies on the ground. There are also ground birds such as quails that nest and feed on the ground often in treeless areas. In all of these cases, some of the birds in these habitats have lost their ability to fly which implies that in the absence of trees flight isn't perhaps as critical to their survival. But most of these bird species living in treeless environments have retained their ability to fly which implies that it remains a useful ability for these organisms to find food, escape predators, or migrate.



    Birds certainly tend to take advantage of trees when they are available but their success in treeless environments tells us that the safety of trees is not the only advantage of flight and suggests that there is ample reason for flight to evolve even in the absence of trees.







    share|improve this answer













    share|improve this answer




    share|improve this answer










    answered Aug 1 at 22:41









    Mike NicholsMike Nichols

    10.4k7 gold badges34 silver badges77 bronze badges




    10.4k7 gold badges34 silver badges77 bronze badges










    • 1




      $begingroup$
      You can also add Pteromys volans and Exocoetidae, while not fully developed fly, a step towards it, definitely.
      $endgroup$
      – Anixx
      Aug 1 at 22:45






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      If you count gliders as parallel evolutions of flight, then flying toads Rhacophorus nigropalmatus, flying snakes Chrysopelea and flying geckos Ptychozoon kuhli should not be left out. Probably there end up being dozens of independent evolutions of flight.
      $endgroup$
      – Oxy
      Aug 2 at 9:44






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      I think you forgot humans. Without wood as a building material, human flight would have evolved much differently.
      $endgroup$
      – emory
      Aug 3 at 0:38












    • 1




      $begingroup$
      You can also add Pteromys volans and Exocoetidae, while not fully developed fly, a step towards it, definitely.
      $endgroup$
      – Anixx
      Aug 1 at 22:45






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      If you count gliders as parallel evolutions of flight, then flying toads Rhacophorus nigropalmatus, flying snakes Chrysopelea and flying geckos Ptychozoon kuhli should not be left out. Probably there end up being dozens of independent evolutions of flight.
      $endgroup$
      – Oxy
      Aug 2 at 9:44






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      I think you forgot humans. Without wood as a building material, human flight would have evolved much differently.
      $endgroup$
      – emory
      Aug 3 at 0:38







    1




    1




    $begingroup$
    You can also add Pteromys volans and Exocoetidae, while not fully developed fly, a step towards it, definitely.
    $endgroup$
    – Anixx
    Aug 1 at 22:45




    $begingroup$
    You can also add Pteromys volans and Exocoetidae, while not fully developed fly, a step towards it, definitely.
    $endgroup$
    – Anixx
    Aug 1 at 22:45




    1




    1




    $begingroup$
    If you count gliders as parallel evolutions of flight, then flying toads Rhacophorus nigropalmatus, flying snakes Chrysopelea and flying geckos Ptychozoon kuhli should not be left out. Probably there end up being dozens of independent evolutions of flight.
    $endgroup$
    – Oxy
    Aug 2 at 9:44




    $begingroup$
    If you count gliders as parallel evolutions of flight, then flying toads Rhacophorus nigropalmatus, flying snakes Chrysopelea and flying geckos Ptychozoon kuhli should not be left out. Probably there end up being dozens of independent evolutions of flight.
    $endgroup$
    – Oxy
    Aug 2 at 9:44




    1




    1




    $begingroup$
    I think you forgot humans. Without wood as a building material, human flight would have evolved much differently.
    $endgroup$
    – emory
    Aug 3 at 0:38




    $begingroup$
    I think you forgot humans. Without wood as a building material, human flight would have evolved much differently.
    $endgroup$
    – emory
    Aug 3 at 0:38











    5
















    $begingroup$

    Well, flying fish evolved without trees or other protruding objects to help lift them out of the water, so I'm going to say "yes". And the initial motivations would probably be the same: to better avoid predators.






