New Feathers Found: Rare Dinosaur-Era Bird Wings Found Trapped in Amber

[crjmurray]

No, the point is, they do not, by Darwinian evolutionary standards, have the "most beneficial" traits.

Who cares about most beneficial? Natural selection is about beneficial enough.

 

[amariselle]

Who cares about most beneficial? Natural selection is about beneficial enough.

If you want to claim that survival of the fittest doesn't say "most beneficial", and that we should instead care only about "beneficial enough," that's fine. Your view is, however, in conflict with what survival of the fittest actually claims. And you will need to admit, that contrary to survival of the fittest, and Darwinian evolution, birds have, for some reason, become less adapted to their environment over time.

Survival of the Fittest

"the continued existence of organisms that are best adapted to their environment, with the extinction of others, as a concept in the Darwinian theory of evolution."

As I said repeatedly, birds that hatch fully feathered would indeed be "best adapted to their environment." As such, if birds ever truly did hatch that way and if survival of the fittest is an actual process, a reality, then birds would still hatch fully feathered. They would not have become LESS adapted to their environment over time. These scientists contradict themselves. They can't have it both ways.

And here is the definition of Natural Selection:

Natural Selection

"a natural process that results in the survival and reproductive success of individuals or groups best adjusted to their environment and that leads to the perpetuation of genetic qualities best suited to that particular environment."

Natural Selection is about being "best suited" to the environment, not just about being "beneficial enough." If birds truly did at one time hatch fully feathered, and if Darwinian evolution, survival of the fittest and natural selection were true, than they still would hatch fully feathered to this day.

However, as I said earlier, these scientists haven't even presented adequate evidence that supports their claim birds actually ever DID hatch fully feathered to begin with.

 

[crjmurray]

If you want to claim that survival of the fittest doesn't say "most beneficial", and that we should instead care only about "beneficial enough," that's fine. Your view is, however, in conflict with what survival of the fittest actually claims.

No, sorry it's not.

 

[amariselle]

No, sorry it's not.

Clearly you do not want to honestly address the problems inherent in the claims these scientists are making, especially in light of their acceptance of Darwinian evolution. Fair enough.

Not all "science" is honest, and these "scientists" are a perfect example of that. They are contradicting themselves AND making claims they cannot support. (The fossil record to date simply does not demonstrate that birds did in fact ever hatch fully feathered), and yet, the Smithsonian, and others claim that this is undisputed fact. These scientists are more interested in fabricating explanations to fit with their earlier claims, rather than in being honest about their findings.

 

[Shemjaza]

Traits come with draw backs and advantages. As I pointed out in my original example.

Animals with differing levels of social behavior can be born with differing levels of independence. For example if a chick can be hatched with less development that's less food the mother has to pout into the egg. She can care for her chicks or abandon them as necessary with less investment. This could be an advantage in some environments.

Evolution pushes things to be better then their peers, better then their predators and better then their prey. This doesn't mean that they are heading to some fundamental "superior" state.

(Please remember that team work, social behavior and symbiosis can also be paths to reproductive success).

 

[amariselle]

Traits come with draw backs and advantages. As I pointed out in my original example.

Animals with differing levels of social behavior can be born with differing levels of independence. For example if a chick can be hatched with less development that's less food the mother has to pout into the egg. She can care for her chicks or abandon them as necessary with less investment. This could be an advantage in some environments.

Evolution pushes things to be better then their peers, better then their predators and better then their prey. This doesn't mean that they are heading to some fundamental "superior" state.

(Please remember that team work, social behavior and symbiosis can also be paths to reproductive success).

I was simply stating that if Darwinian evolution is true, and if birds really did hatch fully feathered at one time, they still would, as a bird that hatched fully feathered would be far more adapted for survival in its environment.

But, as I also said, despite their claims that birds DID hatch fully feathered at one time, there is absolutely no sufficient fossil evidence for this. So, really, that's my biggest concern with their claims.

 

[Shemjaza]

I was simply stating that if Darwinian evolution is true, and if birds really did hatch fully feathered at one time, they still would, as a bird that hatched fully feathered would be far more adapted for survival in its environment.

But, as I also said, despite their claims that birds DID hatch fully feathered at one time, there is absolutely no sufficient fossil evidence for this. So, really, that's my biggest concern with their claims.

You are wrong about evolution. Hatching fully developed is not necessarily always am advantage.

If having more chicks survive to adulthood is the result of hatching in a less developed state then it is an advantage.

 

[amariselle]

You are wrong about evolution. Hatching fully developed is not necessarily always am advantage.

If having more chicks survive to adulthood is the result of hatching in a less developed state then it is an advantage.

Hatching fully developed would indeed be an advantage and would in fact increase the likelihood that most, if not all, the hatchlings would survive.

As I said, I have personal experience raising countless birds, hatching and caring for them throughout the entire process. I know how helpless baby birds are.

