Was Archie a vegetarian who foraged for berries like cardinals or finches?
Ancient origins and multiple appearances of carotenoid-pigmented feathers in birds
"...The broad palette of feather colours displayed by birds serves diverse biological functions, including communication and camouflage. Fossil feathers provide evidence that some avian colours, like black and brown melanins, have existed for at least 160 million years (Myr), but no traces of bright carotenoid pigments in ancient feathers have been reported."
(Source)
Winter cardinals don their brightest red feathers
"...Cardinals get the pigments responsible for red feathers from their food. Cardinals, tanagers and goldfinches can't synthesize carotenoids - the pigments responsible for red, orange and yellow feathers. If the birds don't eat enough carotenoid-rich fruits and insects, feathers that grow in during the next molt will be less colorful. Dogwood, rose and Japanese honeysuckle berries are locally abundant sources of carotenoid pigments."
(Source)
Any one wonders why creationists think pseudo-darwinists are lying about evolution? If they are whisked away with one example of science-fiction lies, what's to stop them from getting whisked away with another? Credibility... is in the trash can. Dr. Alan Feduccia was warning about this. Called it the "Meltdown of Paleontology."
Examples from the web:
Don't expect Creationists to accept any theories. The problem of credibility and accuracy is only getting worse. Facts matter. Accuracy matters. Fossil evidence matters. But in recent years, *religion* has infiltrated paleontology/science . . . where some jokers got this strange idea, "Well, as long as they reject God, who gives a damn if the feather pigments are wrong? Red is so much prettier anyway."
That's not Science, not even remotely. At least Science Fiction advertises itself by its right name.
That's Atheist religion, like a rotting ravenous cancer destroying Science with its war on God.
How to "Think Straight" by Neil deGrasse Tyson (and its not Atheism, that's for sure!)
" . . . They're like in your face atheist and they want to change policies and they're having debates. I don't have the time, the interest, the energy to do any of that. I'm a scientist. I'm an educator. My goal is to get people THINKING STRAIGHT in the first place, just get you to be curious about the natural world. That's what I'm about. I'm not about any of the rest of this."
The "God" issue and the atheist war on God, is of zero relevance to Science.
If the atheists had their meddling plucked out of the science arena . . . where it belongs, dumped in the trash can of Philosophy . . . and no longer allowed by the intellectuals to latch on to science for a lifeline to ill-gotten credibility to bolster their false religion . . . you'd see Atheists lose interest in Science, and seek out some other venues to pawn their religion on the masses.
Further evidence in paleontology and the fossil record that the "Red Feather on Dinosaurs and Ancient Birds" myth is complete fictional nonsense, though some ancient birds might have dined on insects --but where were the berries? :
"no traces of bright carotenoid pigments in ancient feathers have been reported."
"Cardinals, tanagers and goldfinches can't synthesize carotenoids - the pigments responsible for red, orange and yellow feathers... carotenoid-rich fruits and insects...Dogwood, rose and Japanese honeysuckle berries are locally abundant sources of carotenoid pigments." (Chances are these modern insects are getting their cartenoid-enrichment, by dining on local berries, just as the birds are.)
"Fleshy fruits are likely to have evolved from dry forms."
" . . . Although animal dispersal existed in gymnosperms and angiosperms before the Tertiary, dinosaurs were not frugivores and closed forest systems were not present, therefore providing little selection pressure on earlier production of fleshy fruits (Tiffney, 2004)."
(Source)
Frugivore definition, ". . .any chiefly fruit-eating organism, as certain bats."
Birds, co-existed with the dinosaurs. Are they saying birds didn't eat fruit back during Archie's day?
The timeline the information forces us to recognize as leading toward "fleshy fruit" development and birds consuming carteonoid-rich berries is all the way into the Tertiary . . .
Did fleshy fruit pulp evolve as a defense against seed loss rather than as a dispersal mechanism?
ANDREW L MACK Wildlife Conservation Society
". . . The proposed sequence, defense before dispersal, may have occurred several times, from the early gymnosperms of the Carboniferous that had fleshy propagules (Retaltack and Dilcher 1988) through the Tertiary when the fleshy-fruited angiosperms radiated (Tiffney 1984). The fossil record cannot clearly reveal the evolutionary history of previous plant-animal interactions. However, existing fossil evidence is consistent with defense before dispersal.
Fossil evidence does indicate that early plant reproductive structures suffered insect herbivory and these instances precede records of fleshy fruits or frugivory. The earliest Devonian seeds were small, naked and possibly polyphyletic in origin (Tiffney 1986a).
Limited evidence indicates that sap-feeding arthropods existed in the early Devonian (Chaloner et al I991 ) and that insects fed on plant spores (Scott 1977; Chaloner et al !991), megaspores, and seeds (Smart and Hughes 1973; Scott and Taylor 1983) during the Carboniferous. Because of the higher nutrient value of seeds compared with foliage (Janzen l978a), it is likely early herbivores and pathogens would have fed upon undefended seeds whenever possible. Thus the early record indicates naked, potentially vulnerable and probably nutritious seeds at a time when herbivores were numerous.
Middle Pennsylvanian fossil seeds of many gymnosperms and seed ferns exhibit hard and thick sclerotestas (Tiffney 1986a), perhaps as defense against seed predators or desiccation. Progressing through the fossil record there are many instances of seeds being surrounded or partially enclosed in sterile tissues (Dilcher 1979) that could have served a defensive function. Some fossil genera (e.g., Carclaicarpm, Nucellcrqiwn) also exhibited a fleshy sarcotesta.
Perhaps these early fleshy sarcotestas contained deterrent compounds rather than rewards for seed dispersers.
During the Permian, glossopterids dominated in Gondwana whereas Cordaitales were more numerous in Laurasia.
The upland Cordaitales mostly had winged seeds whereas lowland forms had thick-walled seeds. often with fleshy sarcotestas (Tiffney 1986a).
Some fossil evidence indicates herbivores consumed foliage, twigs and seeds indiscriminately and a late Permian coprolite contained seeds (Tiffney 1986a).
The Triassic witnessed the arrival of gingkoes, SplzerzoDcriern, fleshy-seeded cycads and Cn),tortin, though fossil seeds are rare. Reptiles are sometimes considered dispersers of these fruits (Pijl 1966), based on the assumption that fleshy tissues were rewards.
It is equally plausible that gingko pulp originated as a defense. The sole remaining gingko species (Girtkgo hilmhrr) has a foetid pulp that is unpalatable to most modern frugivores or herbivores. Gingkophytes, Coniferales, Nilssoniales. Caytoniales, Gnetales, cycads and Bennettitales radiated in the Mesozoic; many exhibit fructifications with mechanical defenses against herbivores (Weishampel 1984). In one case they have been found in coprolites (Hill 1976). Evidence suggests the prior existence of generalist herbivores consuming gymnosperm seeds with foliage (Tiffney 1986a) when the angiosperms radiated in the Cretaceous (Doyle 197X). The earliest angiosperm seeds were small and abiotically dispersed (Tiffney 1986a) shifting later to fleshy fruits. Some of the earliest fossil angiosperm fruits have glochids (Krassilov 1973), suggesting defense against seed predators. Fleshy-fruited angiosperms are rare in the Palaeocene fossil record (Collinson and Hooker 1991).
