Although I am not very competent in genetic literature, and therefore have only partially understood the whole paper, two questions (perhaps two NON-questions, for cleverer people than me) seem to be bothering me since I made the effort to read the article. Let me try and attempt to expose them here just in case someone wishes to answer them, even though we are in August, probably on holidays, and who the Hell cares about my (probably senile) misgivings …
(1) If I have understood evolution theory, one thing seems to be certain: there is no previous intelligent design in the course it takes. Therefore, as in vision, species have developed different systems which have the same effect for each of them: to be aware of the world around by “seeing” it.
However, if I read the abstract right, in this case, there is a striking similarity between the genetic paths that allow humans and song-learning birds to acquire their faculty. How come? Does that mean that once a pertinent path has been found out (Ok, by chance, of course!), Nature is clever enough to admit it is a good scheme and uses it right away for other species? I can hardly believe this (an intelligent planning) to be the conclusion one should arrive at. If not, then WHAT is the correct conclusion?
(2) In the second part of the abstract, it says that all species show some similar traits, among them, the formation of dialects. Now, the formation of dialects might be thought of as a stage in the history of a language (or of a singing system, I take it). In language, in my theoretical frame at least, there is the evident fact that when communicating, we do a lot more than coding and decoding a linguistic element, i.e., we perform a lot of inferencing on top of it. Therefore, the possible mismatch of the coded material in use when communicating does not prevent fluent communication, which, in turn, is what allows for the claim that our languages change into dialects and eventually into different languages.
If bird-songs do show dialectal differences, as the second part of the above abstract seems to state, a question arises: does communication of birds by using their songs also rely on inferencing (perhaps at a smaller scale than human language, but still…), or does it? If it does not, then, how come there are different dialects of the same bird songs?