Flap Over Flight Evolution


Birds flap their wings when they run up ramps. It takes less energy than flying. This is uncontroversial; it is observable, and science can measure the energy cost. But for at least eight years now, Ken Dial at the University of Montana has been claiming that this behavior explains the origin of flight in birds (01/16/2003, 12/22/2003). When he first came out with this hypothesis in 2003, Elisabeth Pennisi in the journal Science said, "I imagine people will continue to argue about the origin of bird flight for a long time." There's been very little argument in the media over the years, though (05/01/2006, 9/22/2007, 1/25/2008); in fact, the BBC News just gave another plug for Dial's hypothesis with no criticism at all.

In her article "Flap-running in birds is key to flight evolution," reporter Victoria Gill cheerfully quoted Dial's colleague Brandon Jackson explaining the origin of flight:

"Flap running... lets young birds that cannot yet fly -- because of small muscles, small wings, weak feathers, etc -- get off the ground and away from some predators," Dr Jackson told BBC Nature."And if baby birds can perform these behaviours, benefit from them, and transition gradually to flight in their life-time, we think it's probable that dinosaurs with (similarly small wings) could have performed these behaviours, benefited from them, and transitioned towards flight over evolutionary time."
So watching birds learn to fly could allow us a glimpse of the stages of flight's evolution.
On the surface, this hypothesis sounds Lamarckian. Presumably it could be incorporated into neo-Darwinism this way: a mutation occurred that made a young dinosaur hold out its forelegs as it ran up a hill escaping a predator. All the other siblings were eaten. This dinosaur one day found a mate with the same mutation, and the trait spread through the population. It's a small start; were any other traits required after that to produce hummingbirds, eagles, ostriches, and great snipes flying 4,200 miles in 4 days?

Dr Jackson concluded: "Very small wings powered by small muscles had aerodynamic function and survival benefits when they were flapped."No more major steps were required after that, just gradual but beneficial steps. And we can actually observe [those steps] in developing birds today."
Now the explanation sounds Haeckelian. Jackson seems to be saying that chicks replay their evolutionary history. Not only that, he and Ken Dial overlooked a host of precision mechanisms needed to allow a dinosaur to become airborne with controlled flapping flight.

This just-so story is so lame, it should be a huge embarrassment to the Darwin Party. These guys don't understand evolutionary theory at all. You can't draw analogies between chick development to adult bird in a year, and say a similar transition occurs in evolutionary time over millions of years. Chick development is encoded in DNA and in numerous epigenetic regulatory codes, and is observable in the present. Are they believers in some mystical meta-Gaia belief, that the history of the life on Earth develops from embryo to adult? This hypothesis is a cross between Lamarckism and recapitulation theory, both of which have been tossed into the dustbin of history. Two wrongs don't make a right.
We laughed this hypothesis off the stage when it first appeared (01/16/2003), and even evolutionist Pennisi had her doubts. Now, eight years have gone by and Dial and Jackson are still promoting it. To make any progress toward sense in evolutionary circles, critics will have to at least get them to be consistent with their own belief system. Give us your suggestions for giving Jackson and Dial a much-needed red face. Reading them our 12/22/2003 commentary might be a start. If they are men of integrity, their faces will turn red with shame. If not, their faces will turn red with rage. (Note: federal funding, tenure, and media fame can have the unintended consequence of reducing integrity.)

Re: Re:Humans Are Devolving
Demystifying the Debate with PZ Myers' Over Evolution and Embryolog


Previously, I discussed how PZ Myers commonly attempts to shout down his opposition through name-calling and incendiary rhetoric. PZ's use of this methodology has become so extreme that he's shocked authors in mainstream scientific journals and left-leaning pro-evolution media outlets like the NY Times. Recently, PZ tried to use this method when attacking pro-intelligent design undergraduate student Jonathan M. at a talk before a skeptics group in Glasgow, Scotland.

