This Bird Is Evolving Right in Front of Us 

😂😂🤣😂🤣😂😅🥹

Smol bird now swol bird. 😂

Those were huge snails! I bet it's quite the meal, and definitely fuel for get in those reps 😂

The energy and power it takes to hover, then take off from a partially submerged position, while hauling those heavy snails is astonishing...and the slo-mo really shows that!

The power of white compels you Fentanyl fossil fuels Jan Sex! CO2 Jenny Harlan Crowe Mitochondrial Eve N selection House Mother ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-CJdT6QcSbQ0.html

Osprey and other diving birds could also have great success in that environment

I thought it was fake. CGI

That’s not slow motion. They’ve evolved to maneuver much slower than before. Pretty amazing!

Or people do.

Gators do have a taste for python, but there are so many pythons and they can get so big that many can kill gators as well.

Exactly what I was thinking.....

@@lildarkmatter8373that’s a shame, we need the gators to get swole

@itookallthenames It seriously is a shame. At least they take some pythons down with them. There's a going theory that since they will often appear dead (when they've just slowed breathing/heartrate) they're still alive when swallowed sometimes. So they thrash around, and pop the python like the world's worst piñata. Several pythons were found "popped" from alligators so that's why I say theory.

I still got one more in me !! --- Snail Kites at the edge of extinction

Uhh... Snail big.

Haha 😂

breeder did it, fish and game campaign.... we did it with wolves... bred em with huskies.... all wolves in the wild now are 10% malemute... and the general public was told nuthing.... all contracts were private.... America has changed

@@windygrass9807smol bird now swol bird. 😂

If it was just good enough it couldn't work. They say we have some DNA similar to Bananas. May be evolved from Bananas.

"Wathever works" - Life, everywhere

Of course it's not perfect because it's always changing. The only kind of organism that could truly be perfect is one that is adaptable to all potential conditions without any need for evolutionary genetic changes. This is why homo sapiens are so successful at spreading out - we are insanely adaptable.

@@mnomadvfxdoesn’t that humans are beautiful?

"Hey man, I'll let whatever versions of you survive as long as they can live long enough to have kids"

Its crazy how they instinctively know whats food and whats not

We need to protect it against people!

Is the this bird throning into a dinosaur

​@@timmaz24sbirds have never stopped being dinos. If your ancestors were a certain thing, then technically you're that thing forever.

​@@nathancanaan102 their senses don't work like ours, they are more than instincs, also fails and learning but we don't use to see that part on video

It is doom and gloom story for the snail😂

@@saketrashmi touché

lmao, aint it the truth!

Index funds. ..... 24% last year.

Read the millionaire fastlane

😂

Well, they are dinosaurs …

It's a little known fact that this behavior is responsible for their name

Yes, natural selection, not "Evolution".

These are the results produced by starvation. This is Darwinism 101 in action. But in this case, instead of the strongest surviving, it's the biggest.

@@angrydragon4574 Natural selection doesn't work by selecting the strongest, it works by selecting the species that can reproduce the best, surviving just helps them reproduce, and being strong just helps them survive, alot of animals aren't strong and have evolved other traits to help them survive like being small and agile in rats.

@@angrydragon4574 "Evolution hasn't been observed while it's happening." . Evolution does not meet the scientific method.

@@earlysdaif you could live for thousands of years you could see it in large organisms. But we routinely see it in smaller faster reproducing ones. The emergence of superbugs resistant to antibiotics is an observable evolution

What’s crazy to me is it happened in less than two generations.

Isn't it using what they're given, to the best of their ability, and moving to where they are most comfortable?

@@theriveroffaith852 no, they were there already. It's natural selection. These birds are, probably by a genetic mutation, better adapted to eating these snails. Over time, or two generations in this case, the birds who aren't well adapted disappear, die out, move away whatever, and the genes of the most successful, better adapted birds proliferate.

Adaption is the bird changing to overcome it's environment and challenges, if it can. If it can't it dies. Evolution is the bird becoming a horse or a giraffe, that's impossible. There's a limit to how much the bird can change. For example if a species of donkeys invaded the wetlands, the bird won't become lions to eat the donkeys. Sometimes evolution is taught that way and it's wrong. And it doesn't matter if a trillion years passed, the bird would be dead by then.

