Flightless birds gave up flying after dinosaurs were wiped out
February 22, 2010 by Lin Edwards
This giant Moa (Dinornis giganteus) a member of the ratite family (the same family as the kiwi, emus and ostriches) and met its demise around the 13th century.
(PhysOrg.com) -- Scientists have assumed the ancestors of modern flightless birds were also flightless, but results of new research suggests they only became flightless and began to explore the ground when it became safe to do so because the dinosaurs had been wiped out.
According to the leader of the study, evolutionary biologist Dr Matthew Phillips from the Australian National University in Canberra, when the dinosaurs suddenly became extinct around 65 million years ago, this opened up niches on the ground that were plentiful in food and free of predators. Since there was no need to take to the air for a quick escape, the birds, such as the ancestors of modern day ostriches, cassowaries, rheas and emus, stayed on the ground and grew fat, until they could no longer fly.
Dr Phillips said it was an advantage to the birds to lose the ability to fly because wings are “fairly costly in terms of the amount of energy that goes into them.” Becoming larger was also of benefit because it made them more energy efficient.
Phillips and his team studied fossil DNA of flightless birds, including the extinct giant moa, from what is now called New Zealand, and other ancestors of the modern large flightless birds. They discovered the moa’s closest relatives were small ground-dwelling birds called tinamous, which are still found in South America today, and which can just barely fly. Molecular dating of the samples suggested the ancestors of the moas became flightless around the same time the dinosaurs became extinct. Phillips said the extinction of the dinosaurs had effects on birds that were previously unknown, and was a turning point in the evolution of the modern birds.
During the period in which the moa’s ancestors lived, the Cretaceous (about 145 to 65 million years ago), Antarctica, New Zealand, Australia, Africa and South America were joined together as the massive super-continent Gondwana. Over time the segments began to drift apart, with New Zealand separating from Gondwana around 80 million years ago.
The new study suggests the flightless birds evolved separately from flying ancestors on the different land masses, rather than from a single flightless ancestor on Gondwanaland, as previously thought, and they all lost the ability to fly about 65 million years ago. This neatly solves the age-old problem of how “flightless” birds could have reached the different continents: they were not flightless at all, and simply flew.
The results of the study are published in January’s edition of the Systematic Biology journal.
More information: Tinamous and Moa Flock Together: Mitochondrial Genome Sequence Analysis Reveals Independent Losses of Flight among Ratites, Systematic Biology 2010 59(1):90-107; doi:10.1093/sysbio/syp079
© 2010 PhysOrg.com
-
Dinosaur extinction grounded ancient birds
Jan 21, 2010 |
not rated yet |
0
-
DNA suggests Moa once flew
Feb 02, 2010 |
not rated yet |
0
-
Trotting with emus, walk with dinosaurs
Oct 25, 2006 |
not rated yet |
0
-
Study challenges bird-from-dinosaur theory of evolution - was it the other way around?
Feb 09, 2010 |
not rated yet |
0
-
Extinct moa rewrites New Zealand's history
Nov 18, 2009 |
not rated yet |
0
-
Engineers build first sub-10-nm carbon nanotube transistor
Feb 01, 2012 |
4.9 / 5 (31) |
30
-
Something old, something new: Evolution and the structural divergence of duplicate genes
Jan 31, 2012 |
4.6 / 5 (7) |
1
-
The hidden nanoworld of ice crystals: Revealing the dynamic behavior of quasi-liquid layers
Jan 30, 2012 |
5 / 5 (3) |
1
-
Stock market network reveals investor clustering
Jan 27, 2012 |
3.9 / 5 (23) |
8
-
Of microchemistry and molecules: Electronic microfluidic device synthesizes biocompatible probes
Jan 26, 2012 |
5 / 5 (1) |
0
-
Mitosis
5 hours ago
-
Stem cell question.
6 hours ago
-
Protease cleavage
13 hours ago
-
Pertubance in a model
19 hours ago
-
Cancer drugs and Alzheimer's, Oh my!
Feb 09, 2012
-
Squishing cells
Feb 09, 2012
- More from Physics Forums - Biology
More news stories
The power of estrogen -- male snakes attract other males
A new study has shown that boosting the estrogen levels of male garter snakes causes them to secrete the same pheromones that females use to attract suitors, and turned the males into just about the sexiest ...
