I am an author, doing some research for one of my books. I noticed all kinds of arguments by Creationists about the Woodpecker and understand the refutations of most of those, but there's one i can't find the proper scientific refutation on...
The woodpecker's skull. Lots of information about how it absorbs the shock, etc, but how would an adaptation like that begin? Since the first ancestor of the woodpeckers we know today had to start somewhere, how indeed did that first woodpecker keep from damaging his brain when he hammered a tree?
My guess is it started out as the usual pecking behavior, and through natural selection, became a stronger and stronger trait to have the skull it does, until the modern woodpeckers could hammer as they do... would that be accurate? if so, what would be the answer? is there any scientific literature on this?
I am surprised there is NO information that i can find online about his specific aspect of it. I very much want to provide that information in my book and hope to see it being posted around as often as the crap Creationists say about how God made woodpeckers as they are now, right out of the box, because the skull itself could not have evolved as the first woodpecker would have died without the adaptation/ mutation that protected its brain...
Appreciate any insights and hopefully something soundly scientific to use as a reference.
Thanks all.
Kelli Jae Baeli
I'm not sure what features of the skull you are talking about, but never ever go to a creationist site for authoritive information on biology. They don't care about details and too often get them badly wrong.
Even Darwin wrote about woodpeckers.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/woodpecker/woodpecker.html
Other info and pictures.
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/The_woodpe...;t_have_evolved
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/...p/l_011_04.html
Even Darwin wrote about woodpeckers.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/woodpecker/woodpecker.html
Other info and pictures.
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/The_woodpe...;t_have_evolved
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/...p/l_011_04.html
QUOTE (rpenner+Oct 19 2010, 07:14 AM)
I'm not sure what features of the skull you are talking about, but never ever go to a creationist site for authoritive information on biology. They don't care about details and too often get them badly wrong.
Even Darwin wrote about woodpeckers.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/woodpecker/woodpecker.html
Other info and pictures.
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/The_woodpe...;t_have_evolved
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/...p/l_011_04.html
I'm not going to creationist sites for my information. I'm writing about their claims and refuting them with scientific data. I'm an atheist and an author. I know the Creationist claims are absurd and ignorant. It's just part of the material I'm polishing. This is a 6 volume work available on Amazon at the end of the year.
And 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?
And yes i have already read those articles, and they do not address my specific question. The Evowiki site doesn't address it either. Plenty of information everywhere about the tongue, and plenty of information about WHAT the skull is like and how it absorbs impact, etc. But that wasn't the question. I even included my own guess about what the answer would be, but I'm not certain it's correct and I don't want it to be my opinion, but supportable through scientific sources.
Thanks for you response, though. Appreciate your time.
Even Darwin wrote about woodpeckers.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/woodpecker/woodpecker.html
Other info and pictures.
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/The_woodpe...;t_have_evolved
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/...p/l_011_04.html
I'm not going to creationist sites for my information. I'm writing about their claims and refuting them with scientific data. I'm an atheist and an author. I know the Creationist claims are absurd and ignorant. It's just part of the material I'm polishing. This is a 6 volume work available on Amazon at the end of the year.
And 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?
And yes i have already read those articles, and they do not address my specific question. The Evowiki site doesn't address it either. Plenty of information everywhere about the tongue, and plenty of information about WHAT the skull is like and how it absorbs impact, etc. But that wasn't the question. I even included my own guess about what the answer would be, but I'm not certain it's correct and I don't want it to be my opinion, but supportable through scientific sources.
Thanks for you response, though. Appreciate your time.
QUOTE
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
If the 'first' woodpecker died from the injuries, he would not have reproduced.
It was the woodpecker which didn't die from the injuries who survived and passed on the genes for the trait.
I'm just giving conjecture here, but the woodpecker may not have started out pecking solid oak trees with reckless abandon. Might have started out pecking nuts and seeds for food. Then occupying abandoned tree holes made by other animals and modifying them. And then maybe softer evergreen trees all on their own. And their rate and force probably increased over time as well.
QUOTE (mudderrunner+Oct 20 2010, 03:30 AM)
I'm just giving conjecture here, but the woodpecker may not have started out pecking solid oak trees with reckless abandon. Might have started out pecking nuts and seeds for food. Then occupying abandoned tree holes made by other animals and modifying them. And then maybe softer evergreen trees all on their own. And their rate and force probably increased over time as well.
Thanks AlexG & Mudderrunner--that's the idea I have as well--that it started out more simply and the more the action was done, the more it built certain strengths and eventually got passed on until the woodpeckers were able to do what they do now.
Again, i am still seeking some scientific data, if there is any. Like have they found ancestral bones of woodpeckers that show the changes in the skull? Is there any evidence to support our conjectures about how this could have evolved?
