4 ms·

Now... if you read the article. This animal lived only on this island, then, the island was submerged with water and "The birds (and all other land species livi

Now... if you read the article. This animal lived only on this island, then, the island was submerged with water and "The birds (and all other land species living on the island) went extinct." This sounds plausible to me. But you think that it is easier that somehow some birds survived the submersion of the island?

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
ip26 7y ago
Also important to add it was a flightless bird.
namaemuta 7y ago
Well, if a swallow can carry a coconut, it can also carry a flightless bird :p
klyrs 7y ago
Playing the devil's advocate here -- GP is resorting to attacks and straw arguments, but let's try to come up with something plausible. GP raises several examples of species once thought extinct, whose habitat never disappeared. However, the flightless rails appear to have lost their habitat. Did they? It's well known that flightless animals, such as moose, can and do migrate significant distances and colonize islands. They do it by swimming. Could flightless birds do the same? Quite possibly. It seems reasonable, to me, that a population of these flightless birds would colonize nearby land. What sounds more incredible is that they would then up, leave, and find their way home, thousands of years later -- all without leaving a trace. Perhaps this leads to an interesting follow-up study: are there geological records, or populations, of flightless rails on neighboring islands or nearby land masses?
- lurquer 7y ago
  Why does all critical thinking go out the window when it comes to evolution? (As well as being downvoted.) The atol in question was surveyed in the early 1900s. The rails were there. There has never been a time -- that we know of -- when the rails weren't there. There are also dozens of other types of birds, giant non-marine tortoises, flying squirrels, bats, and a huge assortment of reptiles. The only 'fact' that underpins this story is the assumption that "all life on the island went extinct" at some point AFTER some particular fossil of the rail was found. There is no basis for this 'fact'. It's absurd. There is also no explanation regarding where the other non-marine animals on the island came from after this speculated 'extinction' event. To be clear, there is no story here UNLESS one assumes the entire atol was submerged at some time AFTER the fossilization event. Rails exist there today. The fossil record has rails. There has never been a time when there weren't rails that we know of. And there is no solid evidence that all life went extinct on the atol, and a large amount of evidence that there was no extinction event.
  - klyrs 7y ago
    Calling people "idiots" doesn't help your case. And that's almost certainly what was getting you downvoted. > To be clear, there is no story here UNLESS one assumes the entire atol was submerged at some time AFTER the fossilization event. Figure 3 of the original article suggests exactly that. Rather than call people idiots and heaping scorn for a "lack of critical thinking", find a counter-argument. Like, perhaps the atoll was taller, and a few meters' erosion could make the difference. But I'm not a geologist, so that's just an armchair guess.
  - Jedd 7y ago
    Out of curiosity, are you religious? Disclosure - I am not, consequently I have no vested interest in either explanation (the article's considered, moderate, science-based proposal, or your knee jerk dismissal). I am confident the authors of the article considered the possibility that the animal(s) never actually went extinct, though the basis for their conclusions seem sound. The journals would be full of wild claims if things not seen for a few decades were deemed to be miraculously rediscovered after each hiatus. That the fossil bones (of the originals) and the skeletal structure (of the new) are similar, but not identical - let alone the submerged island problem - speaks against your claim that they're the same.
- gshdg 7y ago
  You make a good point. Birds, especially, tend to float in water, given that they evolved specifically to have a low density in order to fly (i.e. float in air). A bird left floating for a long time will probably die of starvation or dehydration; but it's much less likely than a mammal to drown when it tires. So there's a better chance that it will still be alive when it washes up on some other beach, if that happens within a couple days.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

ip26 7y ago

Also important to add it was a flightless bird.

namaemuta 7y ago

Well, if a swallow can carry a coconut, it can also carry a flightless bird :p

klyrs 7y ago

Playing the devil's advocate here -- GP is resorting to attacks and straw arguments, but let's try to come up with something plausible. GP raises several examples of species once thought extinct, whose habitat never disappeared. However, the flightless rails appear to have lost their habitat. Did they? It's well known that flightless animals, such as moose, can and do migrate significant distances and colonize islands. They do it by swimming. Could flightless birds do the same? Quite possibly. It seems reasonable, to me, that a population of these flightless birds would colonize nearby land. What sounds more incredible is that they would then up, leave, and find their way home, thousands of years later -- all without leaving a trace. Perhaps this leads to an interesting follow-up study: are there geological records, or populations, of flightless rails on neighboring islands or nearby land masses?

lurquer 7y ago
Why does all critical thinking go out the window when it comes to evolution? (As well as being downvoted.) The atol in question was surveyed in the early 1900s. The rails were there. There has never been a time -- that we know of -- when the rails weren't there. There are also dozens of other types of birds, giant non-marine tortoises, flying squirrels, bats, and a huge assortment of reptiles. The only 'fact' that underpins this story is the assumption that "all life on the island went extinct" at some point AFTER some particular fossil of the rail was found. There is no basis for this 'fact'. It's absurd. There is also no explanation regarding where the other non-marine animals on the island came from after this speculated 'extinction' event. To be clear, there is no story here UNLESS one assumes the entire atol was submerged at some time AFTER the fossilization event. Rails exist there today. The fossil record has rails. There has never been a time when there weren't rails that we know of. And there is no solid evidence that all life went extinct on the atol, and a large amount of evidence that there was no extinction event.
- klyrs 7y ago
  Calling people "idiots" doesn't help your case. And that's almost certainly what was getting you downvoted. > To be clear, there is no story here UNLESS one assumes the entire atol was submerged at some time AFTER the fossilization event. Figure 3 of the original article suggests exactly that. Rather than call people idiots and heaping scorn for a "lack of critical thinking", find a counter-argument. Like, perhaps the atoll was taller, and a few meters' erosion could make the difference. But I'm not a geologist, so that's just an armchair guess.
- Jedd 7y ago
  Out of curiosity, are you religious? Disclosure - I am not, consequently I have no vested interest in either explanation (the article's considered, moderate, science-based proposal, or your knee jerk dismissal). I am confident the authors of the article considered the possibility that the animal(s) never actually went extinct, though the basis for their conclusions seem sound. The journals would be full of wild claims if things not seen for a few decades were deemed to be miraculously rediscovered after each hiatus. That the fossil bones (of the originals) and the skeletal structure (of the new) are similar, but not identical - let alone the submerged island problem - speaks against your claim that they're the same.
gshdg 7y ago
You make a good point. Birds, especially, tend to float in water, given that they evolved specifically to have a low density in order to fly (i.e. float in air). A bird left floating for a long time will probably die of starvation or dehydration; but it's much less likely than a mammal to drown when it tires. So there's a better chance that it will still be alive when it washes up on some other beach, if that happens within a couple days.