17 hours ago |
4.8 / 5 (6) |
2
|
Grass to gas: Researchers' genome map speeds biofuel development
Researchers at the University of Georgia have taken a major step in the ongoing effort to find sources of cleaner, renewable energy by mapping the genomes of two originator cells of Miscanthus x giganteus, a large perenn ...
14 hours ago |
3.8 / 5 (5) |
0
|
Miami battling invasion of giant African snails
No one knows how they got there. But an invasion of African giant snails has southern Florida in a panic over potential crop damage, disease and general yuckiness surrounding the slimy gastropods.
21 hours ago |
4 / 5 (1) |
4
Experts reveal how plants don't get sunburn
(PhysOrg.com) -- Experts at the University of Glasgow have discovered how plants survive the harmful rays of the sun.
17 hours ago |
4.8 / 5 (5) |
0
|
Protein libraries in a snap
(PhysOrg.com) -- A Rice University undergraduate will depart with not only a degree but also a possible patent for his invention of an efficient way to create protein libraries, an important component of biomolecular ...
21 hours ago |
4.8 / 5 (4) |
1
|
Anonymous knocks CIA website offline (Update)
The website of the Central Intelligence Agency was inaccessible on Friday after the hacker group Anonymous claimed to have knocked it offline.
New error-correcting codes guarantee the fastest possible rate of data transmission
Error-correcting codes are one of the triumphs of the digital age. Theyre a way of encoding information so that it can be transmitted across a communication channel such as an optical fiber o ...
Humans may have helped the decline of African rainforests 3000 years ago
(PhysOrg.com) -- Large areas of rainforests in Central Africa mysteriously disappeared over three thousand years ago, to be replaced by savannas. The prevailing theory has been that the cause was a change ...
Google users warned of threat to smartphone wallets
Users of Google smartphone wallets were being warned on Friday that there is a way to crack pass codes intended to thwart thieves from going on illicit shopping sprees.
New power source discovered
(PhysOrg.com) -- Researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and RMIT University have made a breakthrough in energy storage and power generation.
Small modular reactor design could be a 'SUPERSTAR'
(PhysOrg.com) -- Though most of today's nuclear reactors are cooled by water, we've long known that there are alternatives; in fact, the world's first nuclear-powered electricity in 1951 came from a reactor ...
Feb 22, 2010
Rank: 1.7 / 5 (6)
Feb 22, 2010
Rank: 2.5 / 5 (4)
Please supply a source to support your statement about soft-tissue.
Likewise, your suggestion that dinos occupying every habitat negates the existence of birds makes no sense, since multiple species co-exist cross habitat today.
Evolution is not a theory. It is an observed phenomenom that can not be denied by anyone who deals in the truth. Natural Selection is a theory to explain evolution, however and may be completely wrong.
Feb 22, 2010
Rank: 3.7 / 5 (3)
Natural selection itself may be SLIGHTLY off, but its not way off base by any means. You can look at the animal kingdom around us and see what we call natural selection in action right now, as we speak (such as the frog species in south america that has 3 separate subspecies currently learning new niches in their environment).
To think evolution is a silly theory is silly....
Feb 22, 2010
Rank: 3 / 5 (2)
You cannot choose to deny small parts just because you somehow rationalized your circular thinking based on no process nor facts.
Feb 22, 2010
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
Ah, yes, and Creationism is a rock-solid, falsifiable theory, backed up by fossil records, DNA analysis and morphology, and it consistently makes predictions that are supported by observation, right? Is that where you were going? Please, enlighten us, breadhead. We're dying to know the "truth" as you've been taught.
Feb 22, 2010
Rank: 1 / 5 (5)
Feb 22, 2010
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
Feb 22, 2010
Rank: not rated yet
Feb 22, 2010
Rank: 1 / 5 (4)
Feb 22, 2010
Rank: 1 / 5 (5)
Feb 22, 2010
Rank: not rated yet
If you cannot understand Natural Selection, read up on Genetic Algorithms in Computer Science. It models how simple rules can "intelligently" select the best-fit from a randomness, and as a variation of hill-climbing search over a large domain. Very easy to see that no "Great Designer" is necessary especially if you have enough time to iterate enough generations to create what we know as life.
