Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

At Smithsonian Magazine: Why birds survived but not dinosaurs


After the asteroid hit, beaks were thought to be an advantage:

By the end of the Cretaceous, beaked birds were already eating a much more varied diet than their toothed relatives. These birds weren’t specialized on insects or other animal food, and so they were able to pluck up hard food items like seeds and nuts. And in the aftermath of the extinction, when animal life was severely cut back, those hard, persistent little morsels got beaked birds through the hard times. Beaked birds were able to feed on the seeds of the destroyed forests and wait out the decades until vegetation began to return.

Not that beaks guaranteed survival of the impact event. The duck-like bird Vegavis lived at the end of the Cretaceous and had a beak, yet there’s no indication that this avian survived. “Just having a beak was not enough,” Tucker says. Rather, it’s that birds with beaks and powerful gizzards capable of crushing tough seeds had an unexpected advantage that increased their chances of survival. Riley Black, “Why Birds Survived, and Dinosaurs Went Extinct, After an Asteroid Hit Earth” at Smithsonian Magazine

Interesting hypothesis. It would be thought-provoking to read a list of all the hypotheses as to why some life forms survived and others didn’t and look for patterns.

Per the YeC Moshe Emes series for Torah and science alignment it is clearly due to the founding bird kinds (70+/-) being represented on the ark of Noach during the 1656 anno-mundi Mabul impacts year genetic bottleneck, aka global flood by Noah, and dinosaurs being implicitly absent from the passenger list. reference volume I 'RCCF' framework for understanding science in max avail context. Pearlman
2 Martin_r
Darwinians are the most talented story-tellers.
J.K. Rowling should ask them for inspiration. Truthfreedom
Well if this story is true, there must have been an awful lot of seeds just lying around and available for food! Enough to last for decades without going bad or sprouting, eh? When you try to solve baffling problems like this, making up stories is all you can do. It's an interesting intellectual exercise, but it is not really science. It's hard to even call it a hypothesis if it is not testable. This is the problem with historical science. It's subjective, untestable, and based only on what we think to be true of life back then. Whether our ideas about the past are true or not, no one knows. Those views keep evolving anyway. The things that are true today might not be true tomorrow. In historical science, truth evolves so you never really know what is and is not true. tjguy
just another Darwinian just-so-story. Darwinians are the most talented story-tellers. martin_r
If seeds didn't exist before the asteroid, this might make sense. But seeds were there before birds, so beaks and gizzards were always an advantage. Also, if the birds survived, the meat-eating dinosaurs would have eaten up all the birds and eggs before they ran out of meat and died. polistra

Leave a Reply