    share|improve this answer










    $endgroup$










    • 3




      $begingroup$
      Flying fish don't use powered flight, though. They glide. Aerodynamics is not that much different from hydrodynamics, but both are greatly different from running around on land.
      $endgroup$
      – jamesqf
      Aug 2 at 4:10







    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Non-flying birds also evolved. The ostrich and emu, for example do have trees around themselves but there are (usually) little to no trees around penguins. The roadrunner birds tend to live in the desert. And occasionally run on actual roads and be chased by a coyote. At any rate, they can fly but prefer running. Then we have ordinary chickens which are not completely flightless but almost never engage in it. Birds are not only defined by flying.
      $endgroup$
      – VLAZ
      Aug 2 at 10:46






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @jamesqf Give 'em another hundred million years with no competition from seabirds.
      $endgroup$
      – Logan R. Kearsley
      Aug 2 at 15:29










    • $begingroup$
      @VLAZ: But all those non-flying, or seldom flying, birds evolved from ancestors that flew.
      $endgroup$
      – jamesqf
      Aug 2 at 16:53






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @jamesqf Sure there is. While the precise sequence of the evolutionary path of bird flight is still debated, the cursorial origin, with proto-wings developing as balance assistants for high-speed running, then to control surfaces, then allowing short hopping flight, is a well-established theory in that space. For insects, it's even easier, starting with uncontrolled jumping--which is still seen without the addition of gliding or flight control in, e.g., fleas.
      $endgroup$
      – Logan R. Kearsley
      Aug 2 at 17:03















    5
















    $begingroup$

    Well, flying fish evolved without trees or other protruding objects to help lift them out of the water, so I'm going to say "yes". And the initial motivations would probably be the same: to better avoid predators.






    share|improve this answer










    $endgroup$










    • 3




      $begingroup$
      Flying fish don't use powered flight, though. They glide. Aerodynamics is not that much different from hydrodynamics, but both are greatly different from running around on land.
      $endgroup$
      – jamesqf
      Aug 2 at 4:10







    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Non-flying birds also evolved. The ostrich and emu, for example do have trees around themselves but there are (usually) little to no trees around penguins. The roadrunner birds tend to live in the desert. And occasionally run on actual roads and be chased by a coyote. At any rate, they can fly but prefer running. Then we have ordinary chickens which are not completely flightless but almost never engage in it. Birds are not only defined by flying.
      $endgroup$
      – VLAZ
      Aug 2 at 10:46






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @jamesqf Give 'em another hundred million years with no competition from seabirds.
      $endgroup$
      – Logan R. Kearsley
      Aug 2 at 15:29










    • $begingroup$
      @VLAZ: But all those non-flying, or seldom flying, birds evolved from ancestors that flew.
      $endgroup$
      – jamesqf
      Aug 2 at 16:53






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @jamesqf Sure there is. While the precise sequence of the evolutionary path of bird flight is still debated, the cursorial origin, with proto-wings developing as balance assistants for high-speed running, then to control surfaces, then allowing short hopping flight, is a well-established theory in that space. For insects, it's even easier, starting with uncontrolled jumping--which is still seen without the addition of gliding or flight control in, e.g., fleas.
      $endgroup$
      – Logan R. Kearsley
      Aug 2 at 17:03













    5














    5










    5







    $begingroup$

    Well, flying fish evolved without trees or other protruding objects to help lift them out of the water, so I'm going to say "yes". And the initial motivations would probably be the same: to better avoid predators.






    share|improve this answer










    $endgroup$



    Well, flying fish evolved without trees or other protruding objects to help lift them out of the water, so I'm going to say "yes". And the initial motivations would probably be the same: to better avoid predators.







    share|improve this answer













    share|improve this answer




    share|improve this answer










    answered Aug 1 at 21:35









    Logan R. KearsleyLogan R. Kearsley

    16.7k1 gold badge42 silver badges81 bronze badges




    16.7k1 gold badge42 silver badges81 bronze badges










    • 3




      $begingroup$
      Flying fish don't use powered flight, though. They glide. Aerodynamics is not that much different from hydrodynamics, but both are greatly different from running around on land.
      $endgroup$
      – jamesqf
      Aug 2 at 4:10