If your faith still cannot understand, more power to you. :-P
Feb 22, 2010
Rank: 4 / 5 (4)
You're offering nothing apart from your ignorant misunderstanding of evolution, and you think we should take you seriously. In each of your posts you have revealed a gross ignorance of what science is, and an even grosser understanding of the theory of evolution. This brief thumbnail article makes no claims about the greater theory, and yet you hold it accountable for those supposed failings. You demand that the theory of evolution explain the existence of the time-space continuum, though the theory of evolution has no such burden upon it. You offer no theory of your own, though we all know what your "theory" is: "God made everything, we can't understand His Divine Wisdom, end of story." You have demonstrated that you have no grasp of what constitutes evidence or proof, and yet you want the more educated of us to abandon the well-established science of evolution in favor of your superstitious gibberish. Good luck in the real world. You'll need it.
Feb 22, 2010
Rank: 1 / 5 (5)
Feb 22, 2010
Rank: not rated yet
breadhead--
You're offering nothing apart from your ignorant misunderstanding of evolution, and you think we should take you seriously. In each of your posts you have revealed a gross ignorance of what science is, and an even grosser misunderstanding of the theory of evolution. This brief thumbnail article makes no claims about the greater theory, and yet you hold it accountable for those supposed failings. You demand that the theory of evolution explain the existence of the time-space continuum, though the theory of evolution has no such burden upon it. You offer no theory of your own, though we all know what your "theory" is: "God made everything, we can't understand His Divine Wisdom, end of story." You have demonstrated that you have no grasp of what constitutes evidence or proof, and yet you want the more educated of us to abandon the well-established science of evolution in favor of your superstitious gibberish. Good luck in the real world. You'll need it.
Feb 22, 2010
Rank: 1 / 5 (5)
Feb 22, 2010
Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
but to have an explanation of a starting point, like it or not. If you believe life evolved, that is, chemicals to living cells, living cells into complex organisms, these into fish, mamals etc., non-life had to become life at some point.
I seek a full answer, not a partial one. That idea you call, "evolution" is incomplete. Too many holes, too many contradictions, to rediculous, explains nothing, no proof for it.
Feb 23, 2010
Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
Feb 23, 2010
Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
Where's the starting point of twilight? If you need a sharply defined boundary between life and non-life have a try at your own definition and discuss this definition of yours with all objections that will be raised.That's not science. In science you know that every answer to an hitherto unanswered question opens up ten new questions.Yes. Nothing human is complete. But so are all ideas of gods. Or are you the first one to give a convincing theodicy?
Feb 23, 2010
Rank: 3 / 5 (1)
I have a strong faith in God and he guides me in my life. I also am absolutely certain evolution is real because I have used it in my work in genetic algorithms. Biochemists use it every day to evolve new DNA sequences, and bacteria use it all the time to become resistant to our medicines. Belief in reality is not faith.
I lay no limitations on the abilities of God. Why do you?
Feb 26, 2010
Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
Feb 27, 2010
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
If you are interested in the concept called "truth" switch over to philosophy.
Mar 01, 2010
Rank: not rated yet
although I will disagree with frajo, without truth/reality, models and theories are just glorified video games and star trek.
Mar 01, 2010
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
For instance: Given all physical data about a piece of music, although we agree on these data our emotions/feelings usually would be different, even to the extent of being contrary.
What is truth/reality then? Only the common subset of physical data?
Mar 04, 2010
Rank: not rated yet
Mar 04, 2010
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
Mar 05, 2010
Rank: not rated yet
Although, what you've just admitted to is that in order for you to enjoy something more, you potentially have to alter the original data. By switching to a minor scale, you are playing flatted notes on the 3rd 6th and 7th notes. No matter how close to the original progression it may sound, you are no longer playing the same sheet of music you started with. It may "sound" better to you, but it is only a reflection of the reality you began with.
The goal of science is to understand thte original composition, not to create variations that we find more enjoyment in, because this is what fiction writers and video game makers do.
Mar 07, 2010
Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
Mutations have not yet been proven to add any genetic complexity. Evolutionists are still holding their breath for that to be found. Birds "loosing" flight just makes my point, if "loosing" some feature is an example of evolution.
Face it, between evolutionists and creationists, we share the same evidence concerning the past, mainly fossil evidence. Fossils are not found with dates or history stories written on them. The soft fossil tissue found recently, blows that 65mil year notion of dinosaur extinction out of the ballpark.