The gradual development of a relationship between putative frugivores and angiosperms until the mid-Cretaceous might have helped set the stage for rapid diversification of angiosperm and frugivore lineages once the interaction became mutually beneficial in the late Cretaceous and Tertiary. Fleming and Lips (1991) proposed that pterosaurs were one such group of frugivores in the Cretaceous. However, this does not necessarily imply a direct causal relationship between radiating plant and disperser lineages (Herrera 19X9a; Eriksson and Bremer 1992). Wing and Tiffney (1987) documented a shift from large generalist herbivores to smaller specialist herbivores,including frugivores and granivores, across the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary."
(Source)
On 12/5/2015 5:30 PM, Feduccia, John A wrote:
Yes, the color arguments are pure mythology. here is what Philip Manning of U. Manchester said of the dino feather studies:
"Studies on the elucidation of colour in fossil feathers11–13 have suggested that the presence of melanosomes within fossil feathers may be used to tentatively to reconstruct feather colours by tracking variations in melanosome shape. Rod shapes were interpreted as eumelanosomes (dark black/brown) and spheroidal shapes as pheomelanosomes (reddish-brown).
This structural approach has some shortcomings, primarily that there is known diversity in melanin granule morphology among different species3,14 and melanosome preservation may not be uniform. Therefore, serious questions may be raised about colour interpretation based solely on fossilised melanosome morphology and distribution.11,12,15 Additionally, these studies did not account for other known contributors to colour in feathers, such as the possible presence of other pigments (e.g. carotenoids) or other physical structures.4"
Sent from my iPad
Were T. Rex and Velociraptor toothless?
This genetic study confirms those creatures were NOT the ancestor of modern birds.
Was T. Rex toothless?
". . . A new study suggests that the common ancestor of all living birds lost the ability to produce teeth, and the answer to exactly how this happened can be found in modern-day birds' genes.
For the study, the researchers examined the genomes of 48 living bird species, taking a close look at six genes associated with tooth formation.
What did they find? It turns out that all of the bird species share genetic mutations that inactivate genes involved in the formation of both tooth enamel and the portion of the tooth called dentin.
Based on the mutations, the researchers think that a common ancestor of the birds lost the enamel caps on its teeth around 116 million years ago. And around that same time, birds' beaks came into play.
“We propose that this progression ultimately resulted in a complete horny beak that effectively replaced the teeth and may have contributed to the diversification of living birds," study co-author Dr. Mark Springer, a biology professor at the University of California, Riverside, said in a written statement.
(Source: Birds Lost Teeth 116 Million Years Ago)
This event took place, 116 Million Years Ago?
Interesting. Especially since Velociraptor and T. Rex lived long after 116 Million Years ago.
Perhaps Velociraptor was this toothless ancestor?!
Oh *Snap!* no, Velociraptor wasn't toothless either.
So obviously, based upon the conclusions of the study, these creatures are not the ancestor of birds. And since we know true birds existed 165 Million years ago in the Jurassic, namely Archaeopteryx who was a toothed bird followed by many other species of toothed birds, it can be concluded an actual bird gave rise to modern birds and not Cretaceous theropod dinosaurs.
So like yeah . . . any way . . . that sort of closes the case of whether or not T. Rex "evolved into chickens".
Subject: Re: Genetic Evidence at last (Bird vs. Cretaceous Theropod Dinosaur)
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 21:25:30 +0000
From: Feduccia, John A
But---almost all the enantiornithines, dominant landbirds of the Mesozoic, were fully toothed, as well as the late Cretaceous ornithurines, the hesperornithids and ichthyornitds.
Great information, thanks!
Do you have alternative views as to what may have caused modern beaks to evolve the loss of teeth as they have?
Certainly, there's no doubt that such early toothed bird species should co-exist along with birds who evolved modern (toothlessness /loss of enamel/dentin in their) beaks/bills, i.e., such as Ichthyornis (135-70 mya ... like all the many ancient relatives of birds who were not direct common ancestors they went too went extinct (from the time frame you mention, Mesozoic [252-66 million years ago]).
The researchers set the approximate date for the emergence of the common ancestor who evolved genes for "toothlessness" to around 116 million years ago. That's drawing close toward the end of the Mesozoic, approximately Middle Cretaceous.
Naturally, toothed birds should continue to co-exist in the same time frame but eventually became extinct. Some have suggested that this adaptation (loss of teeth, or at least the loss of dentin / enamel) better suited birds to their food supply, i.e., capturing small minnows or consumption of berries. Interestingly, many birds retain some traits which clearly indicate they still possess genes to produce "pseudo-teeth" of sorts...the loss wasn't complete. Last night I was looking at photos of birds and the Canadian Goose' "Pseudo-teeth" are intimidating and look like teeth... I've read that some of the adaptations are more effective than teeth for grasping and holding on to prey / gathering food. Brush Your Beak: 10 Amazing Birds With Teeth
The research sets out to identify the common ancestor to all modern birds and links them via the genes that lead to loss of dentin / toothlessness.
Along with what you've stated -- those species are ruled out as the common ancestor but most importantly, if what the genetic research concluded is true, it simultaneously rules out T. Rex, Velociraptor and other toothed theropod dinosaurs as potential candidates for the common ancestor to all modern birds.
Subject: RE: Genetic Evidence at last (Bird vs. Cretaceous Theropod Dinosaur)
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 00:42:53 +0000
From: Feduccia, John A
Hi, here is a paper of possible interest. Best wishes, alan
I found the article (click) on birds and crocodiles and the 93% similarity between alligator and crocodiles. Very interesting research. What is the approximate percentage of similarity between bird and crocodile genome?
This burning question is answered by the persons who actually did whole genome alignments between the crocodilians and several birds. Explanations which include Benedict Paten, David Ray and Joel Armstrong, which goes a little deeper than the whole genome alignments on the alligator and crocodile.
On to estimating just how similar any given bird vs. a crocodilian might be... what is the average percent identity for crocs vs. birds?
BENEDICT: The math answer is to take the neutral rate tree from the ancient repeats (it's in the paper), sum the branch lengths along the path between the two genomes of interest and reverse the multiple substitutions per site correction calculation. You should get close to the genome wide % identity between your chosen pair of genomes.
Alternatively, you could directly count from the genome alignment, which is available (see the supplementary materials). The alignment is in HAL format, and I believe you can calculate this using the HAL stats command (see (click)).
JOEL: We did a count of the genome-wide % ID of all genomes to the crocodile genome using our alignment a while ago.
The rate varies somewhat between birds, but for example, chicken has 61.7% identity with crocodile according to our alignment. This is a bit higher than what you would expect given the distance in the 4d site tree: the crocodile-chicken distance is 0.688, which if my math is right, works out to about 55% expected identity. The difference is due to the 4d rate being a neutral rate, while a significant portion of the aligned bases between chicken and crocodile are conserved.
Thanks. I'm going to safely assume then, that chickens actually do bear a closer relationship with crocodiles (61.7%) than T-Rex (58%).
Thank you for answering that question. There is absolutely nothing substantial on the web about the actual percentage of DNA similarity between Chickens and Crocodiles.