Get back with me when a bird turns into a giraffe!

Ya lol mixing hybrid monkeys in what do u expect.

Devolution doesnt exist

@@muslimcel4581 Prove it.

... as a result of socialism.

@@Darren51283exactly! Modern communist parties such as the greens, the social democrats, the postmodernists, the environmentalists, etc have already helped the devolution of the europeans.

Unless your generation time is short enough (see: MRSA).

This is true; evolution is always at play, even when populations are stable or selection forces are weak enough that it's not very noticeable (like humans and wisdom teeth). In the case of the kites, the selection bias is very strong, so the evolution happens quick enough to see.

Indeed there were some elephants in Africa that were hunted due to their tusks and now many years later only elephants with small tusks remain, survival of the fittest. Nature will always adapt no matter what we do. What we're doing now is *nothing* compared to what has happened in the history of our planet. It's unfortunate that other species have to suffer because of us, that's my only problem.

Except for all the f-ing antibiotic resistance, that happens too fast 😂

@@KateeAngel Because it's bacteria. E. Coli can reproduce every 20 minutes. That's three generations per hour, 72 per day, 26,280 per year. Compare that to one per year for birds and many animals and about 20 years for a human generation. That's why evolution happens so quickly for bacteria.

Their must be an intellect intelligence behind creation.

​@@jameswatson5807 I had a stroke reading your comment.

@@jab7812 Google speech to text.

@@jab7812 Are you still in hospital take is easy.

@@jab7812 Are you in the hospital now, you've got to be careful have more fruits and veg in your diet. Antique vitamin d and vitamin k with the cofactors, try to limit meat consumption drink more water. And walk more no I'm not conspiracy theory but if you did get the jab, it could be related I did not get the jab. I eat very healthy so it's no issue with me.

We're a part of nature too. Eventually our population will balance out - 8 billion is unsustainable.

It's STILL a bird. The same species it ALWAYS was.

​​@@wms72 okay? Nobody's saying it switched species lmao It's still natural selection, just within one species rather than an entire ecosystem

@@wms72 it evolved into a bird, technically, but yes, it’s still a bird now

Nope..it's not from natural selection but from predator-pray selection. Evolution can have many reasons behind it.

@@garethmcguinness377It doesnt have to change species to evolve. Any change of a characterist is evolution. Evolution can come from any number of proximal pressures like natural selection, sexual selection, competition, predator-prey etc.

True... However... As long as species have been evolving, species have been going extinct. It is estimated that over 99.9% of all species that ever lived are extinct. The average lifespan of a species is 1-10 million years, although this varies widely between taxa

"nature always finds a way" Extinction: "Am I a joke to you?"

@@rodshop5897 extinction is part of nature ... survival of the fittest?? Natural selection ?adapt or ?

@@rodshop5897 isn't that what extinction is part of nature? natural selection? survival of teh fitest? Adapt or ?

@@neoanderson726 Sure, extinction is part of nature, but extinction is not "finding a way" it's the end of the line.

@AnaMendezLovesBonobos I guess you didn’t understand my point. Religious folk and evolution deniers will not tie adaptation to evolution. They instead try to separate the two and say one doesn’t prove the other. Although it’s obviously asinine.

@AnaMendezLovesBonobos oh mb then, we are on the same page lol.

Once again, this is not an example of actual evolution. Evolution would be “natural selection of random point mutations.” It’s not like the bird had a new single letter mutation which gave it a bigger beak. This is just expressing the existing gene for size a bit longer. Beak, and other body parts size, already exist within a range. Big beaked birds already existed before the supposed evolution happened! It would be like someone killing everyone in an area that doesn’t have red hair and then saying, “Wow, evolution in a single day! Now everyone has red hair.” Natural selection is LOSING genetic information, not gaining. All the genetic info for producing other hair colors was lost. Evolution is a destructive process. It just randomly corrupts functional code until some of it stops working. One cannot produce anything truly new with a destructive process. All genetic diseases are mutations which have broken a necessary function and limited someone. And natural selection, which is claimed eliminates bad mutations, seems incapable of purging the damaged code. Thus, genetic diseases keep accumulating. If anything, creatures are de-volving, not getting better. Everything was wisely designed to have a range of features, sizes, colors, smells, etc. This provides wonderful diversity and resilience. These genes already existed though and just needed to be combined in different ways or be expressed for a longer or shorter time. These variations oscillate around a mean and will never produce anything truly new. www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/science/

I didn't even know snails could fly kites.