Mar 07, 2010
Rank: not rated yet
Mar 07, 2010
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
Mar 08, 2010
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
http://animals.ho...sil2.htm
http://en.wikiped...hweitzer
Mary Schweitzer doesn't agree with Creationist belief:Unlike you, Mary Schweitzer is convinced that that soft fossil tissue she found is 68 million years old.
Mar 08, 2010
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
Mar 08, 2010
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
And yes, it matters how convinced the Creationists are. If they are so much convinced that no fact and no argument ever could possibly falsify/change their position on this matter then they are no scientists.
She's made proposals for a mechanism. Thus she has one.She did "pick" on the non-Creationist critiques.
Yes. And from any work which deals with her findings.
Mar 08, 2010
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
I'm sorry but yet undiscovered is not good enough. She needs to discover one first...ideas and hypothesis arent good enough to have her cake and eat it to.
"She did "pick" on the non-Creationist critiques."
Where? The first article does not quote her and the wiki link only quotes her complaining about the "horror" or creationists. Not sure how they manipulate her data though, when it is her saying she found protein and there are plenty of noncreationists saying it isnt possible (as there is no known mechanism). Why point it out anyway, if she does it to both?
Mar 08, 2010
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
And you were espousing minor scale being better in your own opinion earlier, so why so harsh towards them? Is any other scientist really any different? Are they not all biased to some extent? Ms. Mary isnt any different. She hopes to find an undiscovered mechanism to validate her position. More power to her for doing so, but it seems she will hold on to her position regardless. Is she not a scientist by your definition now?
Mar 08, 2010
Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
Face it, they can't exlpain away the facts sitting before them. There are countless other ways to disprove your evolution religion, but I am convinced, that God could appear before
most of you, and you would still not believe.
Mar 09, 2010
Rank: 1.8 / 5 (4)
Mar 09, 2010
Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
You cannot possibly believe in the same God that I do, and use evolution. That is a countradiction. The two theories are mutually exclusive. Origins spoken in Genesis do not jive with the wacky origins taught by evolution theory. If you have found a genetic pattern you have just proven
that God exists, because it is His creation. You didn't offer a sliver of proof for evolution. Your faith is in vain because you don't give credit to God for what He has created.
Mar 16, 2010
Rank: not rated yet
.
You yourself claim something is true without any proof. There is no proof of the invisible being called by the name of god, allah, and many many other names. This is called your subconcious mind my friend.
Mar 21, 2010
Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
Mar 23, 2010
Rank: not rated yet
Mar 24, 2010
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
Falsifiability is the decisive difference between faith and science. It allows us to leave the realm of complete uncertainty and enter the realm of relative certainty.
Relative certainty means: You don't know whether your theory is right because there is no proof of correctness. But if something is wrong with your theory then there exists at least one proof of incorrectness. As time goes by someone will discover this proof of incorrectness.
Complete uncertainty means: There are no proofs at all. You'll never know whether your faith is right. And you'll never know whether your faith is wrong.
Mar 25, 2010
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
You cant have falsfiability without proof though now can you?
You can not show incorrectness without your proof being correct.
Mar 25, 2010
Rank: not rated yet
Read the Wikipedia page on Sir Karl Popper for a first introduction to Critical Rationalism. Your assumptions two and three are erroneous.
Mar 29, 2010
Rank: not rated yet
Lack of knowledge though, does not negate truth or the reality of the universe. It does not especially negate the drive toward truth and understanding.
What one can take away from Popper is that falsification is one of many tools a scientist can use because there is a reality to discover and understand at least for the present.
What defeats Popper is that even he says it begins with discussion of the metaphysical, the myths, which are actual ideas that you cant falsify. His own philosophy is unfalsifable, and thus it defeats itself by his own definition.
Apr 12, 2010
Rank: not rated yet
But that does not imply that science is of the same nature. Falsifiability is a tool for the scientist, not a criterion for philosophers. Thus the postulate that a philosophy has to be falsifiable is just an application of a wrong, unsuitable tool.
Apr 12, 2010
Rank: not rated yet
In other words, falsification in science is just as much a philosophy. It is no less subject to our metaphysical or philosophical underlinings.
Kuhn states that problem well, much better than I can in 1000 characters.
Science can not actually be falsifiable without being subject to a true reality. A true reality that is not subjective to the collective's judgement.