Are you trying to tell me that when he said, “hit subscribe” he didn’t mean to actually “hit” it. Next you’ll tell me not to smash SMASH that like button.
Hahaha same... I came to this video with high hopes that Daxon would debunk that sentiment of the quokkas thhhhrowin...no I mean shoooot..., umm expel?....their joey to the predators. Now I'm gonna leave this video even worse knowing that there's a study proven on this. Thanks Daxon, at least you help clear up my imagination of them throwing their joeys like they are some potatoes to the predators. :(
right. "throwing" is the real point; not the act of sacrificing their juveniles to protect themselves. so glad you set the record straight. we feel so dumb.
Kangaroos toss their joeys into the bushes to lighten the load if they're seriously being pursued, and if the joey is big enough to be cumbersome. They may or may not go back for them. That is what I was told back in the 60's, and the source was from people who lived in the environment. As such people are not official 'scientists' it cannot be officially documented as fact. So the jury's out on that one. It does however sound feasible
So I guess you didn't get the part where he said that the quokkas rarely do the expelling even when threatened ("she MAY expel")? Just say that you did not get that that kind of behaviour is not a regular occurrence and be over with it.
I see it like this. If the mama is truly in danger, she can’t escape as fast with her baby in her pouch. I personally believe that mama releases her Joey not as a decoy or like a “eat my baby not me”, it’s more to give them BOTH a chance at survival. Mama is going to run twice as slow at least with her Joey, and if she gets caught by predators, her Joey automatically does too. If Joey is out and mama can run fast, here’s hoping that she can make it back to her lil baby💕🙏🏻
@@かすみ-v7f awe thank you so much! It’s so nice to “meet” like minded people who choose love and positivity! If more people see things like that, imagine how the world could be! 💕🥰
@@eveningstar8581 I agree it's a matter of perspective. Giant Pandas get a bad rep because they will only feed one baby if they have twins. The truth is that they only have enough milk to feed one baby (bamboo isn't very nutritious), so if the mother tries to feed both twins then both of them will die. It's not like she rejects one baby out of spite and leaves it to suffer. They usually just feed the healthiest one, so at least one of their babies gets to live. If Giant Pandas actually ate a nutritious diet then they wouldn't have to make these sad/difficult decisions.
I feel like this guy is a quokka lawyer😄. “But your Honor, they clearly have tiny, little arms. The Quok just wanted to threaten the predator, and the baby fell out of her arm”. We are on to you Quokkas!😄
I don't think this animal fact is any less "disturbing" without the word "throw". The intent remains the same whether they actively "throw" the babies or just "expell" them from their pouches. They actively sacrifice their offspring to a predator in order to stay alive. Using the word "throw" just paints a more vivid picture I suppose. I guess the closest equivalent would be to lay your baby onto the ground when being chased by a bear, hoping that the bear will stop to eat. Sure, you're not "throwing" your baby, but that doesn't make it any better now, does it?
But even so, how do we know that the mothers "expel' the babies on purpose, or that they even do it as a decoy? Maybe it happens out of fear or the mother does it and then uses herself as the decoy. Doesn't look like there is any other studies or witness to this.
Mother uses self to decoy, leaving infant in a secluded spot Mother dies Infant dies due to rapidly onsetting hypothermia/hunger/predation from something that's sniffed it out *or* Mother drops infant in order to move faster and/or Mother uses infant to decoy Mother escapes Mother lives to mate, breed and continue the species another day. Studies may be sparse, but at least there's logic to fill in the blanks. Mother nature is a bitch so life does anything it can do to continue.
I'm surprised that nobody has ever done a further study on this. Or is there any? Maybe Daxon should do a study on this since he's been around with the quokkas a lot. But the only thing he discovered (like an English language teacher) was how we shouldn't use the word "throw" instead lol. Not very promising.
I'm pretty sure it would only happen if the joey is big enough to weigh them down in the event of a predator. That way they could both jump away quicker than if the predator was to catch them, then both of them are gone
It's also possible that their muscles relax because they're scared, kind of compared to when animals and some people poop and pee themselves when they become terrified at something. IDK... just a different perspective to look at it with...
Thanks brother. I was really very tensed thinking they really throw the babies to predators. I even had searched it in google and found that they throw. But now I am relaxed. Thanks again.