"...About 60 percent of chicken genes correspond to a similar human gene. However, researchers uncovered more small sequence differences between corresponding pairs of chicken and human genes, which are 75 percent identical on average, than between rodent and human gene pairs, which are 88 percent identical on average. Differences between human and chicken genes were not uniform across the board, however. Chicken genes involved in the cell's basic structure and function showed more sequence similarity with human genes than did those implicated in reproduction, immune response and adaptation to the environment."
(click) and (click)
So, in some places chickens are closer in their genetic relation with humans than either t. rex or even crocodiles.
Based on genetic evidence, it really is difficult to make such a drastic conclusion that "chickens definitively evolved from T. Rex".
"...About 60 percent of chicken genes correspond to a similar human gene."
"...chicken has 61.7% identity with crocodile according to our alignment."
"...many pieces of the protein (t. rex) they came up with a number of 58% sequence identity (with chicken)..."
And some conclude the chicken is more related to the T. Rex, than the crocodile or the mammal. In what alternative mathematical reality?
All that fuss about "life began on Mars," well that explains the dinosaur extinction too. They went home.
They're barely related to anything known on this earth. The genetic evidence clinches it.
Not kidding.
Don't say I didn't tell you so.
Now, you know.
There is a lot of misleading information out there. Notice the emphasis on the word, "closest living relative," as if something extinct, were even closer.
That's why I contacted the dudes who sequenced the crocodile genomes. They had the Alligator vs. Crocodiles genome sequencing (determining 93% similarity) so what was the similarity between Crocodiles and Birds?!
Crocodilia
"They appeared 83.5 million years ago in the Late Cretaceous period (Campanian stage) and are the closest living relatives of birds..."
(click)
Are they implying dinosaurs were even closer than crocodiles?
The crocodile is the "closest living AND EXTINCT relative of birds."
(Considering the fact that Crocodile DNA has changed very little over the past 100 million years.)
EXTINCT dinosaur: 58% genetic similarity to a chicken.
EXTINCT AND EXTANT crocodile : 61.7% genetic similarity to a chicken.
Hmmm and I bet if you compared ancient Crocodile DNA with the chicken genome that % of similarity would be quite possibly higher than that of modern crocodiles!
The proper wording should be "Crocodilia are the closest known relative of birds." PERIOD.
REACTION FROM DR. ALAN FEDUCCIA:
"Interesting, but we do not know anything about the T. rex genome, just size, and even that is somewhat speculative."
Best, alan
That isn't what the "Orthodox" crowd are saying.
See attachment culled from one book I came across on Google Books.
They swear by the "conclusive" DNA evidence.
"conclusive" (in quotes) denotes sarcasm.
58%
Dr. Alan Feduccia:
Yes, but our "T. rex skeptics group" has seriously questioned that study by Schweitzer; see chapter one in my book Riddle. And even if true (which I seriously doubt) it is just a small snippet of collagen. . . .
With what we know now about the tangled web of life, "Paleontologist Jack Horner is hard at work trying to turn a chicken into a dinosaur".
In 2009, the world’s most famous paleontologist made a bold claim. In “How to Build a Dinosaur,” Jack Horner proposed re-creating a small dinosaur by reactivating ancient DNA found in its descendants, chickens. Horner and his team have been working on the “chickenosaurus” and moving ahead the science of evolutionary development. The project has already resulted in some of the first research into the embryonic development of tails.
(Source)
That may be, but did Mr. Horner separate and isolate specific chromosomes belonging to a dozen or more cross-breeders from the Chicken's ancestry, first?
Q. Does bird mating ever cross the species line?
A. “Many birds occasionally mate with members of other bird species, producing hybrid offspring,” said Irby J. Lovette, director of the Fuller Evolutionary Biology Program at the Cornell Lab of Ornithology.
In fact, Dr. Lovette said, about 10 percent of the world’s 10,000 bird species are known to have bred with another species at least once, either in the wild or in captivity. For example, in the eastern United States, NATIVE BLACK DUCKS have hybridized so often with the more abundant MALLARD DUCKS that PURE BLACK DUCKS HAVE BECOME RARE.
Hybridization tends to occur between species that are closely related, Dr. Lovette said, but an individual from ONE GENUS may occasionally form a pair with a bird from an altogether DIFFERENT GENUS, separated by many millions of years of evolutionary divergence.
Some groups of birds are particularly prone to hybridization, he said, adding:
“Experienced bird watchers know to watch out for the occasional hybrid gull or duck that exhibits an odd mix of its parents’ colors and behaviors. Often, however, hybrids die young, and even when hybrid offspring survive until adulthood, they may be sterile or have trouble attracting mates.”
What kind of a Frankenstein abomination is he prepared to bring into the world? Also, exactly how many chromosomes did T. Rex have? What genetic information was lost during these crossbreeding events? Surely these answers can be provided since Horner presumes he knows more than any legitimate scientist does about the current state of knowledge about dinosaur DNA.
Whatever abomination he attempts to create will NOT be "the" or even "an" ancestor of a Chicken.
A chicken's DNA is a genetic mosh pit ... a "Tangled Web" of genes derived from many ancestors... many of those crossbreeding from outside their species and... in some cases... beyond the boundaries of the species.
DINOSAURS: MOVIES VS. REALITY
"...We must sequence the DNA — find out what the genetic code of the animal is. That's several billion letters strung together in a chain. One gap in the chain could possibly ruin the whole thing. In the Jurassic Park stories, frog DNA is used to plug the holes in the DNA. This is really silly! As paleontological critics have remarked, "too much frog DNA and your T. rex croaks." A reasonably intact dinosaur genome is necessary to progress further — putting together DNA is a lot harder than reconstructing a dinosaur skeleton from its bones, and that's plenty hard. The odds of correctly assembling a fragmentary genome are similar to putting a million-piece puzzle together with your eyes closed. DNA allows some room for mistakes (not all DNA is used), but it doesn't seem likely that we could get enough for any one animal. If we somehow got a whole dinosaur genome, we would somehow have to make it assemble into chromosomes, which we don't know how to do with dinosaur DNA. That might be able to be accomplished with a few decades of work.
Here comes the zinger. These chromosomes now would have to be implanted into a compatible, living, intact egg. Crocodile eggs, or even eggs of the same dinosaur genus, would not work. In vertebrates, the same (or at least closely related) species' egg and cytoplasm apparently are required for the egg to develop normally. The major problem here is that we just have the DNA — we don't know what species we have (DNA doesn't come with nametags), and even if we did we don't have a living dinosaur egg of that species!"
(Source)
The Tangled Web vs. The Tree of Life
The idea that birds are descended from dinosaurs is no longer questioned [(THIS CLAIM IS CERTAINLY NOT TRUE!)] ... Paleontologists have long studied the changes in bone structure of dinosaurs and birds over time. Meanwhile, molecular biologists have studied the composition of modern bird genes. By merging these scientists’ work, Horner, who is curator of paleontology at the Museum of the Rockies in Bozeman, Mont., hopes to answer questions about evolution.
Horner’s premise can be viewed from the launchpad of the late Michael Crichton’s novel and film “Jurassic Park,” a story that involved obtaining dinosaur DNA from undigested blood in mosquitoes preserved in amber. The idea of finding dinosaur DNA this way was taken seriously by many people, and the possibility was explored by scientists.