    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Non-flying birds also evolved. The ostrich and emu, for example do have trees around themselves but there are (usually) little to no trees around penguins. The roadrunner birds tend to live in the desert. And occasionally run on actual roads and be chased by a coyote. At any rate, they can fly but prefer running. Then we have ordinary chickens which are not completely flightless but almost never engage in it. Birds are not only defined by flying.
      $endgroup$
      – VLAZ
      Aug 2 at 10:46






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @jamesqf Give 'em another hundred million years with no competition from seabirds.
      $endgroup$
      – Logan R. Kearsley
      Aug 2 at 15:29










    • $begingroup$
      @VLAZ: But all those non-flying, or seldom flying, birds evolved from ancestors that flew.
      $endgroup$
      – jamesqf
      Aug 2 at 16:53






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @jamesqf Sure there is. While the precise sequence of the evolutionary path of bird flight is still debated, the cursorial origin, with proto-wings developing as balance assistants for high-speed running, then to control surfaces, then allowing short hopping flight, is a well-established theory in that space. For insects, it's even easier, starting with uncontrolled jumping--which is still seen without the addition of gliding or flight control in, e.g., fleas.
      $endgroup$
      – Logan R. Kearsley
      Aug 2 at 17:03












    • 3




      $begingroup$
      Flying fish don't use powered flight, though. They glide. Aerodynamics is not that much different from hydrodynamics, but both are greatly different from running around on land.
      $endgroup$
      – jamesqf
      Aug 2 at 4:10







    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Non-flying birds also evolved. The ostrich and emu, for example do have trees around themselves but there are (usually) little to no trees around penguins. The roadrunner birds tend to live in the desert. And occasionally run on actual roads and be chased by a coyote. At any rate, they can fly but prefer running. Then we have ordinary chickens which are not completely flightless but almost never engage in it. Birds are not only defined by flying.
      $endgroup$
      – VLAZ
      Aug 2 at 10:46






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @jamesqf Give 'em another hundred million years with no competition from seabirds.
      $endgroup$
      – Logan R. Kearsley
      Aug 2 at 15:29










    • $begingroup$
      @VLAZ: But all those non-flying, or seldom flying, birds evolved from ancestors that flew.
      $endgroup$
      – jamesqf
      Aug 2 at 16:53






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @jamesqf Sure there is. While the precise sequence of the evolutionary path of bird flight is still debated, the cursorial origin, with proto-wings developing as balance assistants for high-speed running, then to control surfaces, then allowing short hopping flight, is a well-established theory in that space. For insects, it's even easier, starting with uncontrolled jumping--which is still seen without the addition of gliding or flight control in, e.g., fleas.
      $endgroup$
      – Logan R. Kearsley
      Aug 2 at 17:03







    3




    3




    $begingroup$
    Flying fish don't use powered flight, though. They glide. Aerodynamics is not that much different from hydrodynamics, but both are greatly different from running around on land.
    $endgroup$
    – jamesqf
    Aug 2 at 4:10





    $begingroup$
    Flying fish don't use powered flight, though. They glide. Aerodynamics is not that much different from hydrodynamics, but both are greatly different from running around on land.
    $endgroup$
    – jamesqf
    Aug 2 at 4:10





    1




    1




    $begingroup$
    Non-flying birds also evolved. The ostrich and emu, for example do have trees around themselves but there are (usually) little to no trees around penguins. The roadrunner birds tend to live in the desert. And occasionally run on actual roads and be chased by a coyote. At any rate, they can fly but prefer running. Then we have ordinary chickens which are not completely flightless but almost never engage in it. Birds are not only defined by flying.
    $endgroup$
    – VLAZ
    Aug 2 at 10:46