'Abandon their babies to help them to escape predators in rare instances where noises made by the joey endanger them, and extra weight would make it likely both would die'
I think people forget the possibility that if you were about to be eaten by a predator you might expel you're baby so they have a chance to get away. Kinda like if I'm going down you don't have to go down with me
It doesn't say they intentionally expel the baby as a decoy. I still think this video goes too far. The baby is expelled from the pouch in the act of escaping and draws the attention of the predator. The person who wrote the study couldn't make that clearer even though they spent over 700 pages?
Wait, so they DO use them as decoys. I didn't really care if they throw them or not, i was curious about whether or not they use them to their own survival.
I have a theory. Read the study again. It didn't say that an animal was witnessed doing it. It says that it was suspected because it was found that a group of Dingos had fed specially on babies. Maybe the lack of further evidence exists because in hindsight it makes more sense than we think. Of the baby is above a certain age, and there for size and weight; it would be faster for baby and mum to run separately instead of being in the pouch. So the mother ejected the baby. they both ran; but the predator caught up with the younger because mother was young and healthy and able to escape, but the younger wasn't as strong and fast as Mum. The whole thing is based of a researcher finding a large amount of baby marsupials (sorry if spelled wrong) in a predators stomach. The Study even stated this. It stated that they had theorised based on stomach contents of the predator. I will also point out that animal studies from decades and longer ago are constantly being disproved. It seems that one "theory" with no witnessed evidence, that never again got mentioned..... This to me seems like the researchers rapidly found the assumption to be wrong and never spoke of it again. Why would they, thier job is to speak right not wrong.
Since it has NEVER been observed, I think we can safely assume that no marsupial mommy expels her joey from the pouch when a predator comes close. So it's not a scientific fact at all.
the wording throw them at the predators means they will use their babies as a defense throwing them under the bus, expelling them from their pouch can be made in locations where they are safe, like in tall grass where the babies just need to stay quiet. If havning them in their pouch while the mother gets caught, well in that insident i would hardly imagine the baby in the pouch surviving.
well you basically found out, that quokkas dont throw the baby, but just push the baby from their pockets.. that doesnt make much difference to the fact they are bad parents.. as you were saying on the beginning "its all lies" its not.. its just a different word used to describe the same action
I did hear of it in a book with a kangaroo dumping a joey as it was too heavy to escape fast enough when carrying it. Though full disclosure it was a short 'based on true story' where someone raised the rescued joey. Can't even remember the name of the story let alone verify the truth.
That's how great humanity has become. We're making up lies and rumours about things, without a single thought as to what damage can be done as a result. The whole "living life without consequences", is the most unrealistic mentality you can have. And now it's popular.
I mean, there are only 2 routes as a marsupial. One is they run with the baby. The alternative is they don't run with the baby, whether accidental or intentional. But we don't know if that's intentional.
I saw a random Facebook comment saying this myth and this was the first google video that popped up when I went to look it up lmao so thank you this was an entertaining answer
@@SEGAGIGA So wait, you try to disprove an example of when throw can mean expel, by quoting the most literal definition of the word? You know that words can have more than one definition, right? Here is a list of a few things you can "throw" that doesn't fit the definition you quoted: throw a switch, throw a game, throw someone off, throw someone into jail, throw a party, throw out the trash and of course throw up. Wiktionary offers no less than 24 different definitions.
@@Nakna_ankaN The meme didn't use "throw up" since it means a different thing. You're comparing a phrasal verb to a verb. Where does it exactly say that to throw means to vomit?
@@SEGAGIGA I was referring to what he says @ 6:00 and gave an example of when throw is used instead of expel. I was simply pointing out that even though they don't literally throw them by the definition you offered, you could still use the term "throw" in this case by any of these definitions: (transitive) To eject or cause to fall off. (transitive) To move to another position or condition; to displace. (transitive) To project or send forth. Look it up on Wiktionary if you want sources and quotations.
Female mice will sometimes eat their young pups if the nest is discovered. She will then relocate and build a new nest. Under threat, the pups are considered as a protein resource that can be recycled into another litter of pups that has a greater chance of survival.
