Slashdot Mirror
Bird Feeders Might Be Changing Bird Beaks (axios.com)
An anonymous reader shares a report: Bird beaks might be evolving to better fit bird feeders. A study of great tits in the UK, where feeders are common, found the bird's beaks have grown over the last 26 years, that British birds had longer beaks than those in the Netherlands, and that birds with genes for longer beaks were more likely to visit feeders, per Science News. Scientists have known that environmental changes, like El Nino, can influence the evolution of animals. Now, it appears something as simple as bird feeders can do the same. The scientists looked at the beaks of 2,322 great tits from the UK and the Netherlands, and also examined their genes. They tagged birds with gene variants for short and long beaks and tracked their feeding habits. What they found: The British birds had longer beaks and were more likely to have genes associated with beak length.
The only reason to attract birds is to feed cats.
This is exactly how evolution is expected to work and originally documented by Darwin' study of Galapagos Finches.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
u wot m8
I can imagine that conversation....
"So, you're a field researcher? What do you study?"
"Great tits!"
"Ah, you're an ornithologist?"
"What? Oh, uh... yeah, sure..."
=Smidge=
We're 6 comments in, and nobody has made a 'tits' joke.
First they grab my attention...
2,322 great tits from the UK and the Netherlands
and then they show me some birds? Is the internet broken today? ;)
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Please
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
Though in the UK, this phrase means something altogether completely different.
The German word is "Meise", Great Tits are "Kohlmeisen". Totally inconspicuous. At least name them in Latin. Or something. But the Internet is already overloaded with great tits.
I've not heard of that bird species before. No worries. Google to the rescue!
Let's see here...
images.google.com
Search for... "Great tit" ...
Well, guess I should have seen that one coming.
This is a moral dilemma, and there are strong arguments both ways, but I lean towards feeding them for a number of reasons for this. Firstly, human activity is having a very negative impact on bird populations, and populations are declining rapidly. It seems morally correct to compensate for the damage by help the animals, and feeding them to maintain their population is one way of doing that.
Feeding does seem to have a beneficial effect. For example if we look at tits, a family of birds that are very adept at eating from feeders, we see their population is stable. While if we look at sparrows, which will absolutely never eat from feeders and will only ever feed from the ground, we see their population is in decline, and numbers are headed towards dangerously low levels. As human populations continue to expand, it appears as though feeding of birds is the only thing that's going to save them.
The second reason I lean towards feeding is that during the winter 50% of small birds die due to a combination of starving and freezing to death, which is an extremely unpleasant way to go. If I were starving and freezing, I know I would like somebody to give me food, and I'm certain the birds would have the same attitude. Feeding birds avoids a lot of suffering. Yes, it does interfere with nature, but humans are already interfering on a massive scale. We may as well engage in some positive interference to counter our huge negative impact.
What they found: The British birds had longer beaks and were more likely to have genes associated with beak length.
How on earth you could connect longer beaks with genes for beak length, Mr Holmes!
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
It seems we have a propensity, as a species, to name bird species after cleavage.
In the Galapagos you have several species of Boobies.
Meanwhile, in the UK, you actually have a bird called "great tits"... This is rather creepy to be honest.
I think the ornithologists need to get out more, but I'm not sure if that would help.
The awkward conversation:
"I think that bird looks like a woman's breast, I shall call it Great Tits!"
"Have you ever seen a woman's breast?"
"No, but I would expect it to look like a bird."
BlameBillCosby.com
That's not a news source, lol moron. You Trumpies are pathetic faggots.
I guess it's too much to expect you to actually read and follow links, and learn on your own?
Typical progtard. Only good at repeating what he's been told to believe.
And you wonder why "progressive" societies fail. How's that Venezuelan "revolution" coming, comrade?
How can they evolve so quickly? Maybe they're not and their beaks are getting sharpened differently or it's just selective breeding/survival and not really evolution.
We are part of nature.
Requiem for the American Dream
"Scientists Notice a Change in Great Tits"
Insectivores have to look elsewhere, adapt, overcome and evolve.
Mutations such as this are only the beginning.
Alfred Hitchcock would have loved this.
"A study of great tits in the UK"
Tee hee
Lady: "How interesting! What are you studying?"
Researcher: "Great Tits."
Lady: "Um, thanks, but my eyes are up here!"
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Shifting of the population expression rate of genes already present in the gene pool is such weak tea, I practically have to screen for homeopathy dilution when I read a story submission like this one.
An actual evolution product worth talking about is the capacity of a population to rapidly shift composition to match local conditions.
Ideally, the number of short beaks would remain compatible with the food best exacted with short beaks, while the number of long beaks increases to optimally extract the newly available food source. Or some blended matrix of similar effect. Then, when the feeders all go away (easy come, easy go), it all shifts back again. What an awesome survival skill, that evolution might in some mysterious way have favoured over long megamillennia.
When I adjust the dial on my coffee grinder to suit a new bean, I don't go around calling it evolution. Somehow my ego never got that particular genetic memo.
The grandiose gadflies have long coexisted with the bullshit busters, in fluctuating ratio as social norms evolve. It might be true that a fool is born every minute, but it won't help the grifters much if a grifter is born every thirty seconds. There's a fancy name for a long-term phenotypic equilibrium (ever drifting) which I presently forget. But look around, there are many, all around us.
Case in point: beach weakling has the pick of the marital litter if 90% of the local population is homologous for CAD (and women have any say in the matter at all).
Thus always both types, in some ratio.
So we just need to have some feeders that spill food out onto the ground?
Evolution generally describes the changing of genes and DANA in animals which leads to changes in them. The changes are then weeded through by natural selection for the best. This article describes a process where birds already have the ability to grow longer beaks meaning that this isn't evolution it's natural selection.
Great tits acquire taste for bats. Did the beaks change for them? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8245165.stm
"He's lost in a 'floyd hole"
Even after having paid of a record settlement out of court of $32mil. I guess the rightwingnutjobs want to disguise the abhorrence of their creeps and their lack of upbraiding their creeps by pointing at a leftwing creep who the left wing are already dogpiling on to decry and ostracise.
Get on with dogpiling on your bunch of creeps, asshole.
The species is evolving: changing over time. What it isn't is speciation. Retard.
It does not matter if it is "better evidence" for design, it's evidence for evolution. What fucks up the design are things like: what design required the coccyx? None. Unless the "design" was based on a monkey with a tail. You know, like human design evolved from the monkey design. Of course, there's no need for a designer to do that because evolution will do it without one.
That's not a news source you retarded Trump faggot.
The scientists looked at... 2,322 great tits
Where can I get this job.
Scientists paid to look at great tits all day? Where do I sign up???
They are so nice and fluffy
What kind of sparrows do you have? Ours eat from feeders all the time and are nowhere near dangerously low numbers. Certain feeder designs may foil them, but anything with a perch they will eat out of.
There are ground feeders for birds that like to scratch and forage. They're usually platforms a few inches off the ground.
Those things are an open invitation for mice, chipmunks, squirrels, skunks, and raccoons, which can otherwise be excluded by using an elevated feeder. Nevertheless, thanks for the link.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
"We finished our study, and while we didn't find anything out about your little yellow birds, we have a shitload of pictures of Eva Green."
here's a theory. The Russians spent money on both sides? After all, AT&T, Comcast, Verizon, Oil Companies, and Drug companies do it.
You know what? You made me rethink my post and I was mistaken about one, and of course, only one thing - Trumpters don't actually ever defend Trump, they're too busy playing apologist, by bashing Hillary in return - usually by quoting some dopey fucking propaganda they heard on Faux-"News".
You can go fuck off, now, you fucking Trumpologist.