Stick this in your craw, Mormons...

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2019-05/uop-tbt050919.php

New research has shown that the last surviving flightless species of bird, a type of rail, in the Indian Ocean had previously gone extinct but rose from the dead thanks to a rare process called 'iterative evolution'.

The research, from the University of Portsmouth and Natural History Museum, found that on two occasions, separated by tens of thousands of years, a rail species was able to successfully colonise an isolated atoll called Aldabra and subsequently became flightless on both occasions. The last surviving colony of flightless rails is still found on the island today.

This is the first time that iterative evolution (the repeated evolution of similar or parallel structures from the same ancestor but at different times) has been seen in rails and one of the most significant in bird records.

The white-throated rail is a chicken-sized bird, indigenous to Madagascar in the south-western Indian Ocean. They are persistent colonisers of isolated islands, who would have frequent population explosions and migrate in great numbers from Madagascar. Many of those that went north or south drowned in the expanse of ocean and those that went west landed in Africa, where predators ate them. Of those that went east, some landed on the many ocean islands such as Mauritius, Reunion and Aldabra, the last-named is a ring-shaped coral atoll that formed around 400,000 years ago.

With the absence of predators on the atoll, and just like the Dodo of Mauritius, the rails evolved so that they lost the ability to fly. However, Aldabra disappeared when it was completely covered by the sea during a major inundation event around 136,000 years ago, wiping out all fauna and flora including the flightless rail.

The researchers studied fossil evidence from 100,000 years ago when the sea-levels fell during the subsequent ice age and the atoll was recolonised by flightless rails. The researchers compared the bones of a fossilised rail from before the inundation event with bones from a rail after the inundation event. They found that the wing bone showed an advanced state of flightlessness and the ankle bones showed distinct properties that it was evolving toward flightlessness.

This means that one species from Madagascar gave rise to two different species of flightless rail on Aldabra in the space of a few thousand years.

Lead researcher Dr Julian Hume, avian paleontologist and Research Associate at the Natural History Museum, said: "These unique fossils provide irrefutable evidence that a member of the rail family colonised the atoll, most likely from Madagascar, and became flightless independently on each occasion. Fossil evidence presented here is unique for rails, and epitomises the ability of these birds to successfully colonise isolated islands and evolve flightlessness on multiple occasions."

Co-author Professor David Martill, from the School of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Portsmouth, said: "We know of no other example in rails, or of birds in general, that demonstrates this phenomenon so evidently. Only on Aldabra, which has the oldest palaeontological record of any oceanic island within the Indian Ocean region, is fossil evidence available that demonstrates the effects of changing sea levels on extinction and recolonisation events.

"Conditions were such on Aldabra, the most important being the absence of terrestrial predators and competing mammals, that a rail was able to evolve flightlessness independently on each occasion."7

In one of my remedial writing classes. The bird did not go extinct; rather on separate occasions, the flightless variety that had arisen did vanish, and flightlessness apparently arose in another group of descendants of the original population.

Incidentally, EurekAlert is a tabloid, and a Google search about its reliability came up empty.

It's real research by a credible academic who publishes in peer-reviewed journals.

https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/zoolinnean/zlz018/5487031?redirectedFrom=fulltext

>>The ability of birds from this clade to evolve flightlessness on multiple occasions.

The subline implies the bird went extinct, and it didn't.

#fail

Let me repeat myself. Eurekalert! is a tabloid...

https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2018/10/its-time-for-aaas-and-eurekalert-to-crack-down-on-misinformation-in-pr-news-releases/

>>Many of these problematic messages are broadcast to the world via Eurekalert!

>>But in a troubling contradiction, it’s also home to a global clearinghouse for unvetted PR messages from universities, medical centers, journals, drug companies and other organizations who pay the EurekAlert! service to broadcast their new releases.

>>The messages put out by these organizations sometimes contain egregious levels of spin and exaggeration designed to attract the attention of journalists and the public. That spin and exaggeration can find its way into news stories or get picked up by aggregators and rebroadcast to the public verbatim.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/09/2019 10:09PM by SL Cabbie.

I didn't defend the publication. I defended the underlying research. That's why my link was not to the publication but to the underlying research.

#Getaclue

>>That means one species of bird from Madagascar gave rise to two separate species of flightless rail on Aldabra in the space of just a few thousand years.

As usual, though, "science writers" in the popular media give me gas:

>>But unlike the dodo, which became extinct in the 17th century, the white-throated rail was resurrected to tell the tale once the island re-emerged and birds started migrating to the destination again.

Resurrected, my Aunt Sadie.

#Insert big Cabbie gripe about CNN's editing; anybody besides me notice that "diffrences" in that link about a "celebrity couple"

https://medium.com/@jopdevrieze/eurekalert-has-spoiled-science-news-heres-how-we-can-fix-it-851ce5c00c9a

>>At first sight, EurekAlert! is a walhalla for every science journalist: it gives you the opportunity to access the latest studies before publication and obtain embargoed information. More than 5,000 active public information officers from 2,300 universities, academic journals, government agencies, and medical centers are credentialed to provide new releases to reporters and the public through the system. But don’t expect to find scoops: by early 2018, more than 14,000 reporters from more than 90 countries have registered for free access to embargoed materials. And they’re all fishing in the same pool.
Essentially, EurekAlert! is a market place where ever more catchy and astonishing scientific findings are screaming for attention. A place where it’s not about rigor and nuance, but about click bate [sic].

https://www.eurekalert.org/aboutus.php

The article says the same bird went to the atoll, became flightless, and died out on the island. Then the same bird species eventually went back to the island, again became flightless, and died out again...



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 05/09/2019 11:15PM by anybody.

in b 4 ~ thats de-evolution OPie ~


in b 4 ~ the birds crawl back into the water like whales and become fish ~


an the fish evolve into plankton ~


an the plankton evolve into amino acids ~


an the amino acids evolve into a couple of rocks bumping together in a pool of water that gets struck by a meteor or something ~


an the rocks evolve into the stardust that flys out of these atheist black holes ~


anyway ~


in b 4 ~ flightless bird and their eggs are a delicious and ez to catch delicacy for exmo sailor types ~

ziller Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> in b 4 ~ thats de-evolution OPie ~
>
>
> in b 4 ~ the birds crawl back into the water like
> whales and become fish ~
>
>
> an the fish evolve into plankton ~
>
>
> an the plankton evolve into amino acids ~
>
>
> an the amino acids evolve into a couple of rocks
> bumping together

Or viruses, exchanging RNA which they create, which becomes DNA, which carries all the info for life, to host them, the most ancient creature on the planet, and deadliest, and most helpful to humans and other large hosts.

in a pool of water that gets
> struck by a meteor or something ~
>
>
> an the rocks evolve into the stardust that flys
> out of these atheist black holes

A delightful book I read points out that flightless birds evolve frequently on islands where there are no significant predators and where food is available. Flight is a high energy adaptation. Birds that don't need to expend the energy to survive tend to stop expending the energy.

Similarly, large animals that find themselves on small islands tend to evolve much smaller versions of themselves, like pygmy elephants.

He also points out that saber-toothed cats have independently evolved at least 11 times. It is apparently an excellent adaptation for hunting certain types of prey and terrible for hunting other types of prey. If you are too good at killing off the only thing you can eat, you tend to paint yourself into a corner, so to speak.

The book actually goes back to the beginnings of life on earth. It does concentrate on the last several million years, and our impact on other mammals. It has a six page table of a simplified family tree of all mammals, including a great many families I had never heard of. The author has published 15 titles all dealing with evolutionary issues.

Book: The Time Before History: 5 Million Years of Human Impact, Colin Tudge, 1996.

Thanks, anybody, for posting this!

Fascinating! After the United Nations study that came out a couple days ago citing the number of plants and species going extinct due to human overpopulation, this gives me hope!!!

And thanks BoJ for the book reference. Sounds worth getting!!!

Does this mean the Dodo could return? Oh wait. https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2017/10/be-ye-therefore-perfect-eventually?lang=eng&country=de

babyloncansuckit Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Does this mean the Dodo could return? Oh wait.

I tried to look at your cite, Babs, and that dude is so ughly I couldn't get past his face to read a word.

If evolution is needed it should start with these old Mron geezers.

:)

Has anyone seen a chipmunk lately ? They seem to have vanished from the Cascades.

No. I used to see them where I grew up in Connecticut. Now, in Maryland, I maintain a woods feeding station. I have seen many animals, but nary a chipmunk.

So too amphibians and honey bees. . .

I have one living in the back yard.

Does he have little stripes on his face ?

What state do you live I ?

This is great news.

Well, I'm in Alabama, and they're pretty common here. Haven't seen it close enough to see it's face.

Yes, BoJ, the book definitely sounds good. Thanks.

Does it tell about how we as individuals can help with the decline of various species?

kathleen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Does it tell about how we as individuals can help with the decline of various species?

One thing I have heard is not to use those weed-killer sprays in your yard as the bees cannot survive them.

I keep large mulched areas and have seen a huge resurgence of butterflies as the caterpillars now have a place that isn't mowed, which seems to suit them.

Think globally, act locally, I try to do what I can!!! :) Even a little may help.

Been thinking about this a lot.

Patagonia seems to be the first to NOT promote their own polar fleece jacket in view of the fibers that sluff off that fabric when washed, and end up polluting our waterways.

https://www.outsideonline.com/2091876/patagonias-new-study-finds-fleece-jackets-are-serious-pollutant

Here is the abstract from the journal:
"The Aldabra rail, Dryolimnas cuvieri subsp. aldabranus, endemic to the Aldabra Atoll, Seychelles, is the last surviving flightless bird in the Indian Ocean. Aldabra has undergone at least one major, total inundation event during an Upper Pleistocene (Tarantian age) sea-level high-stand, resulting in the loss of all terrestrial fauna. A flightless Dryolimnas has been identified from two temporally separated Aldabran fossil localities, deposited before and after the inundation event, providing irrefutable evidence that a member of Rallidae colonized the atoll, most likely from Madagascar, and became flightless independently on each occasion. Fossil evidence presented here is unique for Rallidae and epitomizes the ability of birds from this clade to successfully colonize isolated islands and evolve flightlessness on multiple occasions."

Essentially two seperate populations independently evovled to flightlessness. No Extinctions were discussed in the paper except for a general one of all fauna during the Tarantian age.

Still... pretty damn great research.

HH =)

I notice many outlets running with this line. It is not "re-evolution" but parallel evolution. These are separate species. Sure, the latency for becoming flightless is there (and is actually an evolutionary disadvantage - as seen from previous extinctions), but it's a another folk in the family tree not a re-emergence. A sister species perhaps - or cousin.

Sorry that should read "FORK" not "folk" - making a lot of typos today.

It is an evolutionary advantage. The standard is whether an adaptation is better or worse in its particular environment. In insular situations, the answer is clear.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It is an evolutionary advantage. The standard is
> whether an adaptation is better or worse in its
> particular environment. In insular situations,
> the answer is clear.

No it isn't. One major inundation of this low lying ialand, as has happened periodically, wipes the entire species out. If the birds had retained the power of flight, they could have avoided many of the effects of the tsunami and returned within days or even hours. Instead they developed an evolutionary disadvantage which led to their extinction.

In the case of larger islands such as New Zealand's two main islands, or Madagascar etc or ones with higher elevations, like Hawaii, the birds could have escaped even if they were flightless. There is a moral to this story: short term gains do not outweigh long term survival.

And how long will your species survive? A lot of insular birds and dwarf mammals will probably have lived longer.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/11/2019 08:01PM by Lot's Wife.

Of course some (most?) genetic adaptions paint a species into a corner. That's why the vast majority of species have gone extinct. The dinosaurs had a really good run until that asteroid ruined all those beaches in Yucatan.

The only difference between a long term successful adaption and a short term one is how long it remains successful. Dinosaurs had a 180+ million year run. Even at geological time scales, that is pretty good. Something way out of the ordinary finally got them. Almost got mammals too, but mammals were small enough (an adaptation to be able to hide from dinosaurs), and able to survive the decimation of the world food supply and whatever else happened. At least that is how it appears that mammals survived the K/T extinction. So was the fact that dinosaurs thought mammals were tasty hors d'oeuvres a bad thing, or a good thing? It got them past a totally unrelated astronomical disaster. I'd call that blind luck.

I'm pretty sure humanity will survive the direct effects of burning fossil fuels. They are finite, so pick your time frame, 50 years, 500 years, 5,000 years. Whatever it is, fossil fuels will eventually be in such short supply that we will effectively stop using them. Even 5,000 years is a geologic blink, if even that. The petrocene will have a large impact, but it will not last long.

The indirect effects of climate change could result in nuclear war. That would be an indirect effect, and there are other reasons humans might stumble into a nuclear war. That might be the demonstration that an animal becoming smart enough to figure out nuclear fission and fusion is not a successful evolutionary adaption. The jury is still out on whether having one of the animals run the laboratory is a good idea. Right now, it looks like it could go either way.