    $begingroup$
    Non-flying birds also evolved. The ostrich and emu, for example do have trees around themselves but there are (usually) little to no trees around penguins. The roadrunner birds tend to live in the desert. And occasionally run on actual roads and be chased by a coyote. At any rate, they can fly but prefer running. Then we have ordinary chickens which are not completely flightless but almost never engage in it. Birds are not only defined by flying.
    $endgroup$
    – VLAZ
    Aug 2 at 10:46




    1




    1




    $begingroup$
    @jamesqf Give 'em another hundred million years with no competition from seabirds.
    $endgroup$
    – Logan R. Kearsley
    Aug 2 at 15:29




    $begingroup$
    @jamesqf Give 'em another hundred million years with no competition from seabirds.
    $endgroup$
    – Logan R. Kearsley
    Aug 2 at 15:29












    $begingroup$
    @VLAZ: But all those non-flying, or seldom flying, birds evolved from ancestors that flew.
    $endgroup$
    – jamesqf
    Aug 2 at 16:53




    $begingroup$
    @VLAZ: But all those non-flying, or seldom flying, birds evolved from ancestors that flew.
    $endgroup$
    – jamesqf
    Aug 2 at 16:53




    1




    1




    $begingroup$
    @jamesqf Sure there is. While the precise sequence of the evolutionary path of bird flight is still debated, the cursorial origin, with proto-wings developing as balance assistants for high-speed running, then to control surfaces, then allowing short hopping flight, is a well-established theory in that space. For insects, it's even easier, starting with uncontrolled jumping--which is still seen without the addition of gliding or flight control in, e.g., fleas.
    $endgroup$
    – Logan R. Kearsley
    Aug 2 at 17:03




    $begingroup$
    @jamesqf Sure there is. While the precise sequence of the evolutionary path of bird flight is still debated, the cursorial origin, with proto-wings developing as balance assistants for high-speed running, then to control surfaces, then allowing short hopping flight, is a well-established theory in that space. For insects, it's even easier, starting with uncontrolled jumping--which is still seen without the addition of gliding or flight control in, e.g., fleas.
    $endgroup$
    – Logan R. Kearsley
    Aug 2 at 17:03











    1
















    $begingroup$

    While I agree with the existing answers, what it comes down to is the question of what benefit does a creature get that makes the adaptation of flight worth it?



    There are two basic benefits that I can see that a flying animal may have over a land based animal; protection and ambush.



    The first is obvious; if you can take flight, you can scan a larger area for threats, but also you can escape those threats if you're on the ground via a vector your attacker probably can't follow. As for the second, well if there aren't a lot of other fliers out there yet, perhaps your prey doesn't know to look up from time to time and won't see you coming.



    Of course, this makes the most sense if the energy tradeoff is small, therefore it follows that the first flying creatures would be as small as is practicable, taking advantage of the square cube law. It's little wonder therefore that the first flying creatures were small insects.






    share|improve this answer










    $endgroup$










    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Insects have to move their wings at very high rate when they fly (unlike birds and flying mammals). I have no idea of how worm-like creature could develop fast-moving wings.
      $endgroup$
      – Anixx
      Aug 2 at 9:11










    • $begingroup$
      lets not forget that hummingbirds exist.
      $endgroup$
      – candied_orange
      Aug 2 at 9:58










    • $begingroup$
      @Anixx: Not all flying insects move their wings at high speeds. Butterflies, for instance. Which coincidentally spend a large part of their life as worm-like creatures :-)
      $endgroup$
      – jamesqf
      Aug 4 at 17:40










    • $begingroup$
      @jamesqf butterflies have huge wing area to their body ratio compared to birds.
      $endgroup$
      – Anixx
      Aug 4 at 19:16







    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @Anixx: Yes, it's a tradeoff between area and speed. You see much the same tradeoff in birds, where you have a range from very fast flappers like hummingbirds to soaring birds like hawks & albatrosses that can fly for long periods without flapping.
      $endgroup$
      – jamesqf
      Aug 6 at 3:33















    1
















    $begingroup$

    While I agree with the existing answers, what it comes down to is the question of what benefit does a creature get that makes the adaptation of flight worth it?