Jack Horner knows the “Jurassic Park” theory very well, having served not only as the inspiration for one of the main characters but also as a technical adviser for the film. But 24 years after the novel was published, we have yet to find any DNA in mosquitoes from the time of the dinosaurs.
DNA degrades under even ideal storage conditions. Cool, sterile conditions can extend its useful life to as long as perhaps a few million years, and dinosaurs disappeared about 65 million years ago. No matter how perfect a mosquito we find in a blob of amber, we cannot make a dinosaur out of that mosquito’s last blood meal.
(Source)
So, SCIENCE FICTION and Frankenstein experiments is what paleontology has been reduced to, leaving a legacy of speculation, vs. actual fossil facts.
Evolution: Charles Darwin was wrong about the tree of life
Evolutionary biologists say crossbreeding between species is far more common than previously thought, making a nonsense of the idea of discrete evolutionary branches
Charles Darwin's "tree of life", which shows how species are related through evolutionary history, is wrong and needs to be replaced, according to leading scientists.
The great naturalist first sketched how species might evolve along branches of an imaginary tree in 1837, an idea that quickly came to symbolise the theory of evolution by natural selection.
But modern genetics has revealed that representing evolutionary history as a tree is misleading, with scientists saying a more realistic way to represent the origins and inter-relatedness of species would be an impenetrable thicket. Darwin himself also wrote about evolution and ecosystems as a "tangled bank".
"We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality," Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, told New Scientist magazine.
Genetic tests on bacteria, plants and animals increasingly reveal that different species crossbreed more than originally thought, meaning that instead of genes simply being passed down individual branches of the tree of life, they are also transferred between species on different evolutionary paths. The result is a messier and more tangled "web of life".
Microbes swap genetic material so promiscuously it can be hard to tell one type from another, but animals regularly crossbreed too - as do plants - and the offspring can be fertile. According to some estimates, 10 per cent of animals regularly form hybrids by breeding with other species.
Last year, scientists at the University of Texas at Arlington found a strange chunk of DNA in the genetic make-up of eight animals, including the mouse, rat and the African clawed frog. The same chunk is missing from chickens, elephants and humans, suggesting it must have become wedged into the genomes of some animals by crossbreeding.
The findings mean that to link species by Darwin's evolutionary branches is an oversimplification. "The tree of life is being politely buried," said Michael Rose, an evolutionary biologist at the University of California, Irvine. "What's less accepted is that our whole fundamental view of biology needs to change."
Charles Darwin wrong: Modern scientists debunk Darwin's 'Tree of Life' diagram
Charles Darwin's “tree of life,” which shows how species are purportedly related through evolutionary history, is wrong and needs to be replaced, according to leading scientists, reports I4U News on May 16.
The tree of life is a metaphor used to describe the relationships between organisms, both living and extinct. Its use dates back to at least the early 1800s. It was employed by Charles Darwin to express the concept of the branching divergence of varieties and then species in a process of common descent from ancestors.
The great naturalist first sketched how species might evolve along branches of an imaginary tree in 1837, an idea that quickly came to symbolize the theory of evolution by natural selection.
Modern scientists and geneticists are now saying that representing evolutionary history as a tree is misleading. A more realistic way to represent the origins and inter-relatedness of species would be an “impenetrable thicket.”
Darwin himself also wrote about evolution and ecosystems as a “tangled bank.”
If you thought the web couldn't get any more tangled, sticky and complicated then consider the "Death and Resurrection Theory".
Are Butterflies Two Different Animals in One? The Death And Resurrection Theory
Here's a dangerous, crazy thought from an otherwise sober (and very eminent) biologist, Bernd Heinrich. He's thinking about moths and butterflies, and how they radically change shape as they grow, from little wormy, caterpillar critters to airborne beauties. Why, he wondered, do these flying animals begin their lives as wingless, crawling worms? Baby ducks have wings. Baby bats have wings. Why not baby butterflies?
His answer — and I'm quoting him here — knocked me silly.
"[T]he radical change that occurs," he says, "does indeed arguably involve death followed by reincarnation."
"In effect, the animal is a chimera, an amalgam of two, where the first one lives and dies ... and then the other emerges."
What he's saying is, while a moth appears to be one animal, with a wormy start and a flying finish, it's actually two animals — two in one! We start with a baby caterpillar that lives a full life and then dies, dissolves. There's a pause. Then a new animal, the moth, springs to life, from the same cells, reincarnated.
According to this theory, long, long ago, two very different animals, one destined to be wormy, the other destined to take wing, accidently mated, and somehow their genes learned to live side-by-side in their descendants. But their genes never really integrated. They are sharing a DNA molecule like two folks sharing a car, except half way through the trip, one driver dissolves and up pops his totally different successor. Driver No. 2 emerges from the body of driver No. 1.
When this theory was first proposed (not by Bernd, but by an English zoologist), eminent scientists scoffed.
"...Like mules, the male version of the hybrid is infertile, but female dzo, or dzomo, are fertile, allowing for the “back breeding” of three-quarter mixes." 10 Farm Animal Hybrids You Didn’t Know Existed
"...But of course, stable hybrids are found in the wild, no matter how distressing that idea is to armchair theorists. For example, DNA research has proven what has always been suspected -- that the Eastern Red Wolf in the U.S. is nothing more than a stable hybrid of a Grey Wolf and a Coyote."
"...As I noted a while back in a post about species loss, a good case can be made that more species are provably being created every year than being driven to extinction. To be clear, I am not saying that species extinction is not a very, very serious problem, only that we should at least mention that useful species and subspecies are being created every day, and in every key type: fur, fin and feather. In the history of the world, I am pretty sure the creation of the leghorn chicken is more important than the loss of a subspecies of finch found only on one isolated atoll in the Pacific.
Several examples of speciation (it is a process, not an event) can be found in the world of falconry, where advances in aviary management and artificial insemination have resulted in all kinds of hybrids, such as Gyr/Peregrine and Gyr/Saker crosses that are not only fertile, but which combine the useful characteristics of one species (such as the speed of the Peregrine) with the useful characteristics of another (such as the size and strength of the Gyrfalcon).
The first hybrid falcons were produced in 1971 in western Ireland when falconers Ronald Stevens and John Morris put a male Saker into a moulting mew with a female peregrine. The two young falconers were quite astonished when the birds mated and produced viable hybrid chicks.
Soon other hybrids were being produced, revealing both the extreme plasticity and suspect nature of raptor classification."
(Source)
Not all cross-breeding results in negative outcomes. "...The fact that the hybrid origin of the mule has so long been known, together with its marked sterility, has no doubt greatly contributed to the widespread, but erroneous, belief that all hybrids are sterile. Early naturalists (e.g., Prichard 1836, p. 140) believed that mules foaled more frequently in warmer climes." Mules (Donkey × Horse), Equus asinus × Equus caballus, Mammalian Hybrids
Global Warming Spawns Hybrid Species "...the rate at which species interbreed is accelerating because of climate change, researchers say. As habitats and animal ranges change and bleed into one another, species that never before would have encountered one another are now mating.
Warmer temperatures have allowed grizzly bears and polar bears to venture to habitats they don’t usually occupy and mate to form a hybrid: the pizzly or grolar bear.
Similar trends have been observed between golden-winged warblers and blue-winged warblers.
