Pelican fossil poses evolutionary puzzle

[Savwafair2012 Profile]

Pelicans that closely resembled those living today were scooping fish from the water while our ancestors were still swinging from the trees, a fossil discovery suggests.

The identification of an extremely well preserved 30-million-year old fossilised beak raises interesting questions over why evolution has left the birds so little changed over such a long period.

The nearly complete beak of the 30-million-year old fossil, found in the Luberon area of south-eastern France, resembles those of the seven modern pelican species so closely that it falls within the genus Pelecanus, says Antoine Louchart of the University of Lyon, France.

Pelican beaks are the longest of any living birds. Beneath the beak is a flexible pouch that allows the birds to capture their prey in the water, then spit out the water before swallowing their meal. Like other bird beaks, they are rarely preserved as fossils, so little had been known about their early evolution.

Family resemblance
Louchart recognised the fossil, discovered in the 1980s, while examining specimens in the collection of his co-author Nicolas Tourment. Protected by being buried in fine-grained limestone, it includes most beak bones, plus parts of the skull and neck, and strongly resembles the modern great white pelican, Pelecanus onocrotalus.

The lack of evolutionary change could suggest the beak has reached an evolutionary optimum for flight or for eating. Louchart is not convinced that either of these hypotheses offers a complete explanation; he thinks something else may be involved but does not know what that might be.

The find not only pushes back the origins of pelicans, but of related birds too. "The groups now thought to be closest to pelicans, the shoebill and hamerkop, must also have differentiated very early, says Louchart.

"The pelican bill has been a successful adaptation or trait, in that it has remained very similar over time," says Rebecca Kimball of the University of Florida. Two years ago Kimball reported in Science (DOI: 10.1126/science.1157704) that pelicans were genetically close to near relatives, which she said would reflect their slow evolution.

Journal reference: Journal of Ornithology, DOI: 10.1007/s10336-010-0537-

[Nibirutracker Profile]

cool

[Ghost32 Profile Website]

Maybe they already changed a long time ago and what we see now is their highest evolved state, and might not ever evolve any further. But evolution is still just a theory and has never been proven! Out of over 4 million fossils they have never found a so called intermediate or a fossil that is in transition between species! Also when you think about dna, you have to have 2 strands of dna to produce a cell, so the single cell theory has to be wrong since it would have taken 2 strands of dna from previous cells to make the 1st cell!

I think evolution is a sophisticated way of making people atheist, and it is taught in schools as fact.

32

[Slowlyawakening Profile]

Evolution has been documented. The differentiation of species is a prime example. I should let you know that a theory is backed up by evidence, not conjecture. You can't prove a theory but you can have an overwhelming amount of evidence which supports it. Evolution and the differentiation of species is real, but we don't completely understand the universe enough to fill in all of the gaps. The best thing the theory of evolution did was get us off of the religious crutch. Science isn't infallible but it's much better than religion when it comes to explaining the universe.

[Ahmafi Profile]

This Evolution of yours has not been proven , the fact is we were like this even on those days but we like to think that we were monkeys on trees.

[Phaeton Profile]

I said it before and Ill say it again; evolution (macro) is a delusion.

Dont believe the hype.

[Slowlyawakening Profile]

I said it before and Ill say it again; evolution (macro) is a delusion.

Dont believe the hype.

This Evolution of yours has not been proven , the fact is we were like this even on those days but we like to think that we were monkeys on trees.

I never said it was perfect, but it's better than believing the world is flat and that the whole of the human race came from 2 people. There are gaps in the fossil record and I think those gaps were some sort of whole world change. There was a scientist that made a frog into a salamander by just shooting a laser through a salamander egg into a frog egg. Changing from one species to another is evolution, whether those factors are terrestrial or not. There is more to the universe than meets the eye my friends.

[Phaeton Profile]

I never said it was perfect, but it's better than believing the world is flat and that the whole of the human race came from 2 people. There are gaps in the fossil record and I think those gaps were some sort of whole world change. There was a scientist that made a frog into a salamander by just shooting a laser through a salamander egg into a frog egg. Changing from one species to another is evolution, whether those factors are terrestrial or not. There is more to the universe than meets the eye my friends.

Tendentious sir, tendentious (flat world).. Uncalled for.
So you find it rediculous to state Man started out at 2 (which was never stated), but have no trouble concluding Man came from a Amoeba?! Hmmmm...

Adapting to the environment is called micro evolution; these are relatively small adaptations based on the difficulties encountered in daily life by any given fauna. This is quite different than interspecies (macro) evolution.

Evolution (macro) is based on random development. To expect a collection of cells to form random into something complex as a biological transspecies adaptation is like expecting a hurricane blasting through a plane- graveyard to assemble a complete aircraft form scratch. Just wont happen.

[Slowlyawakening Profile]

I never said it was perfect, but it's better than believing the world is flat and that the whole of the human race came from 2 people. There are gaps in the fossil record and I think those gaps were some sort of whole world change. There was a scientist that made a frog into a salamander by just shooting a laser through a salamander egg into a frog egg. Changing from one species to another is evolution, whether those factors are terrestrial or not. There is more to the universe than meets the eye my friends.

Tendentious sir, tendentious (flat world).. Uncalled for.
So you find it rediculous to state Man started out at 2 (which was never stated), but have no trouble concluding Man came from a Amoeba?! Hmmmm...

Adapting to the environment is called micro evolution; these are relatively small adaptations based on the difficulties encountered in daily life by any given fauna. This is quite different than interspecies (macro) evolution.


Evolution (macro) is based on random development. To expect a collection of cells to form random into something complex as a biological transspecies adaptation is like expecting a hurricane blasting through a plane- graveyard to assemble a complete aircraft form scratch. Just wont happen.

Ok, maybe what I'm trying to get across is that evolution is real but it's not exactly as mainstream science thinks it is. I get your point but what I'm trying to point out is that evolution isn't perfect, but it makes more sense than creationism. Jeez, my mind is all over the place tonight. I can't seem to find the right way to put it.

[Phaeton Profile]

Well, this is where I stand:
Micro evolution has a basis in reality, macro evolution, does not.