Just to clarify, you are effectively cheering the death of the small beaked snail kites.

Yas kween Werk

​@@georgebush6002that is how nature works bud

Poor humans headed for idiocracy

How about the jumbo snails? They didn't get the evolution memo??

The reason this form of evolution occurred so quickly is simple - the biggest of the snail kites were succeeding in handling the larger snails and these larger kites were selected for their ability to handle the new reality they found themselves living in. Thw larger kites solely had to pass thwir genes for one or two generations and now that the larger kites are the predominant birds in their species their problem has been solved. Darwinism 101, adapt or die.

If you hold one of these puppies in your hand you can see why they're nicknamed "apple snails". The biggest one I've found was almost tennis ball big. And yeah, the mind automatically goes to 'escargot' ........ but don't try to eat these, LOL. Escargot snails are terrestrial and therefore relatively clean-living. Water snails can make you dog-a$$-sick.

With the deaths of small beaked snail kites 🙃

​@@Krankenwagen571 It's not like the small beaked snail kites and the big beaked snail kites are separate species from each other. ( Or at least not yet. ) Not everything in life has to remain the same just because we humans grew up with the current version. Mother nature doesn't/has ever and will never care about human bias or how attach we get to a variant a an animal. ( And don't give that "Oh so we should just let every species die if they can't adapt?" talk. I never said that so don't try and put words in my mouth to win an argument. ) She also doesn't care about which variant of a particular animal survives and which don't. The main goal of life is to survive and if the snail kites have to develop bigger beaks to survive at the cost of weeding out the small beaked ones than so be it. In addition speciation mother nature can also fodder off anyone who can't survive the changes to an environment . That's just the progress of life.

Life finds its* way (singular, if it was plural it'd be "their*")

Micro-evolution pretty normal. Vs. macro-evolution where generations diverge into new species, genuses, classes, phyla, kingdoms.

@@charlesstevenson2642 Well it's not so much "normal" vs. "not normal." It's shorter periods of time versus many millennia, which is hard for some people to wrap their minds around.

​@audreymuzingo933 My first thought on this was how it may be actually a problem for scientists. Like said in the video it only took a decade for this to happen, wouldn't that be way to fast for neo darwinism? I will also point at the complete opposite side of the spectrum where scientists found that gars would only a .000000001 genetic change over millions of years yet there are many gar species that look completely different but have the same genetics?

@@Daily-PEit’s all circumstantial. Stronger selective pressure, among other things, would lead to faster expected changes. The fact that the horseshoe crab has remained nearly unchanged for something like 100 million years doesn’t hamper the fact that other species have evolved a whole lot in that time.

@@Daily-PE Alot of scientists would actuallly love it

Phoebe is someone in real life you would see yelling at the strangers on the street lol

Growing up is realising none of the Friends were that pleasant

Not magic, just natural selection- or perhaps unnatural selection in the case of Elephants, since the ones with tusks were getting killed, the ones without reproduced. However most elephants still are growing tusks. Many are being removed by conservationists in order to protect them.

Reference. Evidence?

@@jz4087It’s called Google & you need to evolve more to use it.

Pretty sure those are just females

@@jz4087 National Geographic

Once again, this is not an example of actual evolution. Evolution would be “natural selection of random point mutations.” It’s not like the bird had a new single letter mutation which gave it a bigger beak. This is just expressing the existing gene for size a bit longer. Beak, and other body parts size, already exist within a range. Big beaked birds already existed before the supposed evolution happened! It would be like someone killing everyone in an area that doesn’t have red hair and then saying, “Wow, evolution in a single day! Now everyone has red hair.” Natural selection is LOSING genetic information, not gaining. All the genetic info for producing other hair colors was lost. Evolution is a destructive process. It just randomly corrupts functional code until some of it stops working. One cannot produce anything truly new with a destructive process. All genetic diseases are mutations which have broken a necessary function and limited someone. And natural selection, which is claimed eliminates bad mutations, seems incapable of purging the damaged code. Thus, genetic diseases keep accumulating. If anything, creatures are de-volving, not getting better. Everything was wisely designed to have a range of features, sizes, colors, smells, etc. This provides wonderful diversity and resilience. These genes already existed though and just needed to be combined in different ways or be expressed for a longer or shorter time. These variations oscillate around a mean and will never produce anything truly new. Shuffle the canine deck of genes as long as you want and you will never get a feline and vice-versa, because those genes aren’t in that deck. Family is the equivalent of the Genesis kind. Diverse potential was packed into each Kind which can be bred into unique species WITHIN the Kind (Family classification) but experiments have proved can never result in a new Family taxonomy. www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/science/