I think it’s a lot like when humans pee and poop themselves to run away. Basically I don’t think there is an intentional malice, just the body doing whatever it can to make itself lighter. But I’m a chef not an expert on marsupials 🤣
Semantics. Throw, push, drop, or expel their baby while a predator attacks and don't come back to defend their baby is neglect. Twist those words as much as you want, but it's still the same.
Throw implies the quokka purposely launching her baby towards the predator as a sort of sacrifice, but to expel can be an involuntary response. I've heard the same said for koalas.
Our oldest son's name is Jaxon. Our 4 year pronounces his name as "Daxon" and we all get a laugh out of it... I didn't know that Daxon was actually a name. I love it.
I saw the meme plenty of times and never thought quokkas actually threw them. i have no problem with the jargon used, you don't literally get "thrown to the wolves," but we hear the phrase regularly...
Ok, but...they're still leaving their babies behind as decoys for predators in order to escape. The "method of offspring deposit" is really not the issue, here. 😂
The wildfires fortunately did not reach Rottnest Island. The worst of the fires were on the East Coast, whereas Rottnest Island is off the West Coast. There were only very few fires on the West Coast, but none of them anywhere near Rottnest Island
Quokkas have been observed fleeing from predators and their babies falling out of their pouch. They literally have muscles in the pouch to hold the baby in or throw it out, so if it fell out while running from a predator, it was probably intentional. 😊
Except the funny thing is the predator would always choose something defenceless. Put it tgis way stop trying to pretend wild animals are the same as us. They arent. She sacrifices the young so she can outrun the preditor and mate again.
@@kahlernygard809 Erm... running faster than the infant? Having better developed claws and jaws than the infant? Not being a small squishy thing just sitting there, literally defenseless? I don't know what kind of response you were expecting there. If a predator has two meals in front of it, it's going to go for the easier option.
@@kahlernygard809 It'll stop a dingo from eating the mother if the mother is running away and the infant isn't. It really is as simple as that. Survival for a predator is a simple matter of calories consumed versus calories burned. There is no point in a dingo chasing the parent if there's a more convenient meal just sitting there, mewling in front of it.
Ppl are too caught up on their present to be concerned with fixing the burning/ blazing trail of misleading, misunderstanding and distruction they left behind. Thank you for clarifying and root causing for the curious minds. 💪👍💝🐻
They so cute (did you get his autograph after the selfie? lol). Just learnt about them for the first time today and I'm already 49. What a shame for their reputation to be spoilt by people carelessly not fact checking what they put online.
The first reasonable explanation I imagined when seeing the source description is that if the parent thinks they might not be able to escape the predator, it then makes total sense that it may expel its joey, in the hope that the joey may be safe, not that the joey become a decoy. After all, it is the larger parent that is being chased. What parent would not, in the flight from a bigger stronger ... killer approaching, risk having their kid to hide so that only one rather than both of them get viciously attacked? I don’t know quokkas, but I know animals. Seems that the bonding sorts try to protect their young. Thus I find it more believable that for a parent to release their beebee, they must have reached a conclusion that they may not be able to outrun or outsurvive the approaching predator.
You don't know animals as well as you think. A baby with a dead parent is a dead baby sooner or later, whether it's cold/hunger/further predation. A mother with a dead baby can still breed. That's evolution for you.
@@FunkyFyreMunky Are you saying that you believe the mother throws the baby in hopes that it gets taken instead of her, figuring she can just have another later? Damn, but that sounds human. I never presumed to be the Know All of Animals. I still stand that there are some parents, human or animal, that if they believe the predatory claws are near to laying in and tearing them open and they cannot outrun any longer, *might* put the baby out. It's a desperation move. Moses' mother put him in a basket and floated him down the Nile, in hope against ALL hope that he might be found and adopted rather than drown and starve. All because the genocide of Jewish boys in his age-range was unequivocably happening, and she determined she would chance Chance and trusting in God over the surety that if she did nothing he'd get rounded up and slaughtered with the rest. As far as all of the rational logic going on there, I'm not sure just how intellectually the quokka ponders this fact before expelling a baby under the jaws of a terrifying predator. Under such duress, some animals think more clearly than others. Some humans as well. And others...not. Some individual humans and animals are more selfless than others (I'd not wanna starve guarding an egg in minus 40F, but that's just me). Thanks for the science lesson.
