Print
Secrets of bird flight revealed
by BBC News
Thanks to Geoff for the link.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7205086.stm
Secrets of bird flight revealed
By Rebecca Morelle
Science reporter, BBC News
Scientists believe they could be a step closer to solving the mystery of how the first birds took to the air.
A study published in the journal Nature suggests that the key to understanding the evolution of bird flight is the angle at which a bird flaps its wings.
The US team found that birds move their wings at the same narrow angle, whether they run, fly or glide.
They conclude that early birds may have begun to fly by simply learning to flutter their wings at the right angle.
The research was carried out by scientists at the Flight Laboratory at the University of Montana.
Professor Ken Dial, lead author of the paper, said: "There has been a fair amount of interest in the origin of birds and bird flight for at least a century-and-a-half, but I think sadly it has been approached from an awkward beginning."
Scientists investigating this area tend to fall into two camps, he said. Those who believe that birds learned to fly from the "top down" - by falling out of trees and gliding, and those who think that birds took to the air from the "ground up" - by running and flapping their wings, possibly to escape predators.
However, both of these scenarios suggest that birds would first need to establish a wide range of wing movement in order to become airborne.
Eureka moment
In 2003, Professor Dial and his colleagues published a paper that revealed birds utilise their wings when running up steep inclines.
He explained: "This was an important find - birds exhibit a behaviour we really didn't appreciate before.
"Birds don't just use their wings when they fly or just their legs to run on the flat; in fact, they recruit both wings and legs for them to scale steep inclines, whether it be a boulder, a tree or a cliff."
His new research, he said, uncovered the second half of the story.
Using high-speed video, Professor Dial studied the wing movements of small quail-like birds, called chukars, as the birds ran up steep inclines, glided back down, and flew.
He told the BBC: "To my amazement, the data kept coming in showing they were not changing [their wing angle] at all."
"This is one of those moments when you slap you forehead and say: 'We've been thinking that the wing-stroke is highly specific for different movements but it turns out that Mother Nature just needs a single wing stroke to accommodate all these behaviours."
The team found the same narrow angle range when they then studied a wide range of different bird species.
The team also looked at the wing movements of fledgling birds as they learned to fly.
Although hatchlings have small stunted wings and are unable to take to the air, the team found that when they ran up steep inclines, they flapped their wings at the same angle as older birds to help speed them up the ramp.
They held them at the same angle in order to glide back down from the incline.
The researchers believe that the baby birds' early wings are similar to the partially formed proto-wings found on some dinosaurs.
Professor Dial said that dinosaurs may have evolved wings to help propel them over rocks and other obstacles that littered their terrain.
As their wings grew larger and strong enough to support their body weight, flapping them at the right angle would have enabled them to take to the air, the team concluded.
Professor Dial said: "That simple wing stroke seems to be elementary to bird evolution and bird ecology to get through the fledgling stage."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7205086.stm
Secrets of bird flight revealed
By Rebecca Morelle
Science reporter, BBC News
Scientists believe they could be a step closer to solving the mystery of how the first birds took to the air.
A study published in the journal Nature suggests that the key to understanding the evolution of bird flight is the angle at which a bird flaps its wings.
The US team found that birds move their wings at the same narrow angle, whether they run, fly or glide.
They conclude that early birds may have begun to fly by simply learning to flutter their wings at the right angle.
The research was carried out by scientists at the Flight Laboratory at the University of Montana.
Professor Ken Dial, lead author of the paper, said: "There has been a fair amount of interest in the origin of birds and bird flight for at least a century-and-a-half, but I think sadly it has been approached from an awkward beginning."
Scientists investigating this area tend to fall into two camps, he said. Those who believe that birds learned to fly from the "top down" - by falling out of trees and gliding, and those who think that birds took to the air from the "ground up" - by running and flapping their wings, possibly to escape predators.
However, both of these scenarios suggest that birds would first need to establish a wide range of wing movement in order to become airborne.
Eureka moment
In 2003, Professor Dial and his colleagues published a paper that revealed birds utilise their wings when running up steep inclines.
He explained: "This was an important find - birds exhibit a behaviour we really didn't appreciate before.
"Birds don't just use their wings when they fly or just their legs to run on the flat; in fact, they recruit both wings and legs for them to scale steep inclines, whether it be a boulder, a tree or a cliff."
His new research, he said, uncovered the second half of the story.
Using high-speed video, Professor Dial studied the wing movements of small quail-like birds, called chukars, as the birds ran up steep inclines, glided back down, and flew.