    There are two basic benefits that I can see that a flying animal may have over a land based animal; protection and ambush.



    The first is obvious; if you can take flight, you can scan a larger area for threats, but also you can escape those threats if you're on the ground via a vector your attacker probably can't follow. As for the second, well if there aren't a lot of other fliers out there yet, perhaps your prey doesn't know to look up from time to time and won't see you coming.



    Of course, this makes the most sense if the energy tradeoff is small, therefore it follows that the first flying creatures would be as small as is practicable, taking advantage of the square cube law. It's little wonder therefore that the first flying creatures were small insects.






    share|improve this answer










    $endgroup$










    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Insects have to move their wings at very high rate when they fly (unlike birds and flying mammals). I have no idea of how worm-like creature could develop fast-moving wings.
      $endgroup$
      – Anixx
      Aug 2 at 9:11










    • $begingroup$
      lets not forget that hummingbirds exist.
      $endgroup$
      – candied_orange
      Aug 2 at 9:58










    • $begingroup$
      @Anixx: Not all flying insects move their wings at high speeds. Butterflies, for instance. Which coincidentally spend a large part of their life as worm-like creatures :-)
      $endgroup$
      – jamesqf
      Aug 4 at 17:40










    • $begingroup$
      @jamesqf butterflies have huge wing area to their body ratio compared to birds.
      $endgroup$
      – Anixx
      Aug 4 at 19:16







    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @Anixx: Yes, it's a tradeoff between area and speed. You see much the same tradeoff in birds, where you have a range from very fast flappers like hummingbirds to soaring birds like hawks & albatrosses that can fly for long periods without flapping.
      $endgroup$
      – jamesqf
      Aug 6 at 3:33













    1














    1










    1







    $begingroup$

    While I agree with the existing answers, what it comes down to is the question of what benefit does a creature get that makes the adaptation of flight worth it?



    There are two basic benefits that I can see that a flying animal may have over a land based animal; protection and ambush.



    The first is obvious; if you can take flight, you can scan a larger area for threats, but also you can escape those threats if you're on the ground via a vector your attacker probably can't follow. As for the second, well if there aren't a lot of other fliers out there yet, perhaps your prey doesn't know to look up from time to time and won't see you coming.



    Of course, this makes the most sense if the energy tradeoff is small, therefore it follows that the first flying creatures would be as small as is practicable, taking advantage of the square cube law. It's little wonder therefore that the first flying creatures were small insects.






    share|improve this answer










    $endgroup$



    While I agree with the existing answers, what it comes down to is the question of what benefit does a creature get that makes the adaptation of flight worth it?



    There are two basic benefits that I can see that a flying animal may have over a land based animal; protection and ambush.



    The first is obvious; if you can take flight, you can scan a larger area for threats, but also you can escape those threats if you're on the ground via a vector your attacker probably can't follow. As for the second, well if there aren't a lot of other fliers out there yet, perhaps your prey doesn't know to look up from time to time and won't see you coming.



    Of course, this makes the most sense if the energy tradeoff is small, therefore it follows that the first flying creatures would be as small as is practicable, taking advantage of the square cube law. It's little wonder therefore that the first flying creatures were small insects.







    share|improve this answer













    share|improve this answer




    share|improve this answer










    answered Aug 2 at 5:08









    Tim B IITim B II

    45.3k6 gold badges101 silver badges182 bronze badges




    45.3k6 gold badges101 silver badges182 bronze badges










    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Insects have to move their wings at very high rate when they fly (unlike birds and flying mammals). I have no idea of how worm-like creature could develop fast-moving wings.
      $endgroup$
      – Anixx
      Aug 2 at 9:11










