Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Chicks Offer Insight Into Origin of Flight
NY Times ^ | 1-17-03 | James Gorman

Posted on 01/17/2003 9:08:24 AM PST by Pharmboy

The behavior of chukar partridge chicks, which can run straight up the side of a hay bale or a tree while flapping their wings, may offer a new window on the origin of flight in birds.

Feathered dinosaurs may have done something similar, Dr. Kenneth P. Dial of the University of Montana suggests in today's issue of Science. He suggests that they too flapped their primitive wings to help them climb, which brought them off the ground and closer to discovering the aerial possibilities of their wings. Even incompletely feathered proto-wings, Dr. Dial says, would have been useful in running up inclines.

One of Dr. Dial's findings, which has surprised other scientists who study the evolution of flight, is that the chukar chicks did not use their wings to raise them off the ground. The wing beats served the same purpose as spoilers on race cars. The force generated by flapping pressed the chicks into the surface on which they were running for better traction. As Dr. Dial said of his finding, "It's not intuitive."

In fact, he came upon the behavior accidentally. His teenage son, Terry, was helping him study the development of flight in chukar chicks. While Dr. Dial was traveling, his son was keeping track of the young birds as their feathers grew, and they gradually launched themselves on longer flights, horizontally and vertically.

The vertical flights used hay bales as an obstacle. When Dr. Dial returned from a trip, he said, his son told him the chicks were not staying with the program. "They're cheating," Dr. Dial recalled his son telling him, "They're not flying anymore. They're running up."

Dr. Dial had to see for himself. He then had to videotape the behavior and to do experiments varying the incline and the surface the birds were running up, and clipping the feathers at different lengths.

He found that the chicks were using a flight stroke, but changing the angle to press their feet against the running surface. More feathers meant more effective use of the wings, but partly feathered wings provided a significant benefit.

Dr. Dial concluded that proto-birds with somewhat similar wings might have done the same thing, and that the climbing ability they gained would have given them an evolutionary edge, even if the wings were not yet useful for full flight.

Once the proto-birds were up a bush, or wall or tree, they would be in a position to discover what wings could do in the air. This evolutionary path to flight, he says, is different than previous models in which proto-birds first launched either from the trees or the ground, called the arboreal and cursorial models. "It's both and neither," Dr. Dial said.

The findings have intrigued other scientists. "First and foremost," said Dr. Kevin Padian of the University of California, "it's telling us something we never knew."

Dr. Padian, who studies the evolution of flight, said: "Nobody knew that they ran up trees like this. Nobody knew that wings could generate this kind of force. It's a terrific study for those reasons alone."

Dr. Padian said Dr. Dial's demonstration of this new use of wings added to earlier research that had determined that the dinosaur ancestors of birds had both feathers and the right limb structure to make a flight stroke. Even without flying ability, he said, wings and feathers offered evolutionary benefit, in terms of isolation and catching prey. Those dinosaurs, he said, could have used a forward predatory grab similar to a flight stroke. The new use of wings, he said, offers an additional survival benefit for a proto-wing.

Dr. Alan Gishlick, a paleontologist who also studies the evolution of flight, said, the research "for the first time gives us a modern analog for terrestrial origin of flight."

Dr. Gishlick, who is at the National Center for Science Education in Oakland, Calif., a nonprofit group that defends the teaching of evolution in public schools, said the fossils of dinosaurs he has studied showed they had the bone and muscle structure for this use of wings.

"Dinosaurs like velociraptor could have done this," he said.

He was not suggesting that velociraptors flew, since they seem to have been a highly successful predator on their feet. A more likely candidate to want to leave the ground, Dr. Gishlick said, was microraptor, a feathered dinosaur the size of a pigeon that was chased enough to make it want to run up into the sky.


TOPICS: Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: chicks; crevolist; dinosaurs; flight
Oh, I'm sorry: I thought this was about female paleontologists coming up with an insight on the evolution of flight. Nevermind.
1 posted on 01/17/2003 9:08:24 AM PST by Pharmboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: All
Raise Your Hand If You Want To Donate To Free Republic!