He told the BBC: "To my amazement, the data kept coming in showing they were not changing [their wing angle] at all."
"This is one of those moments when you slap you forehead and say: 'We've been thinking that the wing-stroke is highly specific for different movements but it turns out that Mother Nature just needs a single wing stroke to accommodate all these behaviours."
The team found the same narrow angle range when they then studied a wide range of different bird species.
The team also looked at the wing movements of fledgling birds as they learned to fly.
Although hatchlings have small stunted wings and are unable to take to the air, the team found that when they ran up steep inclines, they flapped their wings at the same angle as older birds to help speed them up the ramp.
They held them at the same angle in order to glide back down from the incline.
The researchers believe that the baby birds' early wings are similar to the partially formed proto-wings found on some dinosaurs.
Professor Dial said that dinosaurs may have evolved wings to help propel them over rocks and other obstacles that littered their terrain.
As their wings grew larger and strong enough to support their body weight, flapping them at the right angle would have enabled them to take to the air, the team concluded.
Professor Dial said: "That simple wing stroke seems to be elementary to bird evolution and bird ecology to get through the fledgling stage."
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Thursday, January 24, 2008 | PermalinkComments 1 - 38 of 38 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #115551 by steveroot on January 24, 2008 at 10:07 am
You mean god has his eye on the sparrow, but isn't giving him levitation? :-(Steve
Other Comments by steveroot
3. Comment #115555 by Noodly on January 24, 2008 at 10:10 am
This will get the creationists all in a flap!Assuming humanity evolves to the point where we can create new life from scratch - will we then have evolved into creationists?
Other Comments by Noodly
4. Comment #115623 by Deepthought on January 24, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Aw shucks! More answers. When will it ever end?
But imagine what would happen if we didn't get these answers.
Assuming humanity evolves to the point where we can create new life from scratch - will we then have evolved into creationists?
I think the term is "creators"
Other Comments by Deepthought
5. Comment #115627 by Slyer on January 24, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Leave it to birds to tell us the correct way to scale hills! :) Other Comments by Slyer
6. Comment #115630 by Sleep of Reason on January 24, 2008 at 12:35 pm
"But imagine what would happen if we didn't get these answers."Deepthought.
I thought that was obvious. We could all live on in blissful ignorance, just like Creationists.
Other Comments by Sleep of Reason
7. Comment #115631 by Deepthought on January 24, 2008 at 12:40 pm
I thought that was obvious. We could all live on in blissful ignorance, just like Creationists.
Or the creationists would win the debates against us because science would suddenly be useless. Still, point taken.
Other Comments by Deepthought
8. Comment #115633 by Ty_Webb on January 24, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Professor Dial said that dinosaurs may have evolved wings to help propel them over rocks and other obstacles that littered their terrain.
That sentence bothers me. It seems to imply that dinosaurs evolved wings on purpose. I know it's longer, but I'd rather that they said something like "wing-like appendages would have helped the dinosaurs to propel themselves over rocks etc, which would have given them an evolutionary advantage." Mealy-mouthed I know, but every little helps.
Other Comments by Ty_Webb
9. Comment #115634 by Deepthought on January 24, 2008 at 12:49 pm
It seems to imply that dinosaurs evolved wings on purpose.
I think you're right. This sentence is just waiting to be misinterpreted.
Other Comments by Deepthought
10. Comment #115637 by Goldy on January 24, 2008 at 12:53 pm
That sentence bothers me. It seems to imply that dinosaurs evolved wings on purpose
Only if you're not sure how evolution works.
This sentence is just waiting to be misinterpreted
And I am waiting with that exasperated yet smug look on my face to explain how evolution works :-) I do love making cretinists look stupid ;-)
Edit - while I have the online dictionary open...
[French crétin, from French dialectal, deformed and mentally retarded person found in certain Alpine valleys, from Vulgar Latin *christinus, Christian, human being, poor fellow, from Latin Chrstinus, Christian ; see Christian.]
Other Comments by Goldy
11. Comment #115641 by Deepthought on January 24, 2008 at 1:05 pm
I do love making cretinists look stupid ;-)
I don't enjoy it very much due to the ease of it. Convincing creationists is much harder and far more fun. I think that you can't convince a creationist with a step by step critique of his logic. Logic only works on the less fanatical Christians. I intend to try this conversation on one:
Me: What is your faith based on?