    • $begingroup$
      lets not forget that hummingbirds exist.
      $endgroup$
      – candied_orange
      Aug 2 at 9:58










    • $begingroup$
      @Anixx: Not all flying insects move their wings at high speeds. Butterflies, for instance. Which coincidentally spend a large part of their life as worm-like creatures :-)
      $endgroup$
      – jamesqf
      Aug 4 at 17:40










    • $begingroup$
      @jamesqf butterflies have huge wing area to their body ratio compared to birds.
      $endgroup$
      – Anixx
      Aug 4 at 19:16







    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @Anixx: Yes, it's a tradeoff between area and speed. You see much the same tradeoff in birds, where you have a range from very fast flappers like hummingbirds to soaring birds like hawks & albatrosses that can fly for long periods without flapping.
      $endgroup$
      – jamesqf
      Aug 6 at 3:33












    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Insects have to move their wings at very high rate when they fly (unlike birds and flying mammals). I have no idea of how worm-like creature could develop fast-moving wings.
      $endgroup$
      – Anixx
      Aug 2 at 9:11










    • $begingroup$
      lets not forget that hummingbirds exist.
      $endgroup$
      – candied_orange
      Aug 2 at 9:58










    • $begingroup$
      @Anixx: Not all flying insects move their wings at high speeds. Butterflies, for instance. Which coincidentally spend a large part of their life as worm-like creatures :-)
      $endgroup$
      – jamesqf
      Aug 4 at 17:40










    • $begingroup$
      @jamesqf butterflies have huge wing area to their body ratio compared to birds.
      $endgroup$
      – Anixx
      Aug 4 at 19:16







    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @Anixx: Yes, it's a tradeoff between area and speed. You see much the same tradeoff in birds, where you have a range from very fast flappers like hummingbirds to soaring birds like hawks & albatrosses that can fly for long periods without flapping.
      $endgroup$
      – jamesqf
      Aug 6 at 3:33







    1




    1




    $begingroup$
    Insects have to move their wings at very high rate when they fly (unlike birds and flying mammals). I have no idea of how worm-like creature could develop fast-moving wings.
    $endgroup$
    – Anixx
    Aug 2 at 9:11




    $begingroup$
    Insects have to move their wings at very high rate when they fly (unlike birds and flying mammals). I have no idea of how worm-like creature could develop fast-moving wings.
    $endgroup$
    – Anixx
    Aug 2 at 9:11












    $begingroup$
    lets not forget that hummingbirds exist.
    $endgroup$
    – candied_orange
    Aug 2 at 9:58




    $begingroup$
    lets not forget that hummingbirds exist.
    $endgroup$
    – candied_orange
    Aug 2 at 9:58












    $begingroup$
    @Anixx: Not all flying insects move their wings at high speeds. Butterflies, for instance. Which coincidentally spend a large part of their life as worm-like creatures :-)
    $endgroup$
    – jamesqf
    Aug 4 at 17:40




    $begingroup$
    @Anixx: Not all flying insects move their wings at high speeds. Butterflies, for instance. Which coincidentally spend a large part of their life as worm-like creatures :-)
    $endgroup$
    – jamesqf
    Aug 4 at 17:40












    $begingroup$
    @jamesqf butterflies have huge wing area to their body ratio compared to birds.
    $endgroup$
    – Anixx
    Aug 4 at 19:16





    $begingroup$
    @jamesqf butterflies have huge wing area to their body ratio compared to birds.
    $endgroup$
    – Anixx
    Aug 4 at 19:16





    1




    1




    $begingroup$
    @Anixx: Yes, it's a tradeoff between area and speed. You see much the same tradeoff in birds, where you have a range from very fast flappers like hummingbirds to soaring birds like hawks & albatrosses that can fly for long periods without flapping.
    $endgroup$
    – jamesqf
    Aug 6 at 3:33