"But there’s a reason we recognize Hamlet as a masterpiece: it’s that Shakespeare told us the truth, and people so rarely tell us the truth in this rise and fall here [indicates blackboard]. The truth is, we know so little about life, we don’t really know what the good news is and what the bad news is.

And if I die — God forbid — I would like to go to heaven to ask somebody in charge up there, ‘Hey, what was the good news and what was the bad news?’"
- Kurt Vonnegut, Man Without a Country
https://www.brainpickings.org/2012/11/26/kurt-vonnegut-on-the-shapes-of-stories/

It could be that humans are intelligent enough to realize we are destroying our home and yet not wise enough to do anything about it. There's irony in that.

But there are other possible ends to the species that would, by Jordan's standards, demonstrate that homo sapiens sapiens is an evolutionary mistake. Take, for instance, a scenario in which a very large asteroid or comet strikes the earth (again). That could do the trick, and any sapient extraterrestrial observer would then be left to conclude that earthly evolution past the stage of viruses or bacteria was maladaptive.

And that observer would be correct. If the standard is the survival of the species, the simplest and most adaptable life forms are the best. Everything else is (likely) a dead end.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But there are other possible ends to the species
> that would, by Jordan's standards, demonstrate
> that homo sapiens sapiens is an evolutionary
> mistake.

In many ways we are. Our massive brains require large amounts of energy, water and nutrients, which are sometimes not available, and our offspring are physically weak and dependent for many years of their early life. We can't hibernate, we freeze and strong sun can knock us out.

In pure survival terms, I believe one thing that humans are quite good at is walking. A healthy person can easily cover fifteen to twenty miles in one day, if the terrain is not too bad.

But we are one of those species (and we're not the only one), which prefers to adapt its surroundings in order to survive, rather adapt to them.

> Take, for instance, a scenario in which
> a very large asteroid or comet strikes the earth
> (again). That could do the trick, and any sapient
> extraterrestrial observer would then be left to
> conclude that earthly evolution past the stage of
> viruses or bacteria was maladaptive.
>
> And that observer would be correct. If the
> standard is the survival of the species, the
> simplest and most adaptable life forms are the
> best. Everything else is (likely) a dead end.

This is correct. And I think this is the mistake of many astrobiologists - so called "higher" life is probably a freak occurrence, and human beings an even more unlikely result of that. Even our own geological record tends to suggest that.

"It could be that humans are intelligent enough to realize we are destroying our home and yet not wise enough to do anything about it. There's irony in that."

Yes, it's like a Greek tragedy. No wonder some people have suggested this world is some kind of prison. In some ways it is, although a very beautiful one. Unfortunately, some people are intent on making the prison even more restrictive, rather than fighting for our freedoms, and colonizing other worlds as we should be.

The problem with evolution is that it adapts creatures to past conditions not future ones. So that's where God messed up. And on some other things too.

lurking in Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The problem with evolution is that it adapts
> creatures to past conditions not future ones. So
> that's where God messed up. And on some other
> things too.

To some extent, but many future events largely reiterate previous ones. That's one thing the article gets right. We can be pretty certain floods, earthquakes and volcanic events shall happen in the near future.

In the case of this bird, losing the ability to fly was mostly a setback not an advantage. I suppose there may have been some minor issues with bodily configuration and weight which proved better in the new environment, but it also lost its ability to escape and take back its environment. In some senses, this change was brought on by a *lack* of evolutionary pressures, not an increase in them.

In the case of this bird, losing the ability to fly was mostly a setback not an advantage. I suppose there may have been some minor issues with bodily configuration and weight which proved better in the new environment, but it also lost its ability to escape and take back its environment. In some senses, this change was brought on by a *lack* of evolutionary pressures, not an increase in them.

COMMENT: In order for this to be classified as an evolutionary phenomena in the neo-Darwinian sense, the evolved flightlessness would have to represent an adaptive *advantage* such that flightlessness resulted from a genetic mutation that provided the phenotypes having this mutation an advantage over those that did not. Otherwise, there would have to be a non-evolutionary explanation for flightlessness.

But, the point here--and my general objection to your comments in this thread--is that it makes no sense to say in evolutionary terms that an adaptation created a disadvantage or was a mistake. Even in such cases where a common future event negates an evolutionary adaptation, it is misleading, to say the least, to suggest that due to such an event evolution actually created a disadvantage or was a "mistake." Evolution does not make mistakes. It just doesn't always bring about favorable long-term consequences in the face of environmental uncertainties.