The most vulnerable time for birds is when they are confined to the nest, with no efficient way to adequately regulate their body heat (due to the lack of adult plumage)

If birds ever truly DID hatch fully developed, they still would do so today, because that would be the stage in evolution where they had become the most adapted to their environment. They would be able to fend for themselves in nearly every way. Less of them would die from exposure, due to being fully feathered, they wouldn't fall out of the nest, and they would be able to fly, escape danger and find food for themselves earlier on.

Many of the factors that cause baby birds to die would be all but eliminated.

 

[Shemjaza]

Hatching fully developed would indeed be an advantage and would in fact increase the likelihood that most, if not all, the hatchlings would survive.

As I said, I have personal experience raising countless birds, hatching and caring for them throughout the entire process. I know how helpless baby birds are.

The most vulnerable time for birds is when they are confined to the nest, with no efficient way to adequately regulate their body heat (due to the lack of adult plumage)

If birds ever truly DID hatch fully developed, they still would do so today, because that would be the stage in evolution where they had become the most adapted to their environment. They would be able to fend for themselves in nearly every way. Less of them would die from exposure, due to being fully feathered, they wouldn't fall out of the nest, and they would be able to fly, escape danger and find food for themselves earlier on.

Many of the factors that cause baby birds to die would be all but eliminated.

Having parents reduces the need to be developed. Look at humans, we are completely helpless as babies.

Evolution is about the population thriving not every individual. A system that replaces one superior chick surviving with three chicks hatching and on average of two surviving for the same energy would a vast improvement.

 

[amariselle]

Having parents reduces the need to be developed. Look at humans, we are completely helpless as babies.

Evolution is about the population thriving not every individual. A system that replaces one superior chick surviving with three chicks hatching and on average of two surviving for the same energy would a vast improvement.

They had parents when they apparently hatched fully developed as well. The fact remains that a bird that hatches fully developed is best suited to its environment.

But, this entire argument regarding whether or not birds ever did hatch fully developed, is not adequately supported by the fossil evidence anyway.

As I said before, it is far more likely that birds always hatched as they do now.

 

[Gene2memE]

Wait, I thought Darwinian evolution claims that the process of evolution is causing creatures to become stronger and more advanced.

Then you thought incorrectly.

Natural selection produces organisms that are better at surviving long enough to pass their genetic information on to the next generation(s). Darwinian mechanisms make no claims about the success of an organism being the strongest or "most advanced" (which is essentially meaningless in biology beyond very simple organisms).

Survival of the fittest means the survival of the population of organisms that is best fit to reproduce and pass their favorable traits on to the next generation.

How does this statement fit in with that? If millions of years ago birds truly did hatch nearly fully developed and independent, why have they evolved to become less developed, helpless and dependent? How does that fit in with "survival of the fittest" and the idea that species become stronger and more advanced over time and through "natural selection"?

Why? Because everything in biology is a trade off. Having young that are more fully developed may have been beneficial in one set of environmental and ecological circumstances, but as these change, so do the traits that lead to differential survival rates compared to competing organisms.

Differential reproductive success based on the highest suitability to the fitness landscape isn't nearly as neat as simple as "survival of the fittest" though.

I don't think they realize they are contradicting themselves with this statement.

I think that you don't understand evolutionary biology enough to see that they're not contradicting themselves at all.

Instead, they will make all kinds of nonsensical claims to support their earlier statements regarding evolution and how birds were once dinosaurs. (And they have no adequate fossil evidence to back up their claims).

Highly dishonest.

Nope. There are entire ORDERS and CLADES of fossilized proto avians, par-avian theropods and early birds, for which there are everything from just a single fossil to better than a hundred fossils (in the case of the Jeholornis). There are 15 orders of Mesozoic proto avians from Chinese fossil beds alone.


Sankar Chatterjee published the second edition of 'The Rise of Birds: 225 Million Years of Evolution' in 2015. It's an amazingly good summary of bird evolution (unsurprisingly, given that Dr Chatterjee has been a pioneer in the field for 30+ years). His opinion is:

"The overall picture of birds being descended from maniraptoran theropod dinosaurs is now firmly established, by the transition is often fuzzy and diffuse"​

There's someone being highly dishonest here, but it ain't the authors of that article.

 

[Armoured]

While you're probably right, I just can't get this image out of my head when I think of a T. rex trying to disguise itself as literally anything that isn't a T. rex.

This is the huskiest meme ever.

 

[Jimmy D]

They had parents when they apparently hatched fully developed as well. The fact remains that a bird that hatches fully developed is best suited to its environment.

But, this entire argument regarding whether or not birds ever did hatch fully developed, is not adequately supported by the fossil evidence anyway.

As I said before, it is far more likely that birds always hatched as they do now.

Shemjaza has answered you objection perfectly well.

Traits come with draw backs and advantages. As I pointed out in my original example.