Cristian: The Bible
Me: Why do you base your faith on the Bible?
Christian: Because it is the Word of God!
Me: How do you know this?
Christian: (I expect that there may be high quantities of Ummmm... here) Because it says so
Me: Could a human have written the Bible and then said that it was the word of God just to benefit himself?
Christian: (At this point intuition fails me because I have no idea what rationalization method they could use. If someone on this site could fill in this blank I would be grateful)
Other Comments by Deepthought
12. Comment #115642 by Goldy on January 24, 2008 at 1:08 pm
Deepthought, been there and had fun. Genesis is brilliant - and all in the first 2 chapters :-DADH, who posts here occassionally, is particularly fun - the twists and turns he can do....quite the mental contortionist!
Other Comments by Goldy
13. Comment #115645 by Deepthought on January 24, 2008 at 1:15 pm
I've seen some of the conversations with ADH. Are there any other Creationists that visit this site?What would they say in reply to the question of "Could a human have written the Bible and then said that it was the word of God just to benefit himself?"
Other Comments by Deepthought
14. Comment #115649 by Elcristoph on January 24, 2008 at 1:32 pm
OH this is ironic, I was watching a Creationist video on Youtube about this same subject asking...How?...LOL, oh I love science...hehehehehehehehehe(evil laugh)Other Comments by Elcristoph
15. Comment #115664 by Ty_Webb on January 24, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Only if you're not sure how evolution works.
Right, and what's the proportion of the US public for whom that is the case? And then, what's the proportion of those people who will later have the benefit of your wisdom as to what it should have said? I think it's fairly safe to say that more people will have had a misconception confirmed by the article than will have started believing in evolution.
Other Comments by Ty_Webb
16. Comment #115677 by Deepthought on January 24, 2008 at 2:15 pm
Right, and what's the proportion of the US public for whom that is the case?
Maybe we should highjack Intelligent Design theorists' methods and publish a book for school children with a disclaimer in the text books saying "If you feel restricted by the small amount of evolution taught in this text book read (insert book title here) which will be offered to students in order to teach them more of evolutionary theory"
RD could write it or he could just give them The Blind Watchmaker.
Other Comments by Deepthought
17. Comment #115696 by babrock on January 24, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Hey Deepthouth;along a somewhat similar line: One of my faverate routines is to ask them " If I wrote 'God says kiss this' on my ass, would you?" and if not what is the differenc. Needless to say I have won few converts w that tact nor ever recieved a rational reply.Other Comments by babrock
18. Comment #115700 by Deepthought on January 24, 2008 at 2:35 pm
@babrockI would avoid swearing because it usually makes you look bad. I would instead confront them with verses from the bible in which God says "Kill this"
Other Comments by Deepthought
19. Comment #115705 by Goldy on January 24, 2008 at 2:38 pm
I think it's fairly safe to say that more people will have had a misconception confirmed by the article than will have started believing in evolution.
Sorry mate, but if people are going to revel in their ignorance and stupidity, closing their ears to education then what can I do? Learning isn't hard - there's books and internet and papaers and all sorts of shit to open the mind.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=501748&in_page_id=1811
OK, it's the Daily Mail - sorry, hard to find a decent ref at such short notice. But is he can do it, so can other ignarants. If they wish to revel in stupidity and superstition, that's their lookout. India and China are just waiting in the wings...
Other Comments by Goldy
20. Comment #115720 by babrock on January 24, 2008 at 2:58 pm
deepthought ;Precicly, I pointed out Exodus 20v20-21. Where it actualy does allow one to kill one own slave just so long as he lives for a couple days. But like I said they do not reply rationaly. On the swearing, I do not take myself seriosly enuf to wory about it making me look bad in general.Other Comments by babrock
21. Comment #115725 by Deepthought on January 24, 2008 at 3:01 pm
The creationists I debate with seem to immediately ratchet someone's IQ down if they start swearing. Due to this I avoid it and just baffle them with big words. (three or more syllables) :) Other Comments by Deepthought
22. Comment #115736 by babrock on January 24, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Thnking of the word "debate" in conection w the conversations we have at work makes me laff.Thanx The word "conversation" is actioly a bit of a stretch.Other Comments by babrock
23. Comment #115752 by Deepthought on January 24, 2008 at 3:47 pm
I consider civil arguments between two people as "debates" I do, however, see your point. Other Comments by Deepthought
24. Comment #115753 by Ty_Webb on January 24, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Sorry mate, but if people are going to revel in their ignorance and stupidity, closing their ears to education then what can I do? Learning isn't hard - there's books and internet and papaers and all sorts of shit to open the mind.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=501748&in_page_id=1811
OK, it's the Daily Mail - sorry, hard to find a decent ref at such short notice. But is he can do it, so can other ignarants. If they wish to revel in stupidity and superstition, that's their lookout. India and China are just waiting in the wings...