“This issue is horrendously complex because of our ability to change the environment,” said Arnold.
Considering that human activity has indirectly brought together species through planetary warming and increased fossil fuel emissions, the question on the minds of many biologists like Arnold is whether humans should play a role in preventing hybridization like this.
A threat to genetic diversity?
Montana’s Flathead Basin has long been a spawning haven for the westslope cutthroat trout. But as waters in the region warm, rainbow trout have swum up from the western lakes where they were introduced decades ago to cutthroat native grounds."
Combining the strengths of coyotes and wolves
However, some biologists disagree, saying that hybridization is natural and doesn’t always produce negative results. In some cases, hybrids are better adapted to cope with changing landscapes.
“Hybridization can increase genetic diversity in some cases,” said Tallmon.
A coyote-wolf-dog hybrid that made its way to western New York in the 1940s has the combined features of stealthy coyote-like movements and a larger skull, making it better-adapted to hunting white-tailed deer.
Members of the Heliconius butterfly genus in the Amazon breed with other species within the genus and have developed more distinctive colors in the process. Without these colors, the birds would not be aware that these butterflies contain cyanide, and the defense mechanism would be useless.
Though crossbreeding between Amazonian butterflies was not triggered by climate change, it is an example of hybridization that strengthens the survival abilities of a species.
(Source)
With climate change, species are increasingly interbreeding to survive "...Other researchers see hybridization differently, though — as a shortcut to the kind of evolution that has benefited organisms since time immemorial. By this view, hybridization threatens some species but enables others to survive and prosper.
As scientists scrutinize genomes, the old idea of separate, radiating species — an ever-diverging tree of life — has come to be understood as more of a tangled web, says Michael L. Arnold, research professor of evolutionary genetics at the University of Georgia and the author of Evolution Through Genetic Exchange. Living things evolve into new species only to cross again and again."
(Source)
Hybrids can often go on to reproduce, and introduce new genetic information into the species.
"...The world's only known whale-dolphin mix has given birth to a playful female calf, officials at Sea Life Park Hawaii said Thursday.
The calf was born on Dec. 23 to Kekaimalu, a mix of a false killer whale and an Atlantic bottlenose dolphin. Park officials said they waited to announce the birth until now because of recent changes in ownership and operations at the park.
Kekaimalu has given birth to two other calves. One lived for nine years and the other, born when Kekaimalu was very young, died a few days after birth.
Park researchers suspect the wholphin's father is an 8-foot long Atlantic bottlenose dolphin named Mikioi."
(Source)
"...This is one confusing animal. Related to the rhinoceros, called a mountain cow, and with a flexible nose like an elephant, Baird's tapirs have to be seen to be believed."
(Source)
Elephant try to cross couple with Rhino
Speciation through Hybridization
Macroevolution is defined as a major evolutionary transition from one type of organism to another occurring at the level of the SPECIES and higher taxa.
This event (described) could have happened just as easily through Natural Selection as Artificial Selection.
New species come and go every day on the planet.
(Source): New Species and Forms of Cereals Derived from Hybridization between Wheat and Couch Grass
N. V. Tsitsin and V. F. Lubimova
The American Naturalist
Vol. 93, No. 870 (May - Jun., 1959), pp. 181-191
Published by: The University of Chicago Press for The American Society of Naturalists
Viewing page 181 of pages 181-191
Consider this too. We do not have perfectly preserved, intact dinosaur DNA... much less, a single species "Genome". DNA does not preserve over 65 million years (that is merely counting dinosaurs that died during the Cretaceous).
A recap of the fossil record and just how far back, to find the "Ancestor" of Birds, which Horner claims he attempts to resurrect:
Here's the result of what 13 MILLION YEARS of divergence can do to chromosomes:
"....Each of the four species of ape (chimpanzee, gorilla, bonobo, and orangutan) possesses 48 chromosomes or 24 pairs, compared to the 46 chromosomes of humans...."
However, Horner does not think to attempt resurrecting a "common ancestor" between birds and *whatever* archosaur, a mere 13 million years ago:
Human and Chimp Genes May Have Split 13 Million Years Ago
"...The ancestors of humans and chimpanzees may have begun genetically diverging from one another 13 million years ago, more than twice as long ago as had been widely thought, shedding new light on the process of human evolution, researchers say.
Scientists also discovered that male chimps pass on far more genetic mutations to their offspring than male humans do, revealing previously unknown evolutionary differences between the species."
(Source)
"...previously unknown differences..."
Really? But can't Horner predict the varying mutation rates of extinct 100 Million Year old Dinosaurs and primitive birds?
If the speculative claims and promises of this Frankenstein experiment actually held water, surely some human would've already resurrected the "Common Ancestor" of Humans and Chimps. After all, we have the extant DNA from living Humans and Chimps and other primates!
Bet if they did... they'd still get an ABOMINATION that doesn't correctly represent that common ancestor at all. It would not look the same, behave the same, it would probably be sickly and missing crucial genetic information that was lost millions of years ago, and cross-breeding through the ages introducing new genetic information while old genetic information disappeared.
Horner's evil experiment is... folly.
You would have more luck, at cloning my "Grandmother," -- using my genes, my siblings' genes, my cousins' genes, and so on... you would NOT even come close to my "grandmother". Not in likeness, appearance or temperance. You would have a human -- but you would not have succeeded to resurrect my ancestor!
Horner's trying to resurrect a creature that is far older than 65 MILLION years.. and sadly, never even existed. Keep in mind, birds were around during the time of the Jurassic (long before T. Rex and Velociraptor) Jurassic birds were alive and well and doing what birds do, as far back as the Jurassic ... so Horner proposes to resurrect a "dinosaur" or Archosaur ancestor that dates back beyond 150 million years in geological time?
Purely speculative folly!!! This is not Science. It is simply junk science. It is a flawed attempt at playing God.
Jurassic period dates back to 199.6 to 145.5 million years ago... we know there's no DNA available to even test against Horner's silly hypothesis.. WHAT A HUGE WASTE OF RESEARCH GRANT MONEY THAT COULD HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN PUT TO FAR BETTER USE, ELSEWHERE. :-(
The Triassic (Protoavis) came before the Jurassic (Archeopteryx)... so if this is a true bird, then Archie is no longer the world's "oldest bird". It would also mean that birds did not evolve from dinosaurs.
Protoavis: A Revolution in Bird Evolution?
"The paleontologist Sankar Chatterjee has recently described the fossil Protoavis, from Late Triassic deposits in Texas. Chatterjee claims that Protoavis is a true bird that is actually closer to modern birds than Archaeopteryx. If this is true, this would push the origin of birds back by about 80 million years. It would also show that the first birds lived at the same time as the earliest dinosaurs -- which could disprove or force modification of the standard hypothesis that birds are descended from the highly derived coelurosaurian dinosaurs, which are not known from the Triassic. This would require major rewriting of the evolutionary history of the birds and dinosaurs alike." (Source)
Hope they discover more fossils and confirm what this creature was, but by now... these dino-bird people are so fixed on their dogma that no matter what fossil evidence is produced they will try to deny the evidence.
An article focusing on genetic research T-Rex/Birds.
"...Putting more meat on the theory that dinosaurs' closest living relatives are modern-day birds, molecular analysis of a shred of 68-million-year-old Tyrannosaurus rex protein -- along with that of 21 modern species..."