Why does PZ resort to character assassination rather than simply allowing civil dialogue? I think the answer lies in the fact that the empirical evidence is not as clearly on PZ's side as he'd like it to be. He deflects from evidential weaknesses by turning up the volume via extensive name-calling and personal attacks.

And in the case of PZ's recent debate with Jonathan M., we're not just talking about any evidence. We're talking about evidence that is near and dear to PZ's heart because it pertains to the very existence of concept after which he chose to name his blog: the pharyngula.

Another tactic PZ commonly uses when debating embryology is to distort the arguments of intelligent design (ID) proponents by constantly claiming that they are simply attacking Haeckelian recapitulation theory. Recapitulation theory is the idea that as organisms develop, they replay their evolutionary history. Thus we have Haeckel's famous dictum, ontogeny [i.e. development] recapitulates [i.e. replays] phylogeny [i.e. evolutionary history] - a concept which has long been known to be false.

Since modern evolutionary biology has rejected Haeckel's recapitulation theory, PZ claims that ID proponents are only knocking down a straw man argument. The problem with PZ's rebuttal is that we're not attacking recapitulation theory, but rather the argument for common ancestry based upon shared similarities in development--an argument which appears in virtually every mainstream biology textbook, and one which PZ is known to make in various forms. (I realize PZ denies making this argument, but as we'll see throughout this series, he nonetheless makes it.) Though PZ accuses us of attacking a straw man, by misconstruing our arguments and wrongly claiming that our they only entail an attack on Haeckel's recapitulation theory, it is PZ who is promoting the straw man.

To summarize this debate, let's briefly review some of the main arguments on both sides:

Our Point (1): We are NOT arguing that modern evolution biology or embryology is based upon Haeckel's recapitulation theory. Although we do argue that textbooks should not use Haeckel's inaccurate drawings, which overstate the degree of similarity between vertebrate embryos, we recognize that the case for common ancestry no longer depends upon recapitulation theory. As Jonathan M. explains, "For those who want the bottom line, here it is. Myers thinks I'm worried about Haeckelian recapitulation. But that's completely wrong."
Our Point (2): Leading lights of evolutionary biology (in particular, mainstream biology textbooks) commonly claim that vertebrate embryos have a high degree of similarity in their early stages, and that this demonstrates their common ancestry. (If you doubt what I'm saying, all this will be amply documented in this series of articles.) We reply by observing that these claims are inaccurate since vertebrate embryos show many differences, including significant differences from their earliest stages of development to the later stages. Sometimes we point out that evolutionary biology has difficulty explaining supposedly homologous structures which are produced by non-homologous developmental pathways or supposedly homologous developmental pathways that produce widely divergent (even non-homologous) structures.
Our Point (3): Many textbooks and evolutionary authorities claim that one particular stage during vertebrate development is highly similar (or "conserved")--the pharyngular stage--and this provides good evidence that vertebrates do in fact share a common ancestor. We respond by noting that over the past decade or so, some extremely prominent evolutionary developmental biologists have published scientific papers finding that vertebrate development is so divergent that it's doubtful that a conserved "pharyngular stage" even exists.
It's worth reiterating the last sentence in point 3: Not only do vertebrate embryos show many differences early in development, but some leading embryologists argue that vertebrate embryos develop so differently that the pharyngular (also called "phylotypic" or "tailbud") stage may not exist.

For PZ, Point 3 is very problematic. Dr. Myers named his blog "Pharyngula," suggesting this concept is of great persuasive importance to him when it comes to the evidence for evolution. Thus, it comes as little surprise that whenever one debates embryology with PZ, he quickly descends into extensive public name-calling, incendiary rhetoric, and distortion of our arguments in order to avoid debating that last point. PZ's responses to our 3 points thus usually go something like the following:

