Science

Partly Sunny with Showers 9° London Hi 12°C / Lo 6°C

Reptile fossils solve mystery that has baffled evolutionists

Remains provide link between long-tailed and short-tailed pterosaurs

By Steve Connor, Science Editor

The discovery of the fossil of the Darwinopterus fills a 155 million-year evolutionary gap

PA

The discovery of the fossil of the Darwinopterus fills a 155 million-year evolutionary gap

An extraordinary flying reptile that lived around 160 million years ago has helped scientists to fill a gap in the fossil record that has frustrated scientists since the time of Charles Darwin.

The fossilised remains of more than 20 specimens of the flying reptiles – pterosaurs – were unearthed in China earlier this year. Dating has shown that they fall in the middle of the age range from 220 million to 65 million years ago when the pterosaurs evolved from primitive, long-tailed species to advanced, short-tailed forms.

The latest member of the pterosaurs, which has been called Darwinopterus modularis (Darwin’s wing) in honour of the father of evolution, has provided the first clear evidence for a controversial and unusual mode of evolution whereby entire “modules” of physical traits evolved in unison rather than as individual features.

Pterosaurs, which are sometimes known as pterodactyls, were the first animals with backbones that were known to take to the air in powered flight long before the appearance of the first birds. They had elongated fingers which were used to flap folds of membranous skin stretching to their legs.

They dominated the air when dinosaurs – which belonged to a different group of reptile – ruled the terrestrial environment. During that long period of some 155 million years pterosaurs evolved from predominantly long-tailed forms to short-tailed species but, frustratingly, no intermediate fossils had been found – until now.

The Chinese scientists who discovered and analysed the Darwinopterus fossils worked with British pterosaur expert David Unwin of Leicester University to work out how the species differed from its predecessors and descendants. The researchers concluded that the fossils demonstrate modular evolution, whereby the head and neck have evolved to look more like later species, whereas the long tail retains a more primitive appearance of the earlier pterosaurs.

“Darwinopterus came as quite a shock to us. We had always expected a gap-filler with typically intermediate features such as a moderately elongate tail – neither long nor short – but the strange thing about Darwinopterus is that it has a head and neck just like that of advance pterosaurs, while the rest of the skeleton, including a very long tail, is identical to that of primitive forms,” Dr Unwin said.

Some of the later species of pterosaurs, such as fearsome quetzalcoatlus, grew to gigantic sizes for flying animals, rivalling some of the largest birds today. Darwinopterus, however, was about the size of a crow and its rows of sharpened teeth suggest that it may have caught its prey on the wing.

“The geological age of Darwinopterus and bizarre combination of advanced and primitive features reveal a great deal about the evolution of advanced pterosaurs from their primitive ancestors,” Dr Unwin said.

The rate of evolution in Darwinopterus was probably fast with lots of big changes occurring over a relatively short period of time and, secondly, whole groups of features – modules – appear to have evolved together, although not all modules changed at the same time, he said.

“The head and neck evolved first, followed later by the body, tail, wings and legs. It seems that natural selection was acting on and changing entire modules and not, as would normally be expected, just on single features such as the shape of the snout, or the form of a tooth,” Dr Unwin said.

Pterosaurs died out at the same time as the dinosaurs, about 65 million years ago, when entire groups of animals were also lost in a global mass extinction. But the loss of the pterosaurs and the dinosaurs allowed the rise of the mammals and the birds, which filled the ecological niches on land and air.

“Frustratingly, these events, which are responsible for much of the variety of life that we see all around us, are only rarely recorded by fossils. Darwin was acutely aware of this, as he noted in the Origin of Species, and hoped that one day fossils would help to fill these gaps,” Dr Unwin said.

“Darwinopterus is a small but important step in that direction,” he said. The study is published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B.

Writer's note:

Originally, there were several sub-editing errors in this piece (including the introduction of the word "carbon" by an over enthusiastic sub) which have been corrected by the author. Apologies.