Animals with differing levels of social behavior can be born with differing levels of independence. For example if a chick can be hatched with less development that's less food the mother has to pout into the egg. She can care for her chicks or abandon them as necessary with less investment. This could be an advantage in some environments.

Oh, and in circumstances where it is advantageous for them to do so, some birds do hatch fully formed, feathered and ready to go.

You're trying hard to find a contradiction where there isn't one..... Maybe this will help, it's very basic but will provide you with the basics for more detailed research.

https://web.stanford.edu/group/stanfordbirds/text/essays/Precocial_and_Altricial.html

 

[amariselle]

Then you thought incorrectly.

Natural selection produces organisms that are better at surviving long enough to pass their genetic information on to the next generation(s). Darwinian mechanisms make no claims about the success of an organism being the strongest or "most advanced" (which is essentially meaningless in biology beyond very simple organisms).

Survival of the fittest means the survival of the population of organisms that is best fit to reproduce and pass their favorable traits on to the next generation.



Why? Because everything in biology is a trade off. Having young that are more fully developed may have been beneficial in one set of environmental and ecological circumstances, but as these change, so do the traits that lead to differential survival rates compared to competing organisms.

Differential reproductive success based on the highest suitability to the fitness landscape isn't nearly as neat as simple as "survival of the fittest" though.



I think that you don't understand evolutionary biology enough to see that they're not contradicting themselves at all.



Nope. There are entire ORDERS and CLADES of fossilized proto avians, par-avian theropods and early birds, for which there are everything from just a single fossil to better than a hundred fossils (in the case of the Jeholornis). There are 15 orders of Mesozoic proto avians from Chinese fossil beds alone.


Sankar Chatterjee published the second edition of 'The Rise of Birds: 225 Million Years of Evolution' in 2015. It's an amazingly good summary of bird evolution (unsurprisingly, given that Dr Chatterjee has been a pioneer in the field for 30+ years). His opinion is:

"The overall picture of birds being descended from maniraptoran theropod dinosaurs is now firmly established, by the transition is often fuzzy and diffuse"​

There's someone being highly dishonest here, but it ain't the authors of that article.

I've already discussed Darwinian evolution, natural selection and survival of the fittest here in greater detail. (So I'm not going over it all again, please take the time to properly read this conversation before you call me "dishonest.")

The claims these scientists have made that they even know birds once hatched fully developed is not supported by the evidence to begin with. They cannot, for instance, know that these bird wings came from a newly hatched bird, there is absolutely no reason to come to that conclusion over the conclusion that the wings came from a more mature bird.

 

[amariselle]

Shemjaza has answered you objection perfectly well.

Then why do you feel the need to comment further?

Shemjaza has answered you objection perfeOh, and in circumstances where it is advantageous for them to do so, some birds do hatch fully formed, feathered and ready to go.

I hope you're not referring to birds with down, because that is not fully formed (fully grown) and fully feathered.

Either way, these wings do not support Darwinian evolution in the least. If anything they indicate that birds always looked quite similar to what they do now.

Shemjaza has answered you objection perfeYou're trying hard to find a contradiction where there isn't one..... Maybe this will help, it's very basic but will provide you with the basics for more detailed research.

https://web.stanford.edu/group/stanfordbirds/text/essays/Precocial_and_Altricial.html

Please explain to me why you think that these scientists are correct in stating that these wings somehow demonstrate that birds hatched fully developed.

 

[amariselle]

And I will also say this. Even if these scientist weren't making grand claims that are unsupported by the evidence they do have, what these wings DO demonstrate is that birds were most certainly always very similar to the birds we know now. They were birds, not reptiles.

 

[Armoured]

And I will also say this. Even if these scientist weren't making grand claims that are unsupported by the evidence they do have, what these wings DO demonstrate is that birds were most certainly always very similar to the birds we know now. They were birds, not reptiles.

No one claims birds came from reptiles. Saurians is it's own phylum.

 

[Jimmy D]

I hope you're not referring to birds with down, because that is not fully formed (fully grown) and fully feathered.

Yep down, obviously I don't think birds hatch fully grown and formed. The point I was making is some birds are reliant on their parents, some are independent from the get go.

Please explain to me why you think that these scientists are correct in stating that these wings somehow demonstrate that birds hatched fully developed.

These wings don't demonstrate that, the fossil record does.

The article says that they identified the wings as belonging to the group Enantiornithes and then when on to describe that group. They are different to modern birds.

How is this a problem for the TOE?

 

[Armoured]

Yep down, obviously I don't think birds hatch fully grown and formed. The point I was making is some birds are reliant on their parents, some are independent from the get go.

Australian bush turkeys hatch fully formed (though not fully grown) never interact with either parent, and are capable of flying as well as they ever will be within a few hours of hatching. http://www.birdsinbackyards.net/species/Alectura-lathami

 

[amariselle]

No one claims birds came from reptiles. Saurians is it's own phylum.

Plenty of people believe that birds came from reptiles (dinosaurs).