I don't disagree with you, but what you can do is impress upon journalists to use accurate phraseology. There are lots of people out there who simply don't know better. Articles like these may give them the opportunity to learn better, but phrases like that one don't help. That's why I said every little helps. It is only little, but if it helps one person get the right idea, then it was worth it.
Other Comments by Ty_Webb
25. Comment #115756 by Deepthought on January 24, 2008 at 3:55 pm
As a kind of non-sequiteur: Why would my profile claim that I have never posted anything? Other Comments by Deepthought
26. Comment #115772 by Goldy on January 24, 2008 at 6:27 pm
It is only little, but if it helps one person get the right idea, then it was worth it
Maybe I am a bit more cynical. Having worked with a scientist of the cretinist bent, some people don't want to learn - their gods provide all the answers. If that one person has the nouse to read something like this and think "How did the birds learn?" then they'll have the nouse to actually go and find out. Mostly people don't care and revel in their ignorance, bringing it up to try and argue a point and wonder why they are laughed at.
As it is, I try my best to scientifically correct and yet still talk in the vernacular to explain why I am taking blood samples. Sometimes it can't be done...science is sexy and fun, but to some it is best understood like their religion - a mystery.
Other Comments by Goldy
27. Comment #115774 by Richard Morgan on January 24, 2008 at 6:45 pm
babrock :If I wrote 'God says kiss this' on my ass....
Have you stopped taking your pills again, you naughty boy?
Other Comments by Richard Morgan
28. Comment #115778 by steveroot on January 24, 2008 at 6:52 pm
13. Comment #115645 by Deepthought on January 24, 2008 at 1:15 pm
What would they say in reply to the question of "Could a human have written the Bible and then said that it was the word of God just to benefit himself?"
"Joseph Smith did it"(?).
Steve
Other Comments by steveroot
29. Comment #115785 by Pallinn on January 24, 2008 at 7:21 pm
I'm going to start flapping my arms immediately!! Other Comments by Pallinn
30. Comment #115809 by robotaholic on January 24, 2008 at 8:34 pm
Professor Dial said that dinosaurs may have evolved wings to help propel them over rocks and other obstacles that littered their terrain.
-That sentence didn't sit well with me. It doesn't seem realistic. I'm no evolutionary biologist...(which is probably my problem) but even after millions of yrs I don't see any animal developing wings just for use when they go over rocks or other obstacles.
Other Comments by robotaholic
31. Comment #115821 by dsainty on January 24, 2008 at 9:35 pm
robotaholic: I'm sure that point was relatively idle conjecture. But if you are an animal living in a herd and the herd is running from a predator, you wouldn't want to be the one that skimped on the going-over-obstacles technology that the other herd members have invested in.Other Comments by dsainty
32. Comment #115834 by Goldy on January 24, 2008 at 10:34 pm
-That sentence didn't sit well with me. It doesn't seem realistic. I'm no evolutionary biologist...(which is probably my problem) but even after millions of yrs I don't see any animal developing wings just for use when they go over rocks or other obstacles.
Took a wee while, I mean, scales don't become feathers overnight, eh? Then you're sitting around and all of a sudden some meat eater comes around, a bit peckish like. Well, what do you do - leg it, that's what you do! Clamber over rocks and stuff trying to avoid being tomorrows raptor shit! This works in the main, they like an easier meal. But some are a bit less able on the clambering front (they'd be the ones like me, I'll wager). Those sods that they laughed at for having those longer feathers/stronger chest muscles/whatever else can mutate advantageously seemed to be able to, well, glide over the obstacles. Bastards! Ah, well, who's laughing now...munch, munch...
I may have anthropomorhised the process a bit, but I'd guess it went something like that :-)
Other Comments by Goldy
33. Comment #116174 by BeyondBelief on January 25, 2008 at 5:21 pm
Ty_Webb...I thought it was just me... Professor Dial said that dinosaurs may have evolved wings to help propel them over rocks and other obstacles that littered their terrain.