Evolution is a myth.

this isn't evolution. it's adaptation.

@mikesiver1950 so is the god of israel

​@@lepton31415 adaptation is the first step to evolution. Maybe you need to watch a few more Nature PBS videos

@@lepton31415 It is evolution by natural selection.

Bears , Crows , pigeons , seals do not speciate much , that's why they ruling . Also we humans the lone species of our genus

what kind of snails are these?

Originally, there was one language and half of the world was trying to decipher their LIVING language. They didn't know which letter each word begins and ends with. They tried to monitor what we were saying. The bird-related title of this video must be a reference to the Lynyrd Skynyrd song which is about the same thing.

@@pikiwiki apple snails; original prey was a smaller native subspecies of apple snail, the larger snails came from the aquarium trade

That is how evolution is taught and how it works.

Exactly, no "evolving" at all shown here.

@@earlysdathis is what evolution is

No it was the bigger beaks

@@earlysda Correct. Adaptation is proven, but for this to be "evolution" the bird would have to be changing to another species. If you listen carefully, you will hear that "most" kites cannot eat the snails. But, that means some of the can, and these are the ones who have a competitive advantage. Nothing new has been grown, all species have natural variations. Humans, for example, come in various morphologies, making some better at sports and others at cerebral tasks, but no new limbs, nor massive brains are "evolving." They already exist as part of the genomic expression. New "parts" require new DNA first....

It's survival of the luckiest, because many species that could've evolved to fit their niches went extinct instead, due to haphazard environmental contingencies.

But it IS always a myth.

Fairy-tale of Evolution.

@@earlysda Evolution is a scientific fact. You don't understand it.

@@earlysda yup, just like that one fairy tale, can't remember its name...ah yes, the bible of course, every child loves that one for sure... -.-'

@@LaKeef4323 Zvonimir/LaKeef, it is not possible, by definition, for anyone to truly be an Atheist.

@@earlysda why are you so reluctant to understand a simple concept? It would make sense if you were still a child; when I was a kid I thought evolution couldn’t be possible because I couldn’t understand how the process worked. But as an adult I understand that it’s impossible for evolution not to be happening because ignoring that it exists goes against pretty much everything we know about how life works. I think if you refuse to “believe” it, it’s because you think about things on a surface level and don’t deeply analyze the way our world works. You must have heard “the theory of evolution is bad and wrong” from the people in your life and have never stopped to question it

The tropical environment is suitable for many invasive species but as you can see in this video here it means that the species will adapt or die.

@@angrydragon4574 Except the invasive species are not the ones adapting or dieing here, the native one is.

@@chir0pter This bird is clearly proving otherwise.

@@angrydragon4574 The bird is native! "Except the invasive species are not the ones adapting or dieing here, the native one is."

@@chir0pter You stupid or something? The bird's population just tripled. That's not a dying event, it's an adaptation.

This is natural selection. Further information is needed to demonstrate that it's a case of Darwinian evolution.

It’s still a snail kite. And it’s micro evolution

The main arguments aren't over microevolution. The majority of Christians agree that microevolution exists. The argument lies in macroevolution.

Greetings, y'all. Microevolution, macroevolution, Darwinian evolution... that's burying your head in the sand. We humans have a 98.8% genetic similarity with chimpanzees. There's a reason we can test medicines in lab rats, we have a 97.5% similarity. There are tons of fossils showing us how things happened in the large scale. *Evolution* is real. Trying to skip its consequences by denying the humbling part of it won't do. Humility is a virtue, you know? What a better lesson in humility could have God devised than Evolution? Is that so different from being created from *mud?*

​@@stephenwright4973natural selection leads to evolution?

