21st October 2010 - 07:01 AM
QUOTE (AlexG+Oct 21 2010, 01:21 AM)
Two years of research and you haven't found the evolutionary path of the woodpecker?
You're implying that it was 2 years of trying to find the evolutionary path of the woodpecker which is obviously false.
A good insult should at least make sense.
16th January 2011 - 07:03 AM
I'm not speaking of any of the skull features in particular--as i said, I'm seeking the response for HOW THOSE FEATURES COULD HAVE EVOLVED, considering their argument that if those protective features of the woodpecker skull were not in place early in the process, then how that "first" woodpecker could have perpetuated that species if he DIED from the injuries. Do you see?
16th January 2011 - 07:11 PM
The 'first' woodpecker didn't peck that hard or deep. The woodpecker is going after food, and this food source burys itself beneath the surface of the tree. Perhaps the first woodpeckers scraped at the bark to find the beetles. Those woodpeckers which could peck a little faster and deeper ate better, and would have done a better job at mating and passing along those skull traits.
16th January 2011 - 07:29 PM
QUOTE (AlexG+Jan 16 2011, 07:11 PM)
The 'first' woodpecker didn't peck that hard or deep. The woodpecker is going after food, and this food source buries itself beneath the surface of the tree. Perhaps the first woodpeckers scraped at the bark to find the beetles. Those woodpeckers which could peck a little faster and deeper ate better, and would have done a better job at mating and passing along those skull traits.
Yes, and don't forget that the 'grubs' that bury deeper into the trees would probably stand a better chance of survival and thus set off a gradual evolutionary arms race between grubs burying deeper or perhaps in thicker or harder trunks and the woodpeckers ability to peck deeper or through thicker or harder trunks.
I don't know if that is accurate in the particular case of woodpeckers, but that is the kind of set up that usually results in these extraordinary adaptations. The cheetah vs gazelle is probably the most well known example.
24th January 2011 - 09:19 PM
First woodpecker would have died of brain damage - certainly not like the first hammer woodpecker was pecking around the modern day. Maybe just stick to it now and then to knock some insect larvae living under the bark of a tree to try to gain access. Many of modern day birds without killing themselves with their beaks are able to knock hard objects, so why not acestor of woodpecker can do so.
2nd February 2011 - 07:22 AM
Clarify your question, please. I suppose the topic title was truncated?
9th February 2011 - 05:22 AM
The description of the anatomy and behavior of woodpeckers in this article should provide some insight into the evolutionary processes that may have led to their present structural form.
Why Don't Woodpeckers Get Brain Damage?http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/art...getbraindamage/
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here