HomeНаука и техникаRelated VideosMore From: Newsy Science

How Did Flightless Birds Spread Across The World?

45 ratings | 7613 views
A new DNA study compared an extinct 800-pound bird from Madagascar with a chicken-sized bird from New Zealand. Who could've guessed they're related? Follow Christian Bryant: http://www.twitter.com/BryantCP See more at http://www.newsy.com/ Sources: University of Adelaide http://www.adelaide.edu.au/news/news70682.html New Scientist http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25610-emustyle-birds-have-abandoned-flight-six-times.html#.U35OkZRdXpo National Geographic http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2014/05/22/the-surprising-closest-relative-of-the-huge-elephant-birds/ Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences http://www.pnas.org/content/89/18/8741 New Zealand Herald http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11259906 Image via: Flickr / Brian Gratwicke https://www.flickr.com/photos/briangratwicke/5338159722
Html code for embedding videos on your blog
Text Comments (15)
BFKAnthony817 (4 years ago)
50 million years ago, Antarctica was warmer than today, and the contentnts of Australia, and South America were pretty close to Antartica, Australia was actually still part of the contenent at that time. This was also only 15 million years after the asteroid impact that wiped out the dinosaurs, so birds quickly deversified in their absense. Obviously, they would not have had to travel very far to have relatives from New Zealand to Madagascar to South America if they had originated in Antartica. So, in short, the common ancestor of all these birds was most likely from Antarctica, and they subsequently spread about the southern hemisphere continents and diversified into the varied species we have today.
Mullerornis (4 years ago)
I hate the fact that these journalists ignore the fact that the study still concludes kiwis, elephant birds and emus (and cassowaries) still form a clade at the exclusion of the other ratites, and that kiwis would still flew in from Australia.
XWeAreAnonymousX (4 years ago)
Seems more like adaptation than evolution. 
XWeAreAnonymousX (4 years ago)
+Justwantahover You mad?
Justwantahover (4 years ago)
There are MOUNTAINS OF EVIDENCE for evolution and NOT A SINGLE THREAD OF EVIDENCE FOR CREATIONISM. Yet NOTHING will change your arrogant little brainwashed mind, NOTHING (no matter how convincing). And you ASSERT and ASSERT and ASSERT with BIG FAT NOTHING (to back it up). Just shows how INCREDIBLY ARROGANT creationists are. If NOTHING could ever change your mind, I CAN'T reason with you. We CAN'T talk to creationists, just cos of their fucking attitude. HOW IS SOMETHING KNOWN? You CAN'T even answer that (you piece of shit). This shows how fucking NARROW MINDED you really are. You CAN'T even answer it. lol
Justwantahover (4 years ago)
ATTENTION CREATIONISTS Evolution doesn't go by a pre-written assumption (like creationism in the Bible). It doesn't go by personal "logic". Your personal "logic" is merely guessing that evolution CAN'T be true. Evolution has been nailed by evidence and evidence alone. That's how they do it in the courts and DarWIN won!  Give EVIDENCE for a conspiracy. You say evolution is a hoax cos you are FORCED to do so, through your predetermined belief. Consider all the millions of pages of text and data that is just on evolution. Compared the Bible's 1400 pages.  Evolution text and data would be millions of pages and thousands of times MORE than the Bible. The stuff that is peer-reviewed is all I'm talking about. So it's the SAME information in the text and data all over the world. It would be thousands of times easier to just make-up the Bible, than it would be to just make up all that data. Your Bible is the “hoax”! Inherently, creationism can't leave evidence. So you have no direct evidence for creationism. Or can you give me one single piece of evidence that directly points to creationism?, (that is NOT just ID or just wishful thinking "against evolution). 1) No direct evidence for creationism, cos (inherently) the 6-day creation can't leave evidence. 2) ID does not necessarily prove creationism, the theory of ID leaves it open (as long as God-did-it). Don't argue with me about this point, cos I don't believe in ID (I'm agnostic about it). Argue with the millions of theistic evolutionists in the world who believe ID can fit with theistic evolution. 3) Your wishful thinking "against evolution" is trumped by this hard evidence (below). So you have BIG FAT NOTHING! I have just completely DESTROYED your creationism myth (witch I have demonstrated that is nothing but a belief)! THE FOSSIL COLUMN There is something that we can observe (now) that proves evolution. It’s the sequence of the fossils (up the strata). It’s the fossil column. You can see this for yourself (if you book a tour and study the fossil sites, that is). The fossil column is (basically) simple progressing to more complex at the start (or bottom) of the fossil column. And advancement (e.g. from water to land) is also shown in the rocks (as we go up the strata). So the fossil sequence starts with just microbes on the very bottom layers. Then shell-fish and worms etc. near the bottom layers.  And (going up the strata) we get the first invertebrates and then land invertebrates and the first vertebrates. Then (going higher) we get the first land vertebrates and then the first mammals, then more advanced mammals, and near the top, we get apes and us. Combined fossil sites all over the world show this sequence. If evolution isn’t true, what else could make it like that? How could your flood do that?   There is evidence for evolution we can see now. It's the fossil sequence in the strata. Total proof of evolution and debunks creationism. The flood can't make a perfect family tree sequence like that, just by chance. No way! But it doesn't even worry creationists. If they were at all rational, they would be extremely worried. lol The great thing about it, is that it's in the rocks for anyone to see. 
Mullerornis (4 years ago)
Great, you're ignorant enough to not understand that there's no freacking difference.
TemporalOnline (4 years ago)
It makes sense that birds relative to one another would evolve similar traits even after separated.
KevinHarper3DArtist (4 years ago)
What are you guys wondering about, there is no mystery... obviously... God did it...
jabbar kazmi (4 years ago)
Biology just sounds like story telling instead of science.... It sounds as if they just make up stuff as they go.... At least in physics there is maths to back up the theory... Just a thought... Biology just doesn't sound like exact science.
The Angry Toy Bonnie (3 years ago)
*math not maths
rickysims212 (4 years ago)
Then you need to do a little more research on what biology is.
You Don't Say? (4 years ago)
It's important to understand that evolution doesn't care about whether the organs you have are useful for anything. All that matters is that you reproduce. In this case the wings become "vestigial organs".
You Don't Say? (3 years ago)
+Ted Bark good point
Ted Bark (3 years ago)
Not entirely, the wings are used for balancing and for attracting mates. also in the case of Ostriches they make the bird look bigger.

Would you like to comment?

Join YouTube for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.