Steve Connor

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

carbon dating
[info]hiramo wrote:
Tuesday, 13 October 2009 at 11:36 pm (UTC)
Carbon dating has never been claimed for dating anything older than 60,000 years. After that time there is no carbon left to measure. No one dated these fossils at between 220 million and 65 million years. Fossils are stone and you can't carbon date stone. Steve Connor, science editor ought to know this.
Re: carbon dating
[info]pinhut wrote:
Wednesday, 14 October 2009 at 07:12 pm (UTC)
Point to where in the article the fossils were assessed using carbon dating? You won't be able to, as it does not state this.
strawman
[info]justagreenie wrote:
Tuesday, 13 October 2009 at 11:36 pm (UTC)
Another example of poor reporting on evolution. "controversial and unusual mode of evolution whereby entire "modules" of physical traits evolved in unison rather than as individual features." This is just nonsense. Pleiotropy has been long known. Changes in single proteins can have effects all over the body. Changing one part of a vertebral column or a limb has implications for other parts. Read Richard Dawkins' latest book for a good explanation of all this.
Carbon dating
[info]martinhanson wrote:
Wednesday, 14 October 2009 at 03:07 am (UTC)
"Carbon dating has shown that they fall in the middle of the age range from 220 million to 65 million years ago,..."
Steve Connor needs to get his facts right. Carbon-14 has a half life of 5730 years, and dating by this method is limited to about 40 000 years.
Carbon dating??
[info]robdav wrote:
Wednesday, 14 October 2009 at 06:59 am (UTC)
Radiocarbon dating is only effective up to about 60,000 years, so it would not be the technique used to date something this old. Probably an isotopic dating method, but not carbon.
enough
[info]justagreenie wrote:
Wednesday, 14 October 2009 at 08:00 am (UTC)
And please, I beg you, enough of the "solve mystery that has baffled evolutionists" style headlines on evolution. Say to yourself - they are never justified. NEVER justified.
Pterosaurs and pedantry
[info]rongraves wrote:
Wednesday, 14 October 2009 at 12:51 pm (UTC)
"The latest member of the pterosaurs, which has been called Darwinopterus modularis (Darwin’s wing) in honour of the father of evolution,"


Would you care to maker that the father of evolutionary theory?
dating
[info]slewrate wrote:
Wednesday, 14 October 2009 at 02:47 pm (UTC)
Nowhere in the article did it say carbon dating was used. There are various other dating methods including potassium-argon and uranium-lead which are well documented.

And let us not play the theory game. This is semantics. Einstein's theory of relativity has the word theory in it but is, of course, true. Using the word theory does not mean it is an unsupported idea. For anyone who is willing to look at the evidence, evolution is the only explanation that we have and it is supported in so many ways that it is only reasonable to say it is true.
Carbon dating
[info]hiramo wrote:
Wednesday, 14 October 2009 at 03:23 pm (UTC)
The article did say "carbon dating". The word "carbon" has been removed since yesterday. Now I am curious what dating method was used.
Re: Carbon dating
[info]j_riley wrote:
Wednesday, 14 October 2009 at 04:21 pm (UTC)
Apologies, Hiramo, and to all who noticed the word 'Carbon' sneaked into the piece, as a subbing error. The version of the article above has been corrected by Steve Connor, and there's a note containing an apology from Steve also at the end of the piece.

Thanks,

Jack
[info]iain39 wrote:
Sunday, 18 October 2009 at 07:15 pm (UTC)
"..the first clear evidence for a controversial and unusual mode of evolution whereby entire “modules” of physical traits evolved in unison rather than as individual features."

So much for random mutations! Changing any complicated system in modules is exponentially more complicated than tiny random changes mounting up over millions of generations. One of the silliest "Dawkinations" of complicated systems related to flying squirrels. The Dawkins idea is that they evolved firstly by jumping off trees and the more successful ones glided further and faster than their plummeting counterparts.

As the surviving members of the species produced more children, their lucky genes propagated and gave new generations the chance to plummet or fly. But you can't Dawkinate complicated situations into such a fairytale.

For example, aggressive males should always have more offspring, no matter what talents or abilities the other members of that species develop. On the other hand, males which don't take risks are more likely to remain with females and, once again, create more offspring. There are so many interleaving factors that to explain the complicated evolution of every single trait in terms of "more offspring" is so unscientific, and so laughable, that it's a wonder people have swallowed it hook, line and sinker for so long.

The blood supply to the brain of apes, for example, runs over their back. The holes are driled in their skull to match. In hominids the blood supply has somehow moved towards the front, through several layers of bone and muscle. And the matching holes in the skull have moved around too, necessarily at the same time. The veins in the legs of hominids have upward-facing hairs to keep the blood from collecting under force of gravity. Apes don't have these. It is not a question of learned behaviour: apes have no inclination to walk like us, and no biology to support it either.

Explaining all this by saying everything happened in tiny stages -- and then trotting out the concept of "millions of generations" to wave away the problem of complexity and explain the finished product, is just lazy and wishful thinking.

Random actions never produce complicated, working forms, and this evolution of modules at one time is a step to explaining it a good deal better than waving the whole problem away with the hand and repeating, "random tiny changes!!".

Most popular