    $begingroup$
    @Anixx: Yes, it's a tradeoff between area and speed. You see much the same tradeoff in birds, where you have a range from very fast flappers like hummingbirds to soaring birds like hawks & albatrosses that can fly for long periods without flapping.
    $endgroup$
    – jamesqf
    Aug 6 at 3:33











    0
















    $begingroup$

    Since plants need light, and the tallest plant gets the best light, then if there were no trees there would inevitably be very tall plants that aren’t technically trees. However, they would function much like trees for ecological purposes, and animals would still climb them, jump between them and fall off them, so the evolution of flying animals of any kind would be unchanged. If you’re going to arbitrarily change the way evolution works to rule out tall plants, then you can equally arbitrarily rule birds in our out, depending on what you want — you’ve already given up on evolutionary plausibility.






    share|improve this answer










    $endgroup$



















      0
















      $begingroup$

      Since plants need light, and the tallest plant gets the best light, then if there were no trees there would inevitably be very tall plants that aren’t technically trees. However, they would function much like trees for ecological purposes, and animals would still climb them, jump between them and fall off them, so the evolution of flying animals of any kind would be unchanged. If you’re going to arbitrarily change the way evolution works to rule out tall plants, then you can equally arbitrarily rule birds in our out, depending on what you want — you’ve already given up on evolutionary plausibility.






      share|improve this answer










      $endgroup$

















        0














        0










        0







        $begingroup$

        Since plants need light, and the tallest plant gets the best light, then if there were no trees there would inevitably be very tall plants that aren’t technically trees. However, they would function much like trees for ecological purposes, and animals would still climb them, jump between them and fall off them, so the evolution of flying animals of any kind would be unchanged. If you’re going to arbitrarily change the way evolution works to rule out tall plants, then you can equally arbitrarily rule birds in our out, depending on what you want — you’ve already given up on evolutionary plausibility.






        share|improve this answer










        $endgroup$



        Since plants need light, and the tallest plant gets the best light, then if there were no trees there would inevitably be very tall plants that aren’t technically trees. However, they would function much like trees for ecological purposes, and animals would still climb them, jump between them and fall off them, so the evolution of flying animals of any kind would be unchanged. If you’re going to arbitrarily change the way evolution works to rule out tall plants, then you can equally arbitrarily rule birds in our out, depending on what you want — you’ve already given up on evolutionary plausibility.







        share|improve this answer













        share|improve this answer




        share|improve this answer










        answered Aug 4 at 13:43









        Mike ScottMike Scott

        14.2k3 gold badges28 silver badges61 bronze badges




        14.2k3 gold badges28 silver badges61 bronze badges































            draft saved

            draft discarded















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Worldbuilding Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid


            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f152111%2fcan-birds-evolve-without-trees%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown









            Popular posts from this blog

            Tamil (spriik) Luke uk diar | Nawigatjuun

            Align equal signs while including text over equalitiesAMS align: left aligned text/math plus multicolumn alignmentMultiple alignmentsAligning equations in multiple placesNumbering and aligning an equation with multiple columnsHow to align one equation with another multline equationUsing \ in environments inside the begintabularxNumber equations and preserving alignment of equal signsHow can I align equations to the left and to the right?Double equation alignment problem within align enviromentAligned within align: Why are they right-aligned?

            Training a classifier when some of the features are unknownWhy does Gradient Boosting regression predict negative values when there are no negative y-values in my training set?How to improve an existing (trained) classifier?What is effect when I set up some self defined predisctor variables?Why Matlab neural network classification returns decimal values on prediction dataset?Fitting and transforming text data in training, testing, and validation setsHow to quantify the performance of the classifier (multi-class SVM) using the test data?How do I control for some patients providing multiple samples in my training data?Training and Test setTraining a convolutional neural network for image denoising in MatlabShouldn't an autoencoder with #(neurons in hidden layer) = #(neurons in input layer) be “perfect”?