Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Century of bird evolution knowledge overturned?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Cambridge U tells SciTechDaily the story: “Evolving “Backward” – Discovery Overturns More Than a Century of Knowledge About the Origin of Modern Birds” (January 20, 2023):

A team of researchers from the University of Cambridge and the Natuurhistorisch Museum Maastricht discovered that a crucial skull feature of modern birds, the mobile beak, had developed prior to the mass extinction event that wiped out the dinosaurs 66 million years ago.

This finding also suggests that the skulls of ostriches, emus and their relatives evolved ‘backward’, reverting to a more primitive condition after modern birds arose.

“Evolution doesn’t happen in a straight line,” said Field. “This fossil shows that the mobile beak – a condition we had always thought post-dated the origin of modern birds, actually evolved before modern birds existed. We’ve been completely backward in our assumptions of how the modern bird skull evolved for well over a century.”

Evolved “backward”? In other words, devolution? Funny, so few ever question a theory that is always being overturned by new findings.

Video showing the rotating pterygoid (a palate bone) of Janavis finalidens, which is very similar to that of living duck- and chicken-like birds. The bone was found as two matching fragments, which have been digitally fitted together. The bone is hollow and was likely full of air in life, as shown by the large opening on its side. Credit: Dr. Juan Benito and Dr. Daniel Field, University of Cambridge

Philip Cunningham points to these paragraphs from the PR:

The two groups were originally classified by Thomas Huxley, the British biologist known as ‘Darwin’s Bulldog’ for his vocal support of Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution. In 1867, he divided all living birds into either the ‘ancient’ or ‘modern’ jaw groups. Huxley’s assumption was that the ‘ancient’ jaw configuration was the original condition for modern birds, with the ‘modern’ jaw arising later.

“This assumption has been taken as a given ever since,” said Dr. Daniel Field from Cambridge’s Department of Earth Sciences, the paper’s senior author. “The main reason this assumption has lasted is that we haven’t had any well-preserved fossil bird palates from the period when modern birds originated.”

Bulldogs, after all, are known for being stubborn, not for being on the right track.

