Are birds dinosaurs? Part 4/9: Creationists and bird evolution
The text is part of the following work: Evolution: How do we know that birds are dinosaurs? by Martin Neukamm and Andreas Beyer. https://www.ag-evolutionsbiologie.net...
Chapters:
0:00 Introduction
1:11 Widespread convergences and conflicting phylogenetic trees
7:16 Discontinuous, “chaotic” evolution in a zigzag course
12:22 “Mismatched” mosaic forms instead of transitional forms
17:56 The “discrepancy” between stratigraphy and phylogeny
24:24 Abrupt appearance of characters and the “waiting time problem”
28:20 Summary
Birds are clearly dinosaurs, as we explained in the fossil report in the last article. In this article, we want to address the criticism of evolutionary opponents regarding the evolution of birds. Not because the pseudo-arguments of creationists have a certain plausibility or raison d'être in the scientific world, but because by debunking pseudo-science, scientific facts can be presented in an interesting didactic way and misconceptions about evolution can be cleared up in the general population, which does not necessarily sympathize with creationism. The leading representative of creationism in German-speaking countries is the evangelical study group "Wort und Wissen", whose former managing director was Reinhard Junker. Wort und Wissen was characterized - at least under Junker's leadership - by a certain diligence and superficially serious approach compared to US creationists. But their arguments are not original or really new, which is why they are representative of other creationists.
Summary
Evolution deniers portray the convergence problem as much more serious than it is. Despite widespread convergence and uncertainty about the position of some taxa, there is a remarkable consensus on the backbone structure of the family tree of the ancestors of birds and the relative hierarchical placement of almost all major clades that constitute this tree. Birds still lie in a deeply nested position within Theropoda.
Contrary to creationists' reasoning, widespread convergences are not anomalies but rather a clear expectation of evolutionary theory when developmental biological background knowledge is considered.
For at least half a century, the idea that evolution must run continuously and linearly has not been compatible with contemporary knowledge of the processes of speciation and differentiation of species. Creationists do not seem to know that just these processes are accompanied by discontinuities, incongruities, and a zigzag course (such as reversions of traits in different lineages).
Creationists place antiquated expectations on the nature of evolutionary transitional forms and claim to have recognized contradictory trait mosaics. They fail to recognize that mosaic evolution is precisely the result of lineage-splitting events and genetic burdens. Creationists seem not to understand cladogenesis; otherwise, they would not problematize the “phylogenetic-stratigraphic discrepancy,” i.e., the chronologically later appearance of some species with more primitive features in the fossil record.
No alternative hypothesis has withstood cladistic testing; and, in fact, there have not been any specific alternative hypotheses for over 20 years. No other method of phylogenetic analysis has been proposed and argued to supplant cladistics, which is why the field, as a whole, remains unconvinced by these objections.
So far, we have examined our focus on bird evolution using the fossil record and cladistics (including the baseless critiques of creationism). But that is not enough. Birds are highly specialized dinosaurs, most of whose representatives are able to fly, and all birds alive today that cannot fly have lost their ability to fly secondarily. But how did the evolution of flight come about? What anatomical requirements and changes have to occur for a feathered dinosaur to take to the skies? We will find out in the next articles.