Oh... they merely wanted to estimate the "closest living relative" and were never implying that T-Rex evolved into chickens. But the dinosaur-bird crowd interpreted the data as they wanted to.
"...-- confirms that dinosaurs share common ancestry with chickens, ostriches, and to a lesser extent, alligators."
Molecular Analysis Confirms Tyrannosaurus Rex's Evolutionary Link To Birds (Source)
Nobody would deny that dinosaurs share "common ancestry" with birds, but who would presume birds, "...evolved from..." dinosaurs like T-Rex?
The kind of people who paint bright red feathers on large solitary predators.
Protoavis. One artist's depiction.
Mark Hallett (paleontological art) depiction of Protoavis.
The fossil
Theories about flight:
"Debates about the origin of bird flight are almost as old as the idea that birds evolved from dinosaurs, which arose soon after the discovery of Archaeopteryx in 1862. Two theories have dominated most of the discussion since then: the cursorial ("from the ground up") theory proposes that birds evolved from small, fast predators that ran on the ground; the arboreal ("from the trees down") theory proposes that powered flight evolved from unpowered gliding by arboreal (tree-climbing) animals. A more recent theory, "wing-assisted incline running" (WAIR), is a variant of the cursorial theory and proposes that wings developed their aerodynamic functions as a result of the need to run quickly up very steep slopes, for example to escape from predators."
(Source)
No matter which may be true, the underlying driving force of why they were compelled to fly, and achieved it, may be explained in this bit of research. Their ancestors from the Triassic and even earlier,
Swimming led to flying
"...Like a fish paddles its pectoral fins to swim through water, flying insects use the same physics laws to "paddle" through the air, say Cornell physicists."
(Source)
..through instinct, perhaps even epigenetics... swimming prompted birds to fly.
I found a nice upload that discusses "ProtoAvis" and two competing theories for how birds (flight) came to be.
I am in the third camp with only minimal variations on the how's and why's... 3. Aquatic bird theory:
"The idea that all modern birds stem from an aquatic ancestor might come as a surprise, admits Chiappe. "If you look at the evolutionary tree of living birds, the most primitive are all land birds — ratites, ostrich, emu, pheasants," he says. "It seems that many lineages left the water and colonized the land."
But although many people think of ducks, geese and other waterfowl as specialized animals, they are quite primitive in comparison to highly evolved species such as songbirds, Chiappe points out.
What's more, almost every bird group alive today has representatives that live in or around water, Chiappe says, suggesting that a watery lifestyle may be an ancient tradition that has persisted in many lineages. Pelicans are not closely related to penguins; and neither bears a close kinship with herons, he adds."
(Source)
Again, it should be pointed out, that the "bright blue" feathers used to portray Protoavis, are highly unlikely to have existed during the Triassic. Our feathered friends had a very limited array of pigment,
"...The broad palette of feather colours displayed by birds serves diverse biological functions, including communication and camouflage. Fossil feathers provide evidence that some avian colours, like black and brown melanins, have existed for at least 160 million years (Myr), but no traces of bright carotenoid pigments in ancient feathers have been reported." (Source)
If Protoavis is indeed, truly a bird, and hopefully with more fossils, in time we will know. But if in the case that it is, Protoavis will push back known bird origins into the Triassic. This would be devastating to the "theropod dinosaur to bird" hypothesis, because the earliest "theropod dinosaurs" themselves, arose during the Triassic.
To provide some perspective on the time-frame I am attaching the bird graph which shows some of the birds of the fossil record in contrast to the Cretaceous dinosaurs, who arose at a much later time and yet, are mistakenly credited as being the "ancestors" of birds.
"The new study found that 99.4 percent of the most critical DNA sites are identical in the corresponding human and chimp genes." (Source)
"Human and fish genes are 90% identical!" (Source)
"75% of mouse genes have equivalents in humans (Source), 90% of the mouse genome could be lined up with a region on the human genome. (Source)
"We have obtained estimates of genetic differentiation between humans and the great apes no greater than, say, those observed between morphologically indistinguishable (sibling) species of Drosophila flies (fruit flies)."
-- Elizabeth J. Bruce and Francisco J. Ayala (Dept. of Genetics, Univ. of Calif.), "Humans and Apes Are Genetically Very Similar,," Nature, Nov. 16, 1978, Vol 276, p. 265.
And the "outstanding percentage of similarity" with T. Rex to chicken was merely...58% ?
Data used to determine that genetically... the genetically closest known relative on earth, is a chicken at a meager 58% similarity... that hardly constitutes an "ancestor" of birds.
Humans and fish share a 90% genetic similarity, and that's following 400 million of years of divergence between humans from fish.
From protein to DNA
So a dinosaur has a collagen protein that is very similar to a chicken's. What does this actually mean?
Which proteins are made when and where is decided by our genes. Genes really are just recipes for proteins. The recipe is just instructions for putting together a string of amino acids in a certain order.
What the researchers got out of their experiments were strings of amino acids. For example, they got the following from the T. rex:
GVQGPPGPQGPR
Each letter is a different amino acid. For example, G is glycine and P is proline.
They then looked at other creatures to see what string of amino acids they have. The chicken, for example, has:
GVQGPPGPQGPR
As you can see, this is an exact match. The newt on the other hand, had:
GAAGPPGATGFP
This is pretty different for this piece of the protein. When they did this with many pieces of the protein, they came up with a number of 58% sequence identity (the same amino acids in the same order) for the chicken. And 51% for the frog and newt.
(Source)
T. Rex is 58% genetically similar to a chicken?
Chickens are about 60-75% genetically similar to humans.
Therefore, chickens share a closer relation to humans, than t. rex.
"About 60 percent of chicken genes correspond to a similar human gene. However, researchers uncovered more small sequence differences between corresponding pairs of chicken and human genes, which are 75 percent identical on average, than between rodent and human gene pairs, which are 88 percent identical on average. Differences between human and chicken genes were not uniform across the board, however. Chicken genes involved in the cell's basic structure and function showed more sequence similarity with human genes than did those implicated in reproduction, immune response and adaptation to the environment."
(Source)
If "58%" genetic similarity to T. Rex is all they got for deciding where chickens "evolved from" -- then the human genome is even greater similarity with chickens at a whopping 60%-75% similarity... we could say chickens evolved from humans!!! Yay!!! That's how the dino-bird folks do it.
"... a large suite of avian characters are present, especially in Anchiornis, we must remain open to the view that they represent a primitive group of early avians."
... back to the basal archosaurs. No room for "intermediate fossils" between the basal archosaur and birds. No room for transitions. If Feduccia thinks there's any "open mindedness" among the dinosaur-to-bird crowd, he's the one who's mistaken.
Feduccia's book on the origins of the feathered feet, could not have been terrestrial as formally claimed...
That... lead me to a verrrry interesting find. Why those little feathery feet. The dino-bird crowd think "terrestrial dinosaur". But that's not what the Feduccia's colleague theorizes. (See below).
Feduccia points out that "it could not have been terrestrial" -- so what was it, a snowshoeing bird in the Arctic? Those feathered feet do not equate to "terrestrial tetrapod dinosaur".
Here's three science papers on the "Ornithuromorph" birds.