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com

STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD

2 posted on 01/17/2003 9:10:03 AM PST by Support Free Republic (Your support keeps Free Republic going strong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jennyp; PatrickHenry; aculeus; blam; Physicist
*Ping*
3 posted on 01/17/2003 9:12:23 AM PST by Pharmboy (Dems lie 'cause they have to)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
I know one thing: chicks dig pilots!
4 posted on 01/17/2003 9:12:53 AM PST by Revolting cat! (Someone left the cake out in the rain I dont think that I can take it coz it took so long to bake it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
Darwinist fair tales are SO amusing! or would be hilarious, if they weren't so pathetic!
5 posted on 01/17/2003 9:14:48 AM PST by TomSmedley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
This is the third thread today on this topic. I suggest everyone go to the first one: HERE.
6 posted on 01/17/2003 9:22:43 AM PST by PatrickHenry (PH is really a great guy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy

7 posted on 01/17/2003 9:27:21 AM PST by newgeezer (Taglinesmaysettleduringshipment.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
Dang I thought we were going to have some pictures of hot chicks.
8 posted on 01/17/2003 9:36:13 AM PST by Intimidator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
"Um, like, birds are SOOOOoo cute! And like, flying is WAY COOL!, ya know?"

"One day? I saw this bird flying by? And I was like 'Oh my Gosh!, he's FLYING!'. He was in the air? Like, real high? Or maybe it was a she? Whatever, it was like, SO COOL?!"

9 posted on 01/17/2003 9:37:59 AM PST by Paradox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
Somehow, I was inspired to copy and paste this:


10 posted on 01/17/2003 9:40:54 AM PST by Old Professer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
Thanks for the ping!
11 posted on 01/17/2003 9:44:17 AM PST by aculeus (If I bump a lot will I too sprout wings?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: *crevo_list
http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/bump-list
12 posted on 01/17/2003 9:46:32 AM PST by Free the USA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
It's really impossible to explain how there can be any evolutionary advantage to a partly-developed wing (or eye, or arm, or leg). Yet the whole theory of evolution is based on the idea that there IS an advantage.

After all, until the wing developes far enough to actually be useful, it would be an obvious nuisance, weighing its possessor down and getting tangled up in the bushes. So in theory the wingless birds would out-survive the half-winged birds, and, ipso facto, wings would never develop.

That's really only one of the minor problems with the theory of evolution. On the micro level there are much bigger scientific difficulties--in fact, impossibilities. Trust an evolutionist to come up with this cock and bull story. Or chick story.
13 posted on 01/17/2003 9:54:46 AM PST by Cicero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paradox
Nice--LOL!
14 posted on 01/17/2003 9:57:26 AM PST by Pharmboy (Dems lie 'cause they have to)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
I searched under "Chicks" and came up with NOTHING. So, it may be discussed elsewhere, but my NY Times headline was way kewlest.
15 posted on 01/17/2003 9:58:59 AM PST by Pharmboy (Dems lie 'cause they have to)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
I searched under "Chicks" and came up with NOTHING.

Not a hanging offense. But I'm only going to deploy my ping list for one of these three threads, so I pinged everyone from the first one.

16 posted on 01/17/2003 10:11:15 AM PST by PatrickHenry (PH is really a great guy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
After all, until the wing developes far enough to actually be useful, it would be an obvious nuisance, weighing its possessor down and getting tangled up in the bushes. So in theory the wingless birds would out-survive the half-winged birds, and, ipso facto, wings would never develop.

There is also the not so small problem of the loss of the hands from which supposedly the wings formed.

17 posted on 01/18/2003 12:51:24 PM PST by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
Well the whole idea of natural selection does come from the fact that there is some advantage whatever it is that is developed be it a wing or what have you. There could actually be (and there are) of thoughts as to why the wings actually gave the animal an advantage even in its underdeveloped state. One could simply look at it as something is better than nothing, ie. the partial wing did give some advantage like it says in the article like pushing the bird down to provide better traction as it was probably not originally designed for flight. In which case the half winged birds would fair BETTER than wingless birds not worse.

But there are other idea worth consideration as well. Perhaps the wings again not serving a flight purpose yet again and they were used for sexual display or territorial displays. Both seem reasonable since birds like most animals dont want to die or loose their mate. So the use of wings to make the animal appear larger to ward off either competition or predators doesnt really seem that far fetched either as this can be witnessed by animals in present day.

As for the sexual selection side the females could have used the wings as for a basis as to the male survivablity even though it might not have been an logical representation they are only animals. This also could be noted today in ordinary guppies and molliesmost of the time the females seem to be attracted to the most brightly colored male, yet this serves no real function. Or perhaps it does in which the males with the trait- either bright coloration or partial wings- are able to survive even with the disadvantage it could just prove just how strong their genes truly are and make them a more than suitable mate. Just a few thoughts with more time I'd write more but I'll wait to do that if it's needed.
18 posted on 12/14/2003 12:24:09 AM PST by Postyblurp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson