Feeding wild baby birds - David Attenborough - BBC wildlife

[MsZoowemama]

the parot babys look like a tini poddel

[MsZoowemama]

ugly birds

[9raymondo9]

oh so that's why gouldians chicks have that spots :)

and i just realized how sweet rosellas are :D

i just learned something again today yay!

[greatergood929]

Oh David, how did you get your entire HD camera inside of that tree-hole. you crazy knight.

[0dour]

Roselias are sweet i love em

[hashbrownsandeggs]

does anybody know the name of the instrumental music playing in the background?

[Jamaicanchocolate34]

Editing on Rosella Parrots dont make sense

[wildlife011803]

awwww.eagles should be more like these family loving birds.

[billeybop]

Once again speechless as usual!

[chicagoSUGANO]

Oh, this is fascinating and the Narrator is charming.

What a Class video as well as educational.

KUDOS!

[khowardphotoart]

very fragile and cute

[kenandogruyol]

How can't you see GOD in this film?

Is it possible to do theirselves. Only idiots believe in that.

[bluegama500]

hey today i found a baby bird so i took it home(it was gonna be eaten by big birds) and i fed it full worms,every hour or so i feed it,is that right?i dont really know what to feed it,and is it ok to use bleach to find worms more easily?cuz thats what i did,and to give it water i just hold a water bottle over its mouth,it opsens,then i tip a few drops in,is that ok?and how much water does it need,please give me full info

[guss333]

In general you are talking out of a hole in your ass.

animals are moved by the omnipresent spirit of instinct, environment and experience.

[AmberrEatsClouds]

GOD IS NOT REAL HE IS A JOKE

[abombrichy]

YOU ARE A JOKE!!!!!! YOU SUCK!!

[mikilavush]

In general animals are moved by the omnipresent spirit of God. God is Love, and Love maintains existence, so many animals are gently taking care of their offsprings and are to protect themselves and their offsprings. However, Love is also self-sacrificing, so many animals, without being aware of it, are self-sacrificing when they serve as food to their predators. Glory to Love, glory to the Father and the Son!

[mfwg74]

altruistic behaviour is selected for by evolution, if the cost for the altruist (C), multiplied by the grade of relatedness between the altruist and the beneficiary (r) minus the benefit (B) is bigger than zero= r*C-B>0 (Hamiltons rule)

[SurfingRyanKwanten]

LOL there mouths are so weird...

[fdfederation]

The tongue at 1:15 reminded me of Alien.

[spunkkymunkky]

love the bbc. hope they dont change and become crappy programming

[sushi458]

mine is actually real real...i found a baby bird that & my stupid bro shot the parent with a bebe gun....i actually fed the baby birdy with a worm.....u should come check out my 2 videos...*plus i need help how to care for it so it wont die*

[starbabe58]

cute

[stethebee]

SO COOL!

[ouinonyes]

OMg that is amazing

[RainNight]

noooo, that is wrong... the older parrot shouldn't share his food b/c if he does that he will disprove one of the evolutionary theory, "survival of the fittest"...

[zdravkodren1]

I don't know about this species, but many birds live in flocks, where they usually help each other, because the benefit of helping another even though it's bad for you (so called 'altruism', but it's not real altruism) is far more usefull than not helping at all and by that, not receiving help when you need it back...so, it does not disprove evolutionary theory

[RainNight]

to scientists Altruism is unexplainable they dont really know why certain species sacrifice for the benefit of it's relatives.

[trusea]

"To scientists altruism is unexplainable"? Read Richard Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene" and you'll see how scientists explain altruism.

[keisukeyui]

"Survival of the Fittest" is a social theory put forth by Herbert Spencer. It is not part of the Origin of Species at all. Darwin and Spencer's theories are often confused with one another because both the works were published within just a few years of one-another and the terms "fittness" and "fittest" were used by Darwin. In actuality, Darwin disagreed with Spencer, as Spencer believed in Lamarckism. (which had a severe lack of evidence)

[recorderdevoix]

It's about survival of the genes. The individuals are merely survival machines for the genes. The siblings share at least 50% of the same genes. Read Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene".

[P01029]

that's why it's a THEORY it's not a scientific law yet.

[vealicle1]

@P01029 in science theories are above laws. gravity is a theory too.

[P01029]

@vealicle1 actually no. Laws are PROVEN already. Theories are still unproven.

[vealicle1]

@P01029 you're confusing the scientific definitions of hypothesis versus theory. It's a very common creationist mistake. Actually, even "laws" in science can be disproved. Theories on the other hand are often made up of several different laws or bodies of collected data, and are used as an accurate model to explain phenomena. If the underlying data or law supporting the theory is proven false, than the theory is considered invalid.

[vealicle1]

@P01029 The theory of gravity, the theory of general relativity, and the theory of evolution have all withstood falsification so far. Evolution is considered just as valid scientifically as the theory gravity. Of course, that is not to say that evolution or gravity cannot be disproved, but in science nothing s ever proven, only strongly supported by the empirical evidence available.

[P01029]

@vealicle1 Yes and these strongly supported theories are called Laws.

[vealicle1]

@P01029 wrong.

[P01029]

@vealicle1 Obviously someone failed their sciences :) and by someone I meant you.

[vealicle1]

@P01029 wrong again, and not a very clever retort. I could be wrong, but I'm gonna wager you may have been home schooled by a parent lacking scientific qualifications or just went to a school with a very poor science curriculum.

[P01029]

@vealicle1 extremely wrong. Try honored engineering science at UofT

[P01029]

@vealicle1 and btw, this is getting realli pathetic. Go google or check a dictionary for the definition of Laws and Theories and it will all become clear to you. I will not use any further energy in explaining to a clueless and stubborn moron. Goodbye.

[vealicle1]

A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

[vealicle1]

In fact, some laws, such as the law of gravity, can also be theories when taken more generally. The law of gravity is expressed as a single mathematical expression and is presumed to be true all over the universe and all through time. Without such an assumption, we can do no science based on gravity's effects. But from the law, we derived the theory of gravity which describes how gravity works,what causes it, and how it behaves.

[vealicle1]

We also use that to develop another theory, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, in which gravity plays a crucial role. The basic law is intact, but the theory expands it to include various and complex situations involving space and time.

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law describes a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena.

[P01029]

@vealicle1 again, please look up the definition b4 talking to me or better yet, not talk to me because I find it really pointless to explain to a person who is very stubborn and unwilling to learn. Please, if you really don't want to face the facts then stop responding cuz it's a waste of both of our time.

[SpaceCarnivora]

Love this

[YubiShines]

Oldest learns well from the parent :)

[yoops]

aw family love

[elvispresleyweeps]

crazy. that is amazing