"...thus expand our knowledge of Early Cretaceous specializations within the aquatic niche..."
"...As more ornithuromorph taxa are described, it is becoming increasingly clear that a majority of species have aquatic specializations..."
"...especially amphibious or aquatic habitat preferences in early ornithuromorphs."
T. REX NEED NOT APPLY.
Paleoecology
Elongate hindlimbs in birds are commonly associated with aquatic ‘shorebird’/littoral ecological niches (Zeffer et al., 2003). The presence of a dorsal supracondylar structure in Longicrusavis, together with the proportions of the legs (elongate tibiotarsus) and feet (elongate proximal phalanges, short hallux), suggests that hongshanornithids occupied such a niche. Wading ‘shorebird’ taxa are known from the Late Cretaceous; the enantiornithine Lectavis bretincola from the South American Lecho Formation is suggested to have filled this niche based on the long and gracile nature of its tarsometatarsus (Chiappe, 1993). Ostensible charadriiform taxa, such as Cimolopteryx maxima, Graculavus velox,and Telmatornis priscus,have been reported mostly from the Late Cretaceous of North America (Hope, 2002); how ever, these taxa are fragmentary and their referral to Charadriiformes is questionable. The Early Cretaceous record of aquatic taxa is limited to the exceptional Gansus yumenensis and inconclusive trackways from Asia and Europe (Lockley et al., 1992; Fuentes Vidarte, 1996; You et al., 2006). The hongshanornithids thus expand our knowledge of Early Cretaceous specializations within the aquatic niche. The Hongshanornithidae are known from lakes located relatively close to the coast, in contrast to the younger more phylogenetically derived Gansus, which is known from inland deposits in northern Gansu Province, China. As more ornithuromorph taxa are described, it is becoming increasingly clear that a majority of species have aquatic specializations such as elongate hindlimbs and pedal digits and proximally projecting cnemial crests on the tibiotarsus (Yanornis, Gansus, Hongshanornis).
Longicrusavis also possesses specializations for a littoral environment,and together with Hongshanornis,reveals an early diversification of wading birds.
(Source)
"05-CM-021 would provide additional phylogenetic and eco-morphological information regarding the early evolution and diversification of Ornithuromorpha, and potentially the origins of Ornithurae. For instance, an important aspect of the paleobiology of Gansus is its presumed aquatic or semi-aquatic lifestyle, which has been inferred from its prominent, proximally-projecting cnemial crest on the tibiotarsus, proximal position of the metatarsal II trochlea, and elongate, webbed pedal digits (You et al. 2006; Hinic-Frlog 2007).
Coupled with the phylogenetic position of Gansus as an advanced non-ornithurine ornithuromorph or basal ornithurine,this was considered to support the hypothesis that Cretaceous ornithuromorphs may have been largely aquatic in habits, and that neornithines may have originated in water-based niches (You et al. 2006). Whether or not the taxon represented by FRDC-05-CM-021 possessed similar aquatic adaptations can only be determined by the discovery of more complete specimens, because no sternal or furcular characters have yet been determined to be indicative of an aquatic ecology."
(Source)
Xing Xu Ph.D.:
"...Based on these discoveries, we propose that birds were primitively four-winged, with the hind limbs contributing to aerial locomotion. The separation of the forelimbs and the hind limbs into distinct locomotor modules in later birds, which led to reduction of the leg feathers and outright loss of the pedal feathers, may have been facilitated by ground, especially amphibious or aquatic habitat preferences in early ornithuromorphs."
(Source)
Archeopteryx was around during the Jurassic -- frequently lagoons and semi-aquatic, and long before, there's quite possibly "Protoavis" from the Triassic, presumed to also be of modern bird form. We won't know until more fossils are found that correlate. Meanwhile, these are all just descendents of the AQUATIC ancestor among the basal archosaur, which I say was the Patriarch/Matriarchal Bird ancestor... it may have had similarities with dinosaurs, but it was no dinosaur. It may have had descendents that branched which were "dinosaur like" and may have had feathers, but were no true dinosaur.
"...Several new specimens of the previously enigmatic bird Gansus throw light on the evolution of early ornithuromorph birds. There appear to be the following evolutionary grades and clades recognizable to different degrees of clarity amongst the Mesozoic birds. The primitive radiation of birds appear to have included the very deinonychosaur/Epidendrosaur-like forms such Archaeopteryx, Rahonavis and Jeholornis followed by the emergence of birds with shortened pygostylic tails. Interestingly a pygostyle-like structure appears to have also evolved in the Oviraptorosaur Nomingia. Subsequently the pygostylians spawned two great radiations the enantiornithines and the ornithuromorphs/euornithes which included the modern birds. The enantiornithines spanned a wide ecological niche and were dominant birds throughout the later Mesozoic, however for reasons unclear to us they all became extinct in the great K/T event.
Feduccia, proposed a model that the early ornithuromorphs were aquatic or semi-aquatic– his shore birds. The new fossils of Gansus combined with the phylogeny suggest that many of the early clades of ornithuromorphs, such as Hongshanornis, the Yanornis-Yixianornis-Songlingornis clade, the Hesperornithids, Ichthyornithids and Gansus were all aquatic, whereas only Apsaravis is convincingly terrestrial. One must also revisit the somewhat later Vegavis from Antarctica in light of the aquatic early ornithuromorph hypothesis. Examining the ornithuromorph radiation we note that the most primitive member of this clade Patagopteryx appears to be a terrestrial bird, even secondarily flightless. So together with Apsaravis we have at least 3 major ecological niches amongst the better preserved members of the early ornithuromorph radiation- a flightless land form (which might have repeatedly happened in early avian evolution), a volant desert living form and several aquatic forms with different degrees of aquatic adaptation. When we go to the neornithes, we have the basal-most branch of the ratites, which are largely flightless and clearly all terrestrial cursorial forms. The next most basal branch, which are the earliest branching, neognaths are the Galloanserae. In the latter clade we have the late Cretaceous form Vegavis an aquatic form- the authors of that bird even claim it is nested within Anseriforms or the ducks."
(Source)
More dino-bird mythology to carefully dissect and ignore. Some birds have "feathered feet".... but why?
To snowshoe, they say. But the Cretaceous, when T. Rex roamed is suspect as being very warm :
Paleoclimate
"...In general, the climate of the Cretaceous Period was much warmer than at present, perhaps the warmest on a worldwide basis than at any other time during the Phanerozoic Eon."
(Source)
Now, everyone in the dino-bird camp is trying to explain why T. Rex must have had to have feathered feet too.
Not odd. They don't understand biology, birds or dinosaurs -- and that features "evolve" with purpose. Feathered feet are associated with very cold (even non-terrestrial) -- and that doesn't describe the very warm Cretaceous... also, very terrestrial... T. Rex.
TETRAONIDAE (This natural and fairly homogeneous group belongs to the order Galliformes, and is sometimes regarded as a subfamily within the Phasianidae...toes with scales on the sides adapted to climbing branches and walking on snow, shorter tail and heavier body with duller plumage.)