![Baby Quokkas are the Cutest Animals in the World [PART 1] 😍 Best Compilation](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/W8uvKD5Ugh0/mqdefault.jpg)
![Baby Quokkas are the Cutest Animals in the World [PART 1] 😍 Best Compilation](/img/tr.png)
Predator:
*breathes*
Quokkas: *YEETUS THE FEETUS*
🤣🤣🤣
I'm imagining this fucking scene and i'm laughing my ass off oh my god man you made my day
두대한 You are a fucking comedian So funny
🤣🤣🤣🤣
Fetus deletus
I can't believe I watched this whole thing to find out the only problem is the word "throw"
Tom same this dude is a joke lol
Are you trying to tell me that when he said, “hit subscribe” he didn’t mean to actually “hit” it. Next you’ll tell me not to smash SMASH that like button.
Yeah, I mean, it's pretty fair to interpret "expel" as "throw" if you don't have first hand knowledge.
I KNOW!
Hahaha same... I came to this video with high hopes that Daxon would debunk that sentiment of the quokkas thhhhrowin...no I mean shoooot..., umm expel?....their joey to the predators. Now I'm gonna leave this video even worse knowing that there's a study proven on this. Thanks Daxon, at least you help clear up my imagination of them throwing their joeys like they are some potatoes to the predators. :(
right. "throwing" is the real point; not the act of sacrificing their juveniles to protect themselves. so glad you set the record straight. we feel so dumb.
Kangaroos toss their joeys into the bushes to lighten the load if they're seriously being pursued, and if the joey is big enough to be cumbersome. They may or may not go back for them. That is what I was told back in the 60's, and the source was from people who lived in the environment. As such people are not official 'scientists' it cannot be officially documented as fact. So the jury's out on that one. It does however sound feasible
Exactly lol.
😂😂😂5months ago and your response is the best!!!!
So I guess you didn't get the part where he said that the quokkas rarely do the expelling even when threatened ("she MAY expel")?
Just say that you did not get that that kind of behaviour is not a regular occurrence and be over with it.
@@catstac2542 so i guess commenting on two year old comments you disagree with is all you have to do? shut up dummy.
Literally learning that this animal exists today.
Same
Ditto.
From patrick cloud
Same lol
The same.
I like how the Mother Quokka looks like she’s smiling at you while she’s eating.
Hey, you know what animal does throw their babies?
The Human.
Hol up
Actually no but...yes
I thought I was the only one haha
@@greatestever2146 sam
Ha ha ha. This gave me a good chuckle.
Maybe the baby just accidently falls out occasionally? I'm still skeptical of the idea that the mother intentionally ditches the joey.
I see it like this. If the mama is truly in danger, she can’t escape as fast with her baby in her pouch. I personally believe that mama releases her Joey not as a decoy or like a “eat my baby not me”, it’s more to give them BOTH a chance at survival. Mama is going to run twice as slow at least with her Joey, and if she gets caught by predators, her Joey automatically does too. If Joey is out and mama can run fast, here’s hoping that she can make it back to her lil baby💕🙏🏻
@@eveningstar8581 I REALLY LOVE YOUR WAY OF THINKING AND THAT IS ACTUALLY REALLY SMART. ❤️
@@かすみ-v7f awe thank you so much! It’s so nice to “meet” like minded people who choose love and positivity! If more people see things like that, imagine how the world could be! 💕🥰
Can deny I throw my kids at any chance I get, they get so annoying
@@eveningstar8581 I agree it's a matter of perspective. Giant Pandas get a bad rep because they will only feed one baby if they have twins. The truth is that they only have enough milk to feed one baby (bamboo isn't very nutritious), so if the mother tries to feed both twins then both of them will die. It's not like she rejects one baby out of spite and leaves it to suffer. They usually just feed the healthiest one, so at least one of their babies gets to live. If Giant Pandas actually ate a nutritious diet then they wouldn't have to make these sad/difficult decisions.
You’re here because of that meme don’t lie
😭 yes
Yes
Yes. Hehe
Yes
Patrick cloud reaction funny animals
"Expel works." That's what was in the study. I like "eject" too.
I feel like this guy is a quokka lawyer😄. “But your Honor, they clearly have tiny, little arms. The Quok just wanted to threaten the predator, and the baby fell out of her arm”. We are on to you Quokkas!😄
If it expels it, then the logical next question is whether they do so intentionally or not. If the intention is there it’s no better than throwing
It's probably an intentional reflex, because the pouch is a muscle which means they can loosen it for the baby to follow out.