Comments
I think I'm just really confused about how the researchers are interpreting their discovery. They've shown that a mobile jaw evolved in birds much earlier than they had realized. But that doesn't show that birds with fixed jaws evolved from birds with mobile jaws. For all anyone can know, there could be even older birds with fixed jaws that were contemporaneous with Janavis. Janavis is dated to about 66 million years ago, and there was already an avian adaptive radiation well underway by then. Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see the evidence suggesting that extant paleognaths evolved from this extinct neognath. It could just as well be that both groups were flourishing before the end of the Cretaceous.PyrrhoManiac1
January 24, 2023
January
01
Jan
24
24
2023
06:14 AM
6
06
14
AM
PDT
"Natural selection does not move “forward” or “backward,” it’s simply selects for success." CD, Natural Selection is poetry. It's two words placed next to each other. It's not science. It's not measurable or detectable. It doesn't do anything. Andrewasauber
January 24, 2023
January
01
Jan
24
24
2023
05:49 AM
5
05
49
AM
PDT
Chuckdarwin,
There is no such thing as “devolution,” regardless of what Michael Behe claims. Natural selection selects for successful phenotypes. That may result from “loss” of a previously successful adaptation. Natural selection does not move “forward” or “backward,” it’s simply selects for success.
Ignoring ChuckD's fairly direct contradiction in logic, ChuckyD is not disagreeing with Michael Behe, (and John Sanford), per se,
Darwin Devolves: The New Science About DNA That Challenges Evolution Hardcover – Michael Behe - February 26, 2019 https://www.amazon.com/Darwin-Devolves-Science-Challenges-Evolution/dp/0062842617 Genetic Entropy - John Sanford Excerpt: The newest edition of Genetic Entropy (2014), has shown that genetic degeneration is not just a theoretical concern, but is observed in numerous real-life situations. Genetic Entropy has reviewed research that shows: a) the ubiquitous genetic degeneration of the somatic cells of all human beings; and b) the genetic germline degeneration of the whole human population. https://www.geneticentropy.org/latest-development Dr. John Sanford Lecture at NIH (National Institute of Health): Genetic Entropy - Mutation Accumulation: Is it a Serious Health Risk? - 2018 video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqIjnol9uh8
ChuckyD is not disagreeing with Michael Behe, (and John Sanford), per se, ChuckyD is disagreeing with the scientific/empirical evidence itself. As Michael Behe, (and John Sanford) have made abundantly clear by reference to the empirical evidence itself, It is the scientific/empirical evidence itself that is saying that unguided material processes will tend to degrade the preexistent 'immaterial' information in biological systems that is 'constraining' biological systems to be so far out of thermodynamic equilibrium. In fact, Darwinists simply have no empirical evidence that it is possible for unguided material processes to create the 'immaterial' information that is necessary to 'constrain' life to be so far put of thermodynamic equilibrium,
Top Ten Questions and Objections to ‘Introduction to Evolutionary Informatics’ – Robert J. Marks II – June 12, 2017 Excerpt: “There exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. Hard sciences are built on foundations of mathematics or definitive simulations. Examples include electromagnetics, Newtonian mechanics, geophysics, relativity, thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, optics, and many areas in biology. Those hoping to establish Darwinian evolution as a hard science with a model have either failed or inadvertently cheated. These models contain guidance mechanisms to land the airplane squarely on the target runway despite stochastic wind gusts. Not only can the guiding assistance be specifically identified in each proposed evolution model, its contribution to the success can be measured, in bits, as active information.,,,”,,, “there exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. According to our current understanding, there never will be.,,,” https://evolutionnews.org/2017/06/top-ten-questions-and-objections-to-introduction-to-evolutionary-informatics/ Robert Jackson Marks II is an American electrical engineer. His contributions include the Zhao-Atlas-Marks (ZAM) time-frequency distribution in the field of signal processing,[1] the Cheung–Marks theorem[2] in Shannon sampling theory and the Papoulis-Marks-Cheung (PMC) approach in multidimensional sampling.[3] He was instrumental in the defining of the field of computational intelligence and co-edited the first book using computational intelligence in the title.[4][5] – per wikipedia
And without a 'mechanism' to create 'immaterial' information in biological systems, then it is obvious that any preexistent information in biological systems will tend to be degraded by unguided Darwinian processes. And that is exactly what we find. The vast majority of mutations are now known to be deleterious, not beneficial, in their effects.
Multiple Overlapping Genetic Codes Profoundly Reduce the Probability of Beneficial Mutation George Montañez 1, Robert J. Marks II 2, Jorge Fernandez 3 and John C. Sanford 4 - May 2013 Excerpt: It is almost universally acknowledged that beneficial mutations are rare compared to deleterious mutations [1–10].,, It appears that beneficial mutations may be too rare to actually allow the accurate measurement of how rare they are [11]. 1. Kibota T, Lynch M (1996) Estimate of the genomic mutation rate deleterious to overall fitness in E. coli . Nature 381:694–696. 2. Charlesworth B, Charlesworth D (1998) Some evolutionary consequences of deleterious mutations. Genetica 103: 3–19. 3. Elena S, et al (1998) Distribution of fitness effects caused by random insertion mutations in Escherichia coli. Genetica 102/103: 349–358. 4. Gerrish P, Lenski R N (1998) The fate of competing beneficial mutations in an asexual population. Genetica 102/103:127–144. 5. Crow J (2000) The origins, patterns, and implications of human spontaneous mutation. Nature Reviews 1:40–47. 6. Bataillon T (2000) Estimation of spontaneous genome-wide mutation rate parameters: whither beneficial mutations? Heredity 84:497–501. 7. Imhof M, Schlotterer C (2001) Fitness effects of advantageous mutations in evolving Escherichia coli populations. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:1113–1117. 8. Orr H (2003) The distribution of fitness effects among beneficial mutations. Genetics 163: 1519–1526. 9. Keightley P, Lynch M (2003) Toward a realistic model of mutations affecting fitness. Evolution 57:683–685. 10. Barrett R, et al (2006) The distribution of beneficial mutation effects under strong selection. Genetics 174:2071–2079. 11. Bataillon T (2000) Estimation of spontaneous genome-wide mutation rate parameters: whither beneficial mutations? Heredity 84:497–501. http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/9789814508728_0006
