The claim specifically said "bar-headed geese", though. That's a concrete species, not just some random evolutionary ancestor.
> 50M years back, the "dinosaurs" flying that route - let's call them "Goosey" - already had phenomenally efficient lungs compared to say mammals. As the land rose, they simply adapted a bit. Given how efficient their lungs are I doubt there was much to do. ... It looks miraculous to us but we don't have those lungs. We didn't evolve the double ended lungs and hollow bones etc because we simply didn't need them or the cost of some part of that mix was detrimental for our use case or "we" simply rolled a double three.
Are you saying that the Himalayas drove the development of birds world-wide? But despite that, we can only observe it in one species today? That makes even less sense to me.
> 50M years back, the "dinosaurs" flying that route - let's call them "Goosey" - already had phenomenally efficient lungs compared to say mammals. As the land rose, they simply adapted a bit. Given how efficient their lungs are I doubt there was much to do. ... It looks miraculous to us but we don't have those lungs. We didn't evolve the double ended lungs and hollow bones etc because we simply didn't need them or the cost of some part of that mix was detrimental for our use case or "we" simply rolled a double three.
Are you saying that the Himalayas drove the development of birds world-wide? But despite that, we can only observe it in one species today? That makes even less sense to me.