Must be bots.

@@frankmacleod2565 Would be nice to think so, but some of these comments are even dumber than bots.

@@zweigackroyd7301 sadly, that is a good point

Few minutes ago, I saw a bird that discovered......... You know what, I'm going to bed

​@@daisuke5971😂

That’s not evolution. That’s adaptation. The kite is still a kite.

@@mikesiver1950 I guess you can argue the finches of Galápagos Islands are adaptations also but they are classified as different species. Give the Kite a while evolution takes time.

@@oneskydog6768 So tell us what the kite is going to become, if you can. Will it turn into a fish? Maybe a dog? Maybe you can tell us what the kite used to be? Was it a frog? Maybe a horse? The answer is none of the above, because evolution is an unproven theory. It is a myth and has been debunked beyond a shadow of a doubt. The kite was always a kite and will continue to be a kite. It was not some other animal before it was a bird, and it will not ever be anything but a bird. If you doubt what I say is true, perhaps you should do even just a little digging. The evidence is overwhelming and very easy to find.

​@@mikesiver1950you are confusing evolution with speciation. Adaptation is an outcome of the evolutionary process, which is what we see in this Kite population. The evolutionary mechanism at play here being natural selection.

@@maxleshaolin On the contrary. You’re confusing adaptation with evolution. The bird is still a bird. It didn’t become a cow. It didn’t become a frog. It just got bigger. That’s adaptation, not evolution. The birds adapted to their larger prey and got larger themselves. They did not become an entirely different species, which is the premise of evolution.

Apart from the mountains of evidence for evolution. Maybe it's time for your thinking to evolve.

@@nexpro6985 You dond get the internet gergo do you? How old are you?

They’re an invasive species

It is , but for some reason they keep calling it evolution. This is an educational channel too , so you'd think they'd operate on a higher standard.

@@sunset6958 Adaptation is literally the evolutionary process. They can be used interchangeably with the same end result. This is just arguing semantics one which term is technically more correct, when both are accurate.

It is an adaptation, evolution is a series of adaptations. It's still called "evolution" even if it's not a new species yet, because evolution is the process by which diversity in wildlife is shaped.

Evolution is simply changes in allele frequency over time, usually in adaptation to environmental pressures. That's it, easy-peasy.

Adaptation is an outcome of the evolutionary process

Then their descendants are most likely still living in that neighborhood.

Pay attention.

Adaptation is one outcome of the evolutionary process. You are probably mistaking evolution with speciation.

Bigger than the Earth itself, I think.

@@GGoAwayy LOL!

Some animals' sizes increase over time if there's an abundance of food sources and they have time to grow older and get bigger. The sizes decrease when there are less and less food sources. That's why there are currently no megasize land animals after the extinct ones died/killed off.

You cannot be serious? Did you get that silly statement from a creationist apologist?

@@nexpro6985 He's not wrong though, just because you don't agree doesn't make him wrong. The correct term the title was looking for was adaptation

@@sunset6958 An adaptation is part of the evolutionary process they are related terms, arguing semantics when the end result is the same is not a productive discussion.

@@SirNarax The OP's comment is referring to Darwin's particular theory of evolution which is change of kind (e.g monkey to human) which we have not seen in this video or really, anywhere. When most people hear evolution that image is the first thing that pops in their mind. You can attempt to argue that semantics are at play and that this conversation might not be productive which i can understand, agree to disagree, but under this thread we're specifically talking about using the more accurate word adaptation over evolution and that isn't an unreasonable request and i agree with OP.

@@sunset6958 To have an adaptation is to evolve and to evolve is to have adaptations. To call an adaptation evolution is an accurate one. Like getting upset when someone calls a laptop a computer.

Dark side? That implies some kind of morality.

It does sadden me sometimes that suffering is the engine of evolution. “Nature red in tooth and claw” and all that.

As a raptor biologist, I will say that I am not sure I would be so restricted in my definitions. It's clearly as much natural selection as anything could be. The fact that it's happening quickly is no different than the classic peppered moth example. Nature is "selecting" for larger birds with bigger beaks because the environment is changing for the bird.

Predator-prey interactions can definitely apply selection pressures on both parties. Natural selection can also occur with competition being the selective agent/pressure.