So again, ChuckyD is not disagreeing with Michael Behe, (and John Sanford), per se, ChuckyD is disagreeing with the scientific/empirical evidence itself. If ChuckyD wants to stay 'scientific', instead of being a dogmatist who is impervious to reason, he needs to present some sort of scientific evidence that it is possible for unguided material processes to create 'immaterial' information, because right now he simply doesn't have any.
John 1:1-4 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.
bornagain77
January 24, 2023
January
01
Jan
24
24
2023
03:42 AM
3
03
42
AM
PDT
CD @9 this debate is as absurd as the whole theory-of-evolution fairy tale ... It is clear, that this is just another head/beak/jaws design. Period.martin_r
January 23, 2023
January
01
Jan
23
23
2023
11:33 PM
11
11
33
PM
PDT
There is no such thing as “devolution,” regardless of what Michael Behe claims. Natural selection selects for successful phenotypes. That may result from “loss” of a previously successful adaptation. Natural selection does not move “forward” or “backward,” it’s simply selects for success.chuckdarwin
January 23, 2023
January
01
Jan
23
23
2023
05:34 PM
5
05
34
PM
PDT
@pm1 I think you know the specific term for what you did on 6. You obviously know no one really thinks of doing that. But there are two parties at fault here. There’s the party that absolutely denies anything science does (this is wrong) and there’s the party that absolutely adheres to science and this is part of a religion called scientism (also wrong). The recent tribalistic aggressiveness for the vaccine, followed by follow. The science comes to mind is a good example of why you shouldn’t just follow the science. And the issue is many things are taken at face value and implemented because they rely on science and think that it is immutable, and it has the final say about reality. When systems, traditions and beliefs are over turned due to science, which later on proves to be faulty, it should serve as a lesson to exercise caution, and that the scientists are very fallible. Point in case the neuroscience of free will it took 40 years to finally correct the mistake that RP in the brain was the initiation of our action before we knew about it. Many aggressive, atheist/scientists misused that science to further their personal belief which turned into the norm. In 2012, Aaron Schruger punched the first hole through that ideology, and in 2019 he punched another hole the rest of they way effectively ending the Libet paradigm. I think personally, both sides could benefit from exercising the tiniest bit of restraint before reaching outrageous conclusions based on science.AaronS1978
January 23, 2023
January
01
Jan
23
23
2023
02:27 PM
2
02
27
PM
PDT
Martin_r at 5, The National Academy of Sciences refers to evolution as the "cornerstone of Biology." But, as you know, it can be excluded without causing problems for Biologists conducting research.relatd
January 23, 2023
January
01
Jan
23
23
2023
01:56 PM
1
01
56
PM
PDT
We should shut down the paleontology departments, so that we're never troubled by anyone discovering something from the past that doesn't mesh with what we believe about what was happening.PyrrhoManiac1
January 23, 2023
January
01
Jan
23
23
2023
01:52 PM
1
01
52
PM
PDT
PaV
Every week there are press releases of articles that undermine prevailing Darwinian thought. I don’t think that there has ever been a theory that has proven to be more wrong. And, yet, the “true believers” refuse to let go.
I wrote something very similar elsewhere …. And I also asked, what makes Darwinists so trustworthy? Because they seem to be always wrong ….martin_r
January 23, 2023
January
01
Jan
23
23
2023
12:06 PM
12
12
06
PM
PDT
PaV at 3, What would be even worse is Intelligent Design getting into schools. The true believers have an interest in promoting unguided evolution. This idea has to continue to be promoted because without it, ID could get into schools. People will connect the designer to God and atheists will have one less reason to be atheists. And since ID will be taught, the average person will have scientific backing for his belief in God.relatd
January 23, 2023
January
01
Jan
23
23
2023
11:08 AM
11
11
08
AM
PDT
Funny, so few ever question a theory that is always being overturned by new findings.
Every week there are press releases of articles that undermine prevailing Darwinian thought. I don't think that there has ever been a theory that has proven to be more wrong. And, yet, the "true believers" refuse to let go. They say: "There's no other theory. Do you have a replacement theory?" Which means: "Even though I know I'm holding onto a piece of garbage, if I let go, then I'll be 'empty-handed'! And we all know that that would be even worse."PaV
January 23, 2023
January
01
Jan
23
23
2023
11:02 AM
11
11
02
AM
PDT
"Discovery Overturns More Than a Century of Knowledge" If it can be overturned, it's not Knowledge, it's Belief. Andrewasauber
January 23, 2023
January
01
Jan
23
23
2023
06:19 AM
6
06
19
AM
PDT
It took a very longtime for science to finally correct that mistake Follow the science………..AaronS1978
January 23, 2023
January
01
Jan
23
23
2023
06:09 AM
6
06
09
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply