Long-held Assumptions Of Flightless Bird Evolution Challenged By New Research

hermanntrude

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Jun 23, 2006
7,267
118
63
46
Newfoundland!
ScienceDaily (Sep. 7, 2008) — Large flightless birds of the southern continents – African ostriches, Australian emus and cassowaries, South American rheas and the New Zealand kiwi – do not share a common flightless ancestor as once believed.


Male ostrich in Nairobi National Park, Kenya. (Credit: iStockphoto/Klaas Lingbeek- Van Kranen)

Instead, each species individually lost its flight after diverging from ancestors that did have the ability to fly, according to new research conducted in part by University of Florida zoology professor Edward Braun.

The new research, which appears this week in the online edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, has several important implications.

First, it means some ratites, like the emus, are much more closely related to their airborne cousins, the tinamous, than they are to other ratites, Braun said.

Second, it means the ratites are products of parallel evolution – different species in significantly different environments following the exact same evolutionary course.

Braun and his fellow researchers began closely studying this group of flightless birds, known collectively as ratites, after a discovery made while working on a larger-scale effort to better understand the evolution of birds and their genomes by analyzing corresponding genetic material sampled from the tissue of many different bird species and determining how they relate to one another.

As they analyzed the genetic material, they noticed that the ratites did not form a natural group based on their genetic makeup. Rather, they belonged to multiple related but distinct groups that contained another group of birds, the tinamous, with the ability to fly.

Previously, the ratites were used as a textbook example of vicariance, a term that describes the geographical division of a single species, resulting in two or more very similar sub-groups that can then undergo further evolutionary change and eventually become very distinct from one another.

Scientists assumed that a single flightless common ancestor of the ratites lived on the supercontinent of Gondwana, which slowly broke up into Africa, South America, Australia and New Zealand; once divided, the ancestor species evolved slightly in each new location to produce the differences among the present-day ratites, Braun said.

But in light of this new information, he said it's more likely that the ratites' ancestors distributed themselves among the southern continents after the breakup of Gondwana, which began about 167 million years ago, in a much more obvious way.

They flew.

Although these new revelations teach evolutionary scientists a great deal, they also pose a great many new questions. For example, why did these birds evolve into such similar organisms in such different environments?

"To know for sure, we'll have to go into the lab and really study the genetics underlying the ratites' developmental pathway," Braun said. "But nobody would have asked that question without the type of data we've collected, which raises the question in the first place."

The scientists' effort to analyze such a tremendous amount of genetic material collected from birds across the globe is in turn just a single part of a program called Assembling the Tree of Life, funded and organized by the National Science Foundation, which aims to assemble a body of similar research for every group of organisms on the planet, including animals, plants, fungi, algae and bacteria.
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
I was reading something about this a while ago, it had to do with bats and birds who share the same niche, both developed flight to take advantage of resources, they had examples of very similar looking animals right down to colouration that were entirely different species.
 

hermanntrude

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Jun 23, 2006
7,267
118
63
46
Newfoundland!
another oft-quoted example of parallel evolution is the octopus, human and squid eyes. Very similar designs but in very different animals
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
It's interesting to read about the catastropic versus steady evolution schools. There was also something about shared minds of species, in other words multiple indenticle copies with the same mind, physicle individuality but shared software transferrable updatable very long lived approaching immortality. They've been here a long long time, they've had oportunity to think about stuff. There's a lot of challenged long held assumptions. Assumptions is a polite word for the prevailing state of scientific validity. I think it's gotten very dusty, at least from certain perspectives.
 

hermanntrude

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Jun 23, 2006
7,267
118
63
46
Newfoundland!
I think this article is a good indication that assumptions can be challenged successfully within the scientific world and so the scientific method is not becoming too rigid and unchangeable.

All assumptions are known to be exactly that, and can be challenged whenever evidence appears to contradict them
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
Paradigm shifts happen, we can't know everything about the natural world. My geology professor attended a seminar at his university back in the 60s. The faculty called the subject "bunk" and "rot", told him he was wasting his time. Today we call it plate tectonics.

When we find something unexpected, that can be the beginning of exciting new questions and research paths. Sure, some assumptions may prove to be wrong, but we use them while they work. That's no different than what we do every day in our lives.
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
I think this article is a good indication that assumptions can be challenged successfully within the scientific world and so the scientific method is not becoming too rigid and unchangeable.

All assumptions are known to be exactly that, and can be challenged whenever evidence appears to contradict them

Definatly it does while pointing out the need to avoid assumptions in the first place. Certainly assumptions can be challenged whenever evidence becomes overwhelming and enjoys wide distribution.
 

hermanntrude

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Jun 23, 2006
7,267
118
63
46
Newfoundland!
Definatly it does while pointing out the need to avoid assumptions in the first place. Certainly assumptions can be challenged whenever evidence becomes overwhelming and enjoys wide distribution.

sometimes you need to make the assumption to find the evidence to change your assumption into a theory, and sometimes (if you're incredibly lucky) you get a fact out of it all.