PZ's Response to Point (1): PZ typically denies that we are making Point (1), and instead argues we are arguing precisely the opposite of Point 1, setting up Haeckelian recapitulation theory as the bedrock of modern evolutionary biology. On this point, he simply ignores our actual arguments. Extensive name-calling usually follows. As PZ wrote while misconstruing Jonathan M's arguments, "Evolution does not predict that development will conserve the evolutionary history of an organism, therefore your question is stupid." Even after Jonathan M. made it clear that this is not what he's arguing, PZ replied by misconstruing it as such, claiming that Jonathan M. is "completely ineducable."
PZ's Response to Point (2): Frankly, usually PZ raises such a ruckus in response to Point 1 that he doesn't often get around to addressing our Point 2. And depending on which day you catch PZ on, you might get a different answer. In the past PZ has responded to our Point 2 by denying that early stages of embryos show wide variation, and instead claiming that the differences between early stages of vertebrate embryos are merely "superficial." But in his recent response to Jonathan M., PZ changed his tune. He admitted that the early stages of development can "vary greatly" and even show "wide variation." PZ's more recent admission about greater variance among early vertebrate embryos also led him to explicitly take a weak stance on whether evolutionary biology predicts we should find similarities when comparing vertebrate embryos. Thus, another success of Jonathan M.'s recent debate with PZ before the Glasgow Skeptics was that Jonathan M. forced PZ to reply squarely to our Point 2. Here was PZ's reply: "I wish I could get that one thought into these guys heads: evolutionary theory predicts differences as well as similarities." This is rich: If PZ is right, and evolutionary biology predicts both similarities and differences between vertebrate embryos, then it would seem that evolutionary biology really predicts nothing at all about development and is unfalsifiable regarding the evidence from vertebrate development. According to PZ, evolutionary theory predicts whatever it predicts, conserves whatever it conserves, and modifies whatever it modifies. Some theory.
PZ's Response to Point (3): In light of PZ's response to our Point 2 (that "evolutionary theory predicts differences as well as similarities" in vertebrate embryos), one might reasonably presume PZ views evolutionary processes as so plastic and unpredictable that one cannot really make an argument for, or (lucky for him) against, common ancestry based upon the similarities (or differences) between vertebrate embryos. But this is wrong. In what appears to be another contradiction, in response to Point 3 PZ has argued that "substantial similarities" between vertebrate embryos during the pharyngula stage "are evidence of common descent." He has asserted these "substantial similarities" are "a fact," and levied his fury towards those who would cite scientific papers questioning the existence of the pharyngular stage. To my knowledge, PZ has yet to address the papers we've cited which challenge the existence of a pharyngular stage. PZ's use of incendiary rhetoric while avoiding our scientific arguments might indicate that our Point 3 hits close to home. Clearly, the evidence for the pharyngula is very important to PZ.
In some subsequent articles, I'll elaborate on the evidence regarding each of these 3 points.

1/X A real scientist looks for is the obvious, from objective science, no assumptions. If the only "evidence" you have is someone's opinions based on what they think they see, & it is full of ambiguity, then it is not accepted as evidence, but just seen for what it is. The chronology is a mess, because there is no way to date fossils directly from any tissue or even original minerals. We have DNA now. It is irrefutable evidence. It only shows genetic degradation in all complex creatures.

2/X A real scientist waits for evidence that cannot be seen in any other way before making conclusions about all the evidence. In real science all the evidence only supports the irrefutable obvious evidence. A real scientist realizes that humans are prone to myths and want answers so bad that fits their beliefs, all humans are this way. When thousands or millions of them believe the same thing with no absolutely irrefutable physical evidence, it is a religion.

3/X I realized at a very young age that people are full of emotional issues and needs to fulfill, and that those ideas are almost never real or they contain a tiny bit of truth, mixed in with a lot of HEMG; human emotional mental garbage. It is everywhere, and in everyone. If you want a good goal for your life then get rid of all beliefs and only seek what is true.

4/X Now that we have DNA and it tells the real story, then all the hominids are degenerated humans that died out, just like the modern one on "evolutionforum.info".
The chimp, and all the apes are degenerated that did not degenerate to the point of extinction until now.
There is no possible evolution from simple life into complex. It has no evidence to support it. It only has faith and beliefs.