Exactly brothers yapping techinicality
@@daxonquiet yapper you know nothing now be quiet and stay quiet cjfj
How do we know the baby isn't just like "Mom! Let's split up! Meet back at the eucalyptus tree!"
I don't think this animal fact is any less "disturbing" without the word "throw". The intent remains the same whether they actively "throw" the babies or just "expell" them from their pouches. They actively sacrifice their offspring to a predator in order to stay alive. Using the word "throw" just paints a more vivid picture I suppose. I guess the closest equivalent would be to lay your baby onto the ground when being chased by a bear, hoping that the bear will stop to eat. Sure, you're not "throwing" your baby, but that doesn't make it any better now, does it?
But even so, how do we know that the mothers "expel' the babies on purpose, or that they even do it as a decoy? Maybe it happens out of fear or the mother does it and then uses herself as the decoy. Doesn't look like there is any other studies or witness to this.
More pointless assumptions. People like to think animals are the cruel species...we are.
Mother uses self to decoy, leaving infant in a secluded spot
Mother dies
Infant dies due to rapidly onsetting hypothermia/hunger/predation from something that's sniffed it out
*or*
Mother drops infant in order to move faster and/or Mother uses infant to decoy
Mother escapes
Mother lives to mate, breed and continue the species another day.
Studies may be sparse, but at least there's logic to fill in the blanks. Mother nature is a bitch so life does anything it can do to continue.
I'm surprised that nobody has ever done a further study on this. Or is there any? Maybe Daxon should do a study on this since he's been around with the quokkas a lot. But the only thing he discovered (like an English language teacher) was how we shouldn't use the word "throw" instead lol. Not very promising.
I'm pretty sure it would only happen if the joey is big enough to weigh them down in the event of a predator. That way they could both jump away quicker than if the predator was to catch them, then both of them are gone
@@heavystarch100
Male polar bears eat their own babies. There is footage of it. Animals and humans are both cruel.
Isn't it obvious? They can't run with babies in pouches! That'll hurt the mother and baby! Besides, the babies gotta learn to run and keep up! 😂
Quokka mom: "Kick the baby!"
Quokka joey: "Don't kick the baby"
Quokka mom: "Kick the baby :)"
QUAKKA DAD: NO DONT KICK THE BABY EJECT THEM
I here because of Patrick Cloud. #patgeo
Same
Me too bruh
Nobody:
Daxon: lies✌️kinda
Had to be said 😂
It's also possible that their muscles relax because they're scared, kind of compared to when animals and some people poop and pee themselves when they become terrified at something. IDK... just a different perspective to look at it with...
More likely: “Quokka mothers expel their babies OUT OF FEAR(?!?) when they feel threatened by a predator.”
Oooo wow so smart. We were all so caught up on the word ‘throw’, and not the fact they leave their young for dead. 🙄
Lol my wife showed me the meme I didn't believe it . Thanks for the video but my wife took this as still throw 😆 🤣
I came at this to look at some cute Quokkas, got what I wanted and learnt something new
More Quokkas coming your way soon 🙌🤗
So the baby is still getting thrown out of its house...🤣
Thanks brother. I was really very tensed thinking they really throw the babies to predators. I even had searched it in google and found that they throw. But now I am relaxed. Thanks again.
'Abandon their babies to help them to escape predators in rare instances where noises made by the joey endanger them, and extra weight would make it likely both would die'
can't believe people actually make stuff like this up
Wait till you learn about the origins of the lemming train myth
What was made up? The study proved exactly what they said it did
Two of these people are idiots and didnt actually watch the video.
People tell lies about animal; just imagine what they do to other people.
Is there a Dr. Shrimp Puerto rico?
Tic Toc brought me here and the fact someone said they throw their babies 😅 is why I am here researching.n
Spelling of "Quokka" : Q-U-O-K-K-A
Me searching for "Quokka": Koaka
I think people forget the possibility that if you were about to be eaten by a predator you might expel you're baby so they have a chance to get away. Kinda like if I'm going down you don't have to go down with me
Kind of knew this was fake but it makes for a good laugh looking at the quite baby smileing and knowing it keeps that smile as mother throws it!