Thanks AlexG & Mudderrunner--that's the idea I have as well--that it started out more simply and the more the action was done, the more it built certain strengths and eventually got passed on until the woodpeckers were able to do what they do now.
Again, i am still seeking some scientific data, if there is any. Like have they found ancestral bones of woodpeckers that show the changes in the skull? Is there any evidence to support our conjectures about how this could have evolved?
QUOTE (AlexG+Oct 20 2010, 04:55 AM)
Try here: The Anatomy and Evolution of the Woodpecker's Tongue
AlexG--AS I SAID, i already read that. And it's about the TONGUE, not the skull.
AlexG--AS I SAID, i already read that. And it's about the TONGUE, not the skull.
Look around for yourself. That's what they make search engines for.
QUOTE (AlexG+Oct 20 2010, 06:51 AM)
Look around for yourself. That's what they make search engines for.
I HAVE been researching this for a long time and Have not found an answer to this particular question. This is why i am on this site--I was hoping for some learned assistance from other scientifically minded people who might have come across these details. Just because you don't seem capable of responding to the SPECIFIC question asked, does not give you the right to slam me. Your caustic remark was not helpful, and certainly unnecessary. If you have nothing to offer, step on, Skippy pants.
I HAVE been researching this for a long time and Have not found an answer to this particular question. This is why i am on this site--I was hoping for some learned assistance from other scientifically minded people who might have come across these details. Just because you don't seem capable of responding to the SPECIFIC question asked, does not give you the right to slam me. Your caustic remark was not helpful, and certainly unnecessary. If you have nothing to offer, step on, Skippy pants.
Stop whining and do your own research.
This might have some good info. You'd have to pay for the full text though.
Cure for a headache
AlexG, I hope you feel better.
Cure for a headache
AlexG, I hope you feel better.
There are a few birds that peck on hardwoods that aren't woodpeckers and aren't considered pecking birds, because they don't peck enough. But they still peck a fair amount, and maybe more importantly, on a consistent enough basis to show some skull evolution.
White-breasted Nuthatches and Wrens peck a lot. I even see titmice peck fairly often, with their little beaks. Maybe these birds' skulls have thickened slightly compared to their early relatives - depending on the bird, ~15-50 million years ago. Birds change habits fast; maybe it somehow affects their rate of evolutionary change. Even now, we are seeing less and less robins head south for winter. Only 40-50 years ago nary a robin wintered north of 40N lat. Now a lot stay.
White-breasted Nuthatches and Wrens peck a lot. I even see titmice peck fairly often, with their little beaks. Maybe these birds' skulls have thickened slightly compared to their early relatives - depending on the bird, ~15-50 million years ago. Birds change habits fast; maybe it somehow affects their rate of evolutionary change. Even now, we are seeing less and less robins head south for winter. Only 40-50 years ago nary a robin wintered north of 40N lat. Now a lot stay.
QUOTE (AlexG+Oct 20 2010, 02:08 PM)
Stop whining and do your own research.
Whining? Do my own research?
Are you always this much of an ***?
I've spent TWO YEARS on research for these volumes. I have over 30 pages of references, and thousands of individual files of data. You are not qualified to accuse me of whining. I simply seek other references here for those i have been unable to find elsewhere. That's what research IS. You keep looking and asking until you find something.
I didn't come here to be insulted and verbally abused. I'll go to some other site.
Whining? Do my own research?
Are you always this much of an ***?
I've spent TWO YEARS on research for these volumes. I have over 30 pages of references, and thousands of individual files of data. You are not qualified to accuse me of whining. I simply seek other references here for those i have been unable to find elsewhere. That's what research IS. You keep looking and asking until you find something.
I didn't come here to be insulted and verbally abused. I'll go to some other site.
QUOTE (jaebaeli+Oct 21 2010, 12:44 AM)
Whining? Do my own research?
Are you always this much of an ***?
I've spent TWO YEARS on research for these volumes. I have over 30 pages of references, and thousands of individual files of data. You are not qualified to accuse me of whining. I simply seek other references here for those i have been unable to find elsewhere. That's what research IS. You keep looking and asking until you find something.
I didn't come here to be insulted and verbally abused. I'll go to some other site.
Two years of research and you haven't found the evolutionary path of the woodpecker?
Are you always this much of an ***?
I've spent TWO YEARS on research for these volumes. I have over 30 pages of references, and thousands of individual files of data. You are not qualified to accuse me of whining. I simply seek other references here for those i have been unable to find elsewhere. That's what research IS. You keep looking and asking until you find something.
I didn't come here to be insulted and verbally abused. I'll go to some other site.
Two years of research and you haven't found the evolutionary path of the woodpecker?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Clarify your question, please. I suppose the topic title was truncated?
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/
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.