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------


> But, the point here--and my general objection to
> your comments in this thread--is that it makes no
> sense to say in evolutionary terms that an
> adaptation created a disadvantage or was a
> mistake. Even in such cases where a common future
> event negates an evolutionary adaptation, it is
> misleading, to say the least, to suggest that due
> to such an event evolution actually created a
> disadvantage or was a "mistake." Evolution does
> not make mistakes. It just doesn't always bring
> about favorable long-term consequences in the face
> of environmental uncertainties.

There are evolutionary advantages and disadvantages. An advantage means a line persists, and a disadvantage lessens its numbers or finishes it off. A good friend of mine has neurofibromatosis, meaning he has noticeable growths on his body. No one in his close family has this, he just drew the short straw, and he refuses to have children, because he knows they have a good chance of inheriting it. NF is in no way an advantage. It is not a complete disadvantage either (he's close in age to me), but it does lower quality of life and sometimes lifespan.

It's very simple. But evolution does make mistakes. Tons of them. Some of these disappear very rapidly, some less so.

Some events like major meteorite impacts come along infrequently, but others such as dry summers and cold winters can come along frequently.

There are evolutionary advantages and disadvantages. An advantage means a line persists, and a disadvantage lessens its numbers or finishes it off.

COMMENT: No. You are confused. There are, of course, *mutations* that are advantageous and those that are disadvantageous. But "evolution" by definition involves the idea that a genetic variation creates a positive *adaptation* giving it a survival advantage, not a maladaptation. If a "line" that evolution has favored (because it exists) eventually dies out for one reason or another, like a catastrophic event, it has nothing whatever to do with evolution. It's just bad luck.
______________________________________________

A good friend of mine has neurofibromatosis, meaning he has noticeable growths on his body. No one in his close family has this, he just drew the short straw, and he refuses to have children, because he knows they have a good chance of inheriting it. NF is in no way an advantage. It is not a complete disadvantage either (he's close in age to me), but it does lower quality of life and sometimes lifespan.

COMMENT: This is not a case of evolution. However this might have occurred, it is just an unfortunate genetic aberration No natural selection, no adaptation.

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There are evolutionary advantages and
> disadvantages. An advantage means a line persists,
> and a disadvantage lessens its numbers or finishes
> it off.
>
> COMMENT: No. You are confused. There are, of
> course, *mutations* that are advantageous and
> those that are disadvantageous.

Erm, that's what I said.

But "evolution" by
> definition involves the idea that a genetic
> variation creates a positive *adaptation* giving
> it a survival advantage, not a maladaptation.

No, it doesn't. Evolution is change, not progress. There are plenty of plants and animals "painted into corners" (as another poster put it). A peacock's tail may look great to a peahen, and help produce more chicks, but it is also an impediment to escape from predators etc. (And these things can barely fly). It is largely a disadvantage.

> If a
> "line" that evolution has favored
(because it
> exists) eventually dies out for one reason or
> another, like a catastrophic event, it has nothing
> whatever to do with evolution. It's just bad
> luck.

Nope. Evolution is just luck of the draw. And it has no conscience.

______________________________________________
>
> A good friend of mine has neurofibromatosis,
> meaning he has noticeable growths on his body. No
> one in his close family has this, he just drew the
> short straw, and he refuses to have children,
> because he knows they have a good chance of
> inheriting it. NF is in no way an advantage. It is
> not a complete disadvantage either (he's close in
> age to me), but it does lower quality of life and
> sometimes lifespan.
>
> COMMENT: This is not a case of evolution. However
> this might have occurred, it is just an
> unfortunate genetic aberration No natural
> selection, no adaptation.

Erm, yes it is. Evolution results from genetic changes, some of which prove advantageous in the long term. Some of these changes cannot simply be put down to predation (like camouflage), natural disasters/condition (swimming abilities or ability to hibernate), mate selection or even resisting disease. They arise, persist and may grow into something advantageous or not.

A few minutes ago you said there were no advantages or disadvantages caused by evolutionary change, when there clearly are. Human intelligence is an advantage to some extent, despite being using up large resources (food, water etc), because it helps us create tools, hunting methods, predator evasion, shelter, clothing and to pass down survival knowledge.