I see an asinine sentence like this in almost EVERY story on evolution, and it is the "intentionality" that makes it so F-ing wrong. The idea that dinosaurs intentionally evolved a solution to their problem (which, by the way would correctly be phrased "invented") is no more correct than the phrase that "Evolution saw clear to make the human dominant over its competitors."
Evolution happens. We see traces of it. Evolution has no intention, and while creatures undergoing evolution DO have intention (like us human-folk) we can no sooner WILL ourselves to evolve wings than God could WILL the Universe into existence.
The sad part is, Professor Dial probably said something completely different and scientifically accurate, but the idiot reporter converted it into his own pathetic understanding of evolutionary language.
It is NOT foolish to actively correct folks who would speak like this. It does make a difference to get it expressed correctly.
Other Comments by BeyondBelief
34. Comment #116175 by Steve Zara on January 25, 2008 at 5:31 pm
BeyondBelief: I think you are over-reacting. I see no sense of "intention" in the phrases you quote. Other Comments by Steve Zara
35. Comment #116205 by hmsbeagle3 on January 25, 2008 at 8:46 pm
This whole article invites misinterpretation...I mean, just how much range of movement is needed in rudimentary gliding to suggest a semi-functional aerofoil?? There's just too much boot-strapping here - I can be convinced by either hypothesis depending on the evidence, but I've always found falling easier than flying.Other Comments by hmsbeagle3
36. Comment #116507 by Rational_G on January 26, 2008 at 5:12 pm
News Flash! Birds extend wings into moving air - achieve lift. Other Comments by Rational_G
37. Comment #117020 by Burton on January 28, 2008 at 5:15 am
I wonder if a combination of jumping and falling was used. If wings developed in a few places seperately (they are complex so perhaps unlikely, but they are also very useful...) then one could have been "bottom up" another "top down".
If they developed in only one place then perhaps a tree dwelling reptile that feeds on the ground and needs to get down from the tree and away from predators has double the incentive to evolve wings than just one reason. More so than their ground dwelling contemporaries. Then once in the air they had a monopoly and thrived and mutated and speciated into what we see today.
If someone knows where and when and how often wings evolved please enlighten me...
And pick holes in this hypothesis if it is total rubbish.
Other Comments by Burton
38. Comment #118809 by Adam Morrison on January 31, 2008 at 2:43 am
*reads article*...
*looks at steep hill on his walk to campus*
......
*looks at bird-man outfit from two Halloweens ago*
........
*thinks*
.........
*gets to campus just a little faster*
'ca-CAWWWWWW'
Fantastic artilce
Other Comments by Adam Morrison
Upcoming Events:
About this site
Mailing List Signup: Enter your email
Go to The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science
Richard Dawkins Articles | Comments | Tour Journal
Atheist Resources | Local Groups
Debate Points | Latest Responses
Links:
Quotes of Note:
"Secularists are often wrongly accused of trying to purge religious ideals from public discourse. We simply want to deny them public sponsorship."
Wendy Kaminer
"There are, however, exceptions to this reliance on feelings as evidence of truth: if, for instance, your feelings lead to disbelief instead of belief, they're apt to be dismissed as some form of denial. This is not a common problem. Usually intellectualism, not "feeling reality," is blamed for disbelief. But, some angel experts suggest, there may be emotional as well as intellectual barriers to belief: unwillingness to believe in angels can reflect low self-esteem."
Wendy Kaminer
"Thus the creationist's favourite question "What is the use of half an eye?" Actually, this is a lightweight question, a doddle to answer. Half an eye is just 1 per cent better than 49 per cent of an eye..."
Richard Dawkins
"...the likelihood is that, in 100,000 years time, we shall either have reverted to wild barbarism, or else civilisation will have advanced beyond all recognition--into colonies in outer space..."
Richard Dawkins
"My religion is to do good."
Thomas Paine
Other Recommended Reading
Atheist Manifesto
Michel Onfray
On The Origin of Species
Charles Darwin
Your Inner Fish
Neil Shubin
The Blank Slate
Steven Pinker
The Quotable Atheist
Jack Huberman
More Books
Adjust font size: 
"If this book doesn't change the world -- we're all screwed."
-Penn (Penn & Teller)
The God Delusion
by Richard Dawkins
Over 1.5 million copies sold
DVDs
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'AAI 2007 Conference' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Original Program' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
1. Comment #115546 by Sleep of Reason on January 24, 2008 at 10:03 am
Aw shucks! More answers. When will it ever end?Other Comments by Sleep of Reason