It doesn't say they intentionally expel the baby as a decoy. I still think this video goes too far. The baby is expelled from the pouch in the act of escaping and draws the attention of the predator. The person who wrote the study couldn't make that clearer even though they spent over 700 pages?
4:48
Predator: good thing that the quokka throwing babies thing is not true
Predator: *approaches quokka*
Quokka: *loads glock with babies*
This all seemed a bit melodramatic but for the fact that he genuinely seems like a big quokka fan.
Kudos for giving the answer right away, I loved it!
Wait, so they DO use them as decoys. I didn't really care if they throw them or not, i was curious about whether or not they use them to their own survival.
Lol I’m here because I saw this exact same meme 😂😂
Eject/expel? They fall out of the pouch while mama is running. That’s all. This has been recorded on video.
If not for nothing... I respect your dedication for finding the truth to something I didn't know I needed to know. Thanks!
5:50 he tells you they don't throw them. They just push them out of the pouch. Wtf is this man trying to achieve with this video?
Has anyone ever thought that maybe since the Quakka is hopping away so fast that the baby might have fallen out of the pouch?
Ohh no qUokkamoli...these guys are too cute to do that..
I have a theory.
Read the study again. It didn't say that an animal was witnessed doing it. It says that it was suspected because it was found that a group of Dingos had fed specially on babies.
Maybe the lack of further evidence exists because in hindsight it makes more sense than we think.
Of the baby is above a certain age, and there for size and weight; it would be faster for baby and mum to run separately instead of being in the pouch.
So the mother ejected the baby. they both ran; but the predator caught up with the younger because mother was young and healthy and able to escape, but the younger wasn't as strong and fast as Mum.
The whole thing is based of a researcher finding a large amount of baby marsupials (sorry if spelled wrong) in a predators stomach.
The Study even stated this. It stated that they had theorised based on stomach contents of the predator.
I will also point out that animal studies from decades and longer ago are constantly being disproved. It seems that one "theory" with no witnessed evidence, that never again got mentioned.....
This to me seems like the researchers rapidly found the assumption to be wrong and never spoke of it again. Why would they, thier job is to speak right not wrong.
How can something be this cute?
Oh yes, to offset the terror of the ocean. I almost forgot.
Since it has NEVER been observed, I think we can safely assume that no marsupial mommy expels her joey from the pouch when a predator comes close. So it's not a scientific fact at all.
So is the concept really that much different? Lol. Ok they arent THROWING them but the idea is the same they may leave their babies to survive right?
the wording throw them at the predators means they will use their babies as a defense throwing them under the bus, expelling them from their pouch can be made in locations where they are safe, like in tall grass where the babies just need to stay quiet. If havning them in their pouch while the mother gets caught, well in that insident i would hardly imagine the baby in the pouch surviving.
Furyhunter85 No they will specifically do it when faced with predators
If we're in a rock throwing mood then when did "Mr. Quokka" get a pouch? 1:49
Yup, just got clickbaited. Welp, that's roughly 6 minutes of my life that I'm never getting back again.
They just "poop them out" 😂
well you basically found out, that quokkas dont throw the baby, but just push the baby from their pockets.. that doesnt make much difference to the fact they are bad parents.. as you were saying on the beginning "its all lies" its not.. its just a different word used to describe the same action
Thank you for helping me raise awareness for quokkas I appreciate it
She has no arm strength, no power😂
I did hear of it in a book with a kangaroo dumping a joey as it was too heavy to escape fast enough when carrying it. Though full disclosure it was a short 'based on true story' where someone raised the rescued joey. Can't even remember the name of the story let alone verify the truth.
Predator : comes
Mom : **im throwing a decoy**
So they don't "throw" them but kick them out the pouch and take off running leaving the baby behind? lol
That's how great humanity has become. We're making up lies and rumours about things, without a single thought as to what damage can be done as a result. The whole "living life without consequences", is the most unrealistic mentality you can have. And now it's popular.
**Pistol drops from his back pocket**
Quokka: *YEET*
Hey google what’s a synonym for “expel”
@La Bonita Gatita Throw: propel (something) with force through the air by a movement of the arm and hand
Loving this stuff!!
Quokkas after saw the predator: *YEET THE CHILD*
So they do expel, push, throw, shoot their babies. This was the biggest issue for me, not how they do it.
