I think this diagram is misleading.

The organ at the top… is a feature of »an organism. This is not a machine. And the ‘airflow’ situation in the unimaginably complex organism, involves … not merely each feather (there’s no diagram of this, and if there were, it would obliterate mechanical ontologies outright), but each vane, barbule, barb, the afterfeather, and the entire body of the creature. Though the two derivations pictured ‘have a relationship’, it is, approximately, the difference between a butterfly… and a fork.

What is going on with a feather is the result of billions of life-years of organismal development and modulation. The sophistication of a living creature’s wing and how the entire creature relates with the atmosphere with and through that feature has almost nothing to do with the wing of an aircraft, granted that the wing ‘is an airfoil’ and allows us to invent deadly vehicles for war and… the sudden unexpected obliteration of birds.

What is going on with a wing is an incredible crude mechanical derivation over that continuum.

Again, if we could see the airflow within and around the features of a bird’s wing, we would immediately realize that the wing of an aircraft is, quite literally ‘not the same thing at all’, from a variety of absolutely crucial perspectives.

These kinds of comparisons are how modern people are made stupid; and think that, for example, because the heart is involved in moving blood through the circulatory system… ‘it must be a pump’. This is about as advanced as thinking that I must be a cartoon, ‘because we are both animated’.