Re: Origin of feathers

[Dinogeorge <Dinogeorge@aol.com>]

In a message dated 98-04-08 18:12:34 EDT, swo@execpc.com writes:

<< Are you familiar with the "behaviors evolve first" hypothesis? This is a
 principle most zoologist still use. It suggests before any morphological
 change will occur, the behaviors will evolve first. This is part of the
 informational origin of feathers hypothesis. The behaviors were already
 present BEFORE the spontaneous mutation(s) that brought about the
 protofeathers. >>

Heavens! I'll certainly agree that there could have been display behavior
before the evolution of pre-feathers. But pre-feathers, being absent, could
not have been part of it, and I see no way in which the organism could "wish"
those pre-feathers into existence. Once the pre-feathers appear, of course,
they can quickly be exapted into the display rituals. (Not to mention that the
"behaviors evolve first" hypothesis is ridiculously untestable!)

<<Think of water fowl, like ducks. There ancestors probably did not get
webbed feet first and then adapted to life in the water. It was probably
the other way around. They were feeding and living exclusively in
aquatic habitats. Then, natural selection took it course. >>

Likewise, the webbed feet of ducks. One can envision aquatic birds that never
evolve webbed feet. But web-foot is a pretty frequent mutation (don't know the
origins of it, but suspect it might have to do with genes hanging around from
the aquatic origins of tetrapods), and it is of such obvious benefit to an
aquatic bird that no sooner does it appear than it finds its uses. Clearly the
"aquatic" came first--but is this the same kind of behavior as a display
ritual? Or is this more a lifestyle rather than a behavior?