I mean, there are only 2 routes as a marsupial. One is they run with the baby. The alternative is they don't run with the baby, whether accidental or intentional. But we don't know if that's intentional.
I literally am watching this because of that meme!!!!🤣🤣🤣🤣
💯💯💯😭😭😭😭
Shoot vs. expel equals baby getting devoured by predator. Same outcome.
I saw a random Facebook comment saying this myth and this was the first google video that popped up when I went to look it up lmao so thank you this was an entertaining answer
This video is such a self-inflicted embarrassment, kinda impressive that somebody could live with this
So, this animal is really abandoning its own baby for distraction. But it just didn't throw out to predators. Just lose them intentionally?
Thanks for exposing the truth on sad animal facts. Memes aren't always reliable on truth or facts.
When someone expel partially digested food they THROW up, so there are other examples where throw is used instead of expel.
Nice try but... Throw: "propel (something) with force through the air by a movement of the ARM and HAND.
"I threw a brick through the window"" =P
@@SEGAGIGA So wait, you try to disprove an example of when throw can mean expel, by quoting the most literal definition of the word? You know that words can have more than one definition, right?
Here is a list of a few things you can "throw" that doesn't fit the definition you quoted: throw a switch, throw a game, throw someone off, throw someone into jail, throw a party, throw out the trash and of course throw up. Wiktionary offers no less than 24 different definitions.
@@Nakna_ankaN The meme didn't use "throw up" since it means a different thing. You're comparing a phrasal verb to a verb. Where does it exactly say that to throw means to vomit?
If you recall the image, the mother was drawn holding its young, implying that it's going to "throw" it.
@@SEGAGIGA I was referring to what he says @ 6:00 and gave an example of when throw is used instead of expel. I was simply pointing out that even though they don't literally throw them by the definition you offered, you could still use the term "throw" in this case by any of these definitions:
(transitive) To eject or cause to fall off.
(transitive) To move to another position or condition; to displace.
(transitive) To project or send forth.
Look it up on Wiktionary if you want sources and quotations.
Female mice will sometimes eat their young pups if the nest is discovered. She will then relocate and build a new nest. Under threat, the pups are considered as a protein resource that can be recycled into another litter of pups that has a greater chance of survival.
I think it’s a lot like when humans pee and poop themselves to run away. Basically I don’t think there is an intentional malice, just the body doing whatever it can to make itself lighter. But I’m a chef not an expert on marsupials 🤣
Semantics. Throw, push, drop, or expel their baby while a predator attacks and don't come back to defend their baby is neglect. Twist those words as much as you want, but it's still the same.
I cant believe they're expelled.
are they gonna get a refund on their tuition?
Thanks for debunking the lies
they dont literally throw their babies. They use their muscles in the pouch to loosen it and the baby falls out.
Shoot, expel, released....same results as a throw 🤣
Throw implies the quokka purposely launching her baby towards the predator as a sort of sacrifice, but to expel can be an involuntary response. I've heard the same said for koalas.
Yes throw definitely threw me off. i was thinking this was the real life equivalent of dragapult using babies as weapons of mass destruction.
You're right dragapult uses it as ammo
Our oldest son's name is Jaxon. Our 4 year pronounces his name as "Daxon" and we all get a laugh out of it... I didn't know that Daxon was actually a name. I love it.
Hanjisung what r u doing here..😂
I saw the meme plenty of times and never thought quokkas actually threw them. i have no problem with the jargon used, you don't literally get "thrown to the wolves," but we hear the phrase regularly...
Ok, but...they're still leaving their babies behind as decoys for predators in order to escape. The "method of offspring deposit" is really not the issue, here. 😂
When humans learn discernment 🙏❤️
Does anyoneknow if the wildfires have reached Quokka Island? The loss of wildlife is behind unbearable!! Still praying for all our friends down under
The wildfires fortunately did not reach Rottnest Island. The worst of the fires were on the East Coast, whereas Rottnest Island is off the West Coast. There were only very few fires on the West Coast, but none of them anywhere near Rottnest Island
PatGeo?