As shown, these "feathered feet" are used to snow-shoe. (Source)
Plio-Pleistocene climatic oscilations, Holarctic biogeography and speciation in an avian subfamily Sergei V. Drovetski*
Department of Ecology, Evolution and Behavior, University of Minnesota, St Paul, MN, USA
DISCUSSION
Although the estimated dates of Tetraoninae divergences have wide margins (Table 1) they show that the entire proliferation of grouse coincided with the global cooling and climatic oscillations of the Pliocene and Pleistocene. Tetraoninae represent an extraordinary example of rapid response to an environmental change that opened a new niche induced by global climate change. This niche was for large birds capable of wintering on woody foods through the long cold winters.
Paleontological data for the six modern Palearctic Tetraonins (Tyrberg, 1998) and the phylogeny of the entire subfamily (Drovetski, 2002) allowed me to calibrate a molecular clock for the CR sequences of four grouse genera. The mean estimate (SD) is 0.0723 0.0158 substitutions/site/Myr. Dates estimated with this rate should be interpreted cautiously because ML ratio test rejected a uniform evolutionary rate for the grouse CR tree. This rate is slightly higher than the rate calculated for mitochondrial Cytochrome-B gene of Galliforms (5.04%) and Hominids (5.56%) using HKY85 ML divergences (Arbogast & Slowinski, 1998), and the rate calculated for mitochondrial ND2 gene of Galapagos mockingbirds (5.52%) using GRT รพ G model (B.S. Arbogast et al., unpublished data). An application of this rate to the grouse phylogeny showed that they arose in the Pliocene, approximately 6.3 Ma, and their proliferation began c. 3.2 Ma, with the divergence of ancestral Bonasa from the common ancestor of other grouse. These dates are much younger than the 48–28 and 22–17 Ma, respectively, estimated from a single external fossil date calibration that used the divergence between Galliforms and Anseriforms (Dimcheff et al. , 2002). Multiple internal calibration points used in this paper should produce more reliable time estimates than a single point which is twice the age of grouse proliferation.
(Source)
Darwin also bred pigeons which developed feathered feet. It's true, that domestication and cultivation can manipulate genes to change the appearance of the species, in captivity, but once released into the wild -- the species reverts back to its original appearance in the wild.
TAKE A LOOK AT THOSE FEET!!!
What Pigeons Teach Us About Convergent Evolution
"...So why do the same traits keep cropping up in distantly related breeds? The answer lies in human hands. According to the researchers, "In The Origin of Species, Charles Darwin repeatedly calls attention to the striking variation among domestic pigeon breeds - generated by thousands of years of artificial selection on a single species by human breeders.
Because some human breeders thought that feathered pigeon feet were the hottest thing since curly dog fur, they bred selectively for that trait in both the Pomeranian pouter pigeon, whose feet are pictured in the top image, and the distantly related ice pigeon below. And although this form of trait selection is artificial, it's a good example of how evolution works. For example, this independent development of the same trait in multiple different genetic lines, known as convergent evolution, can also occur without human interference. In fact, Charles Darwin used pigeons to describe how selection influences the traits of a species, and as a model for how natural selection can lead to different traits in wild populations.
Despite their careful breeding, when pigeon populations become free-living - either in cities or in the wild - they evolve out of their original appearance."
(Source)
So, if these "feathered feet" are to tell us anything, its that the common ancestor of grouse and pigeon who developed this "feather feet" trait arose in a region where extreme cold prevailed, and this trait has been passed down through time.
If such a bird (with feathered feet) existed during the Cretaceous, and they say it did, then its suspect that it inherited it from a species that came before it, and had survived through an even earlier ice age.
Notice on the chart of "Ice Ages" that there is an extreme drop in temperature around 200 Million years ago. Wikipedia has a quick explanation that sounds about right:
"...There is also a "cooler" interval during the Jurassic and early Cretaceous, with evidence of increased sea ice, but the lack of continents at either pole during this interval prevented the formation of continental ice sheets and consequently this is usually not regarded as a full-fledged ice age. In between these cold period, warmer conditions were present and often referred to as climate optima. However, it has been difficult to determine whether these warmer intervals were actually hotter or colder than occurred during the Cretaceous optima."
(Source)
Therefore, the "snow shoes" described on the "Anchiornis huxleyi" creature in the Cretaceous which is described to live around 160-155 million years ago... which had feathered feet ...inherited that trait from an ancestor who evolved during that cold time frame, 200 million years ago.
It seems like "snow shoe" is the word commonly used to describe the type of foot adapted for snow and icey climates.
Polar Bears | Discovery Kids
"...A thick layer of blubber ranging from one or two inches to four and a half inches sits just ... As you can see, a polar bear's paws are essentially snow shoes!"
(Source)
So these birds are not "terrestrial" and though snow is frozen water (aquatic) and they're walking on it... its still not aquatic either. It is "snow shoeing".
"The snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus), also called the varying hare, or snowshoe rabbit, is a species of hare found in North America. It has the name "snowshoe" because of the large size of its hind feet
and the marks its tail leaves. The animal's feet prevent it from sinking into the snow when it hops and walks. Its feet also have fur on the soles to protect it from freezing temperatures."
(Source)
On the page, they show a pair of Ptarmigans (relative of grouse).
Penguin Feet: Avoiding Frostbite in the Antarctic
"Penguins of the cold Antarctic and sub-Antarctic also have feathered legs, which are believed to play an important role in conserving heat. In fact, black-footed penguins (Spheniscus demersus) and Humboldt’s penguins (Spheniscus humboldti), which live in warmer areas (Africa’s southwest coast and South America, respectively) have featherless legs.
In addition, the blood vessels running to and from the feet of penguins are organized to facilitate countercurrent heat exchange. Arteries carrying warm blood toward the feet run alongside veins carrying cool blood up from the feet. Some of the heat from the blood in the arteries is transferred to the blood in the veins. Thus, cool blood moving toward the heart is warmed, which is important for maintaining core body temperature. Warm blood moving toward the feet is cooled, which helps penguins keep their feet at temperatures just above freezing. This strategy minimizes the amount of energy needed for keeping their feet warm while also preventing frostbite.
...Other birds have similarly mastered the art of heat conservation and frostbite prevention through countercurrent circulation in their legs and other unique adaptations. Sea gulls and ducks, for example, can stand in icy water with relatively no effect on core body temperature or their feet. The ptarmigan (Lagopus), a year-round resident of the Arctic, has feathers that completely cover its legs and toes. The ptarmigan’s distinct toe feathers are thought to provide some warmth, but perhaps more importantly they provide a snowshoe effect, preventing the bird from sinking into deep snow when foraging."
(Source)
So there is an empirical explanation why "feathered feet" are necessary for survival and serve a biological function... in animals (mammals and birds) in cold regions. WHY the "snowshoe" exists in some creatures, and not merely a random arrangement of anatomical characteristics. There was no need for a T-Rex to have this adaptation, nor his immediate relatives. If they say T. Rex had feathered feet? I'd like them to point out "why." Show me some fossils. Show me some reason. Not just because it "looks cool".
"...because bright red feathered feet are "cool looking"..." isn't legitimate science.
Paleontology today has became a failing religion, all the more I want to pull far away from the bogus madness they're now calling "paleontology".
.. not to mention the obvious:
"...Scientists have weighed Tyrannosaurus rex, finding it may have topped 9 tons..."
I have my doubts that a few feathers on its feet would "...prevent it from sinking into deep snow while foraging".
