Comments on: Geneticists Shake the Avian Family Tree http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2008/06/27/geneticists-shake-the-avian-family-tree/ Mon, 22 Apr 2013 21:34:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2 By: Yagnaroopaya http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2008/06/27/geneticists-shake-the-avian-family-tree/#comment-454 Yagnaroopaya Thu, 06 Aug 2009 23:30:33 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2008/06/27/geneticists-shake-the-avian-family-tree/#comment-454 cool read cool read

]]> By: John Umana http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2008/06/27/geneticists-shake-the-avian-family-tree/#comment-453 John Umana Mon, 29 Dec 2008 01:47:09 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2008/06/27/geneticists-shake-the-avian-family-tree/#comment-453 Dear Mr. Wetzel, Please note the erratum: line 18, change jive to jibe. Happy New Year to all Regards, John Umana Dear Mr. Wetzel, Please note the erratum: line 18, change jive to jibe.

Happy New Year to all

Regards,

John Umana

]]> By: Conrad Wetzel http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2008/06/27/geneticists-shake-the-avian-family-tree/#comment-452 Conrad Wetzel Thu, 31 Jul 2008 15:19:39 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2008/06/27/geneticists-shake-the-avian-family-tree/#comment-452 John Umana's comment (July 1st, 2008 at 6:49 pm) was very informative and interesting to this life-long birdwatcher and avid user of the best of current field guides to birds. I thank him for his information. This is to comment on Umana's question: "So how does this genome-scale phylogenetic evidence on avian evolution possibly jive with Darwinian gradualism, incremental changes over millions of years?" I would like to suggest, if I may, that he become more familiar with the definition of the term, "jive," for I think he must have been aiming instead for the connotation of the term, "jibe." The term, "jive," is synonymous with such terms "as to tease or mock good-humoredly: banter, chaff, joke, josh. Informal kid, rib, ride. Slang rag, razz." (Roget's II: Thesaurus) In contrast, the term "gibe," is synonymous with such terms as "to be compatible or in correspondence: accord, agree, check, chime, comport with, conform, consist, correspond, fit, harmonize, match, square, tally." (Roget's II: Thesaurus) John Umana’s comment (July 1st, 2008 at 6:49 pm) was very informative and interesting to this life-long birdwatcher and avid user of the best of current field guides to birds. I thank him for his information. This is to comment on Umana’s question: “So how does this genome-scale phylogenetic evidence on avian evolution possibly jive with Darwinian gradualism, incremental changes over millions of years?” I would like to suggest, if I may, that he become more familiar with the definition of the term, “jive,” for I think he must have been aiming instead for the connotation of the term, “jibe.”
The term, “jive,” is synonymous with such terms “as to tease or mock good-humoredly: banter, chaff, joke, josh. Informal kid, rib, ride. Slang rag, razz.” (Roget’s II: Thesaurus)
In contrast, the term “gibe,” is synonymous with such terms as “to be compatible or in correspondence: accord, agree, check, chime, comport with, conform, consist, correspond, fit, harmonize, match, square, tally.” (Roget’s II: Thesaurus)

]]> By: John Umana http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2008/06/27/geneticists-shake-the-avian-family-tree/#comment-451 John Umana Tue, 01 Jul 2008 22:49:29 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2008/06/27/geneticists-shake-the-avian-family-tree/#comment-451 The June 2008 bird genetics study of Chicago’s Field Museum of Natural History (the Early Bird Assembling the Tree-of-Life Research Project) completely re-writes the avian evolutionary tree, and is stunning in its impact. The genetics study shows that, though they look alike, for example, falcons with their acute ultraviolet vision are not closely related to other birds of prey, hawks or eagles. Several birds that look very different, including woodpeckers, hawks, owls and hornbills, are all closely related to perching birds. Flamingos, tropicbirds and grebes, all of which are closely related, did not evolve from water birds. Contrary to conventional wisdom, daytime hummingbirds evolved from drab nocturnal nightjars. Tropicbirds (white, swift-flying ocean birds) are not closely related to pelicans or other waterbirds. But perching birds, on the one hand, and parrots and falcons on the other, which do not look all that much alike, in fact descend from a recent common ancestor. Shorebirds are not a basal evolutionary group, which refutes the established view that all modern birds evolved from shorebirds. It is an understatement that appearances are deceiving. Birds that look or act similar are not necessarily related. Modern birds evolved relatively rapidly within a few million years during an explosive radiation, sometime between 65 million and 100 million years ago. The same is true of flower evolution. One day there are no flowers in the fossil record, and the next ‘day’ there are flowers, as Charles Darwin observed. Likewise, flowers that look alike are frequently not closely related. So how does this genome-scale phylogenetic evidence on avian evolution possibly jive with Darwinian gradualism, incremental changes over millions of years? It does not and cannot. Something else is going on to explain this planet’s remarkable biodiversity. The best hope to answer these questions is more and better science, not reliance on rote 19th century conjecture. Whatever the causative mechanism for bird or other biological evolution, avian evolution is not the result of ‘natural selection.' The June 2008 bird genetics study of Chicago’s Field Museum of Natural History (the Early Bird Assembling the Tree-of-Life Research Project) completely re-writes the avian evolutionary tree, and is stunning in its impact. The genetics study shows that, though they look alike, for example, falcons with their acute ultraviolet vision are not closely related to other birds of prey, hawks or eagles. Several birds that look very different, including woodpeckers, hawks, owls and hornbills, are all closely related to perching birds. Flamingos, tropicbirds and grebes, all of which are closely related, did not evolve from water birds. Contrary to conventional wisdom, daytime hummingbirds evolved from drab nocturnal nightjars. Tropicbirds (white, swift-flying ocean birds) are not closely related to pelicans or other waterbirds. But perching birds, on the one hand, and parrots and falcons on the other, which do not look all that much alike, in fact descend from a recent common ancestor. Shorebirds are not a basal evolutionary group, which refutes the established view that all modern birds evolved from shorebirds. It is an understatement that appearances are deceiving. Birds that look or act similar are not necessarily related. Modern birds evolved relatively rapidly within a few million years during an explosive radiation, sometime between 65 million and 100 million years ago. The same is true of flower evolution. One day there are no flowers in the fossil record, and the next ‘day’ there are flowers, as Charles Darwin observed. Likewise, flowers that look alike are frequently not closely related. So how does this genome-scale phylogenetic evidence on avian evolution possibly jive with Darwinian gradualism, incremental changes over millions of years? It does not and cannot. Something else is going on to explain this planet’s remarkable biodiversity. The best hope to answer these questions is more and better science, not reliance on rote 19th century conjecture. Whatever the causative mechanism for bird or other biological evolution, avian evolution is not the result of ‘natural selection.’

]]>