Yup. 🤣🤣🤣🤣 had to look into these baby grenades
Yup😂🤦🏾♂️... brotha had me really curious lol
Quokkas have been observed fleeing from predators and their babies falling out of their pouch. They literally have muscles in the pouch to hold the baby in or throw it out, so if it fell out while running from a predator, it was probably intentional. 😊
7 minutes, only to replace throw with "push or expel" 😂😂😂😂
But they do sacrifice there baby cause its better , running with a baby might get them both killed.. can always make a next baby right
Exactly!! They choose to lose the extra weight. Mentioned near the end of the video
it could also be that they expel the baby to save it from the predator so the baby can escape, like a sacrificing thing
Except the funny thing is the predator would always choose something defenceless. Put it tgis way stop trying to pretend wild animals are the same as us. They arent. She sacrifices the young so she can outrun the preditor and mate again.
@@mathieuperreault310 what defenses do you think adult quakkas have versus dingos that the offspring don't ?
@@kahlernygard809 Erm... running faster than the infant? Having better developed claws and jaws than the infant? Not being a small squishy thing just sitting there, literally defenseless? I don't know what kind of response you were expecting there. If a predator has two meals in front of it, it's going to go for the easier option.
@@FunkyFyreMunky yeah except none of those will stop a dingo ....
@@kahlernygard809 It'll stop a dingo from eating the mother if the mother is running away and the infant isn't. It really is as simple as that. Survival for a predator is a simple matter of calories consumed versus calories burned. There is no point in a dingo chasing the parent if there's a more convenient meal just sitting there, mewling in front of it.
Who do I talk to about getting the last 6:50 of my life back?
They really cute 💖💖you're so lucky that you can see them every time😩😩
Memes have ruined Quokkas reputation 😂😂😂
Ppl are too caught up on their present to be concerned with fixing the burning/ blazing trail of misleading, misunderstanding and distruction they left behind. Thank you for clarifying and root causing for the curious minds. 💪👍💝🐻
Bro just admit you were wrong, it's not a happy life and their mom sticks by them for predator sake
Best way of wording it. Quakka releases their babies to loose weight for faster escape from predators.
Okay so they don't throw their child. They just don't let them stay in the pouch since it's heavy if they want to run from predator?
They are still abandon their baby for their own safety that's messed up.
They so cute (did you get his autograph after the selfie? lol). Just learnt about them for the first time today and I'm already 49. What a shame for their reputation to be spoilt by people carelessly not fact checking what they put online.
The first reasonable explanation I imagined when seeing the source description is that if the parent thinks they might not be able to escape the predator, it then makes total sense that it may expel its joey, in the hope that the joey may be safe, not that the joey become a decoy. After all, it is the larger parent that is being chased.
What parent would not, in the flight from a bigger stronger ... killer approaching, risk having their kid to hide so that only one rather than both of them get viciously attacked?
I don’t know quokkas, but I know animals. Seems that the bonding sorts try to protect their young. Thus I find it more believable that for a parent to release their beebee, they must have reached a conclusion that they may not be able to outrun or outsurvive the approaching predator.
Naw your making unfounded assumptions.
You don't know animals as well as you think. A baby with a dead parent is a dead baby sooner or later, whether it's cold/hunger/further predation. A mother with a dead baby can still breed. That's evolution for you.
@@FunkyFyreMunky Are you saying that you believe the mother throws the baby in hopes that it gets taken instead of her, figuring she can just have another later? Damn, but that sounds human. I never presumed to be the Know All of Animals. I still stand that there are some parents, human or animal, that if they believe the predatory claws are near to laying in and tearing them open and they cannot outrun any longer, *might* put the baby out. It's a desperation move. Moses' mother put him in a basket and floated him down the Nile, in hope against ALL hope that he might be found and adopted rather than drown and starve. All because the genocide of Jewish boys in his age-range was unequivocably happening, and she determined she would chance Chance and trusting in God over the surety that if she did nothing he'd get rounded up and slaughtered with the rest. As far as all of the rational logic going on there, I'm not sure just how intellectually the quokka ponders this fact before expelling a baby under the jaws of a terrifying predator. Under such duress, some animals think more clearly than others. Some humans as well. And others...not. Some individual humans and animals are more selfless than others (I'd not wanna starve guarding an egg in minus 40F, but that's just me). Thanks for the science lesson.
@@sunlitrain I lost you at "Moses" there. Religion has no place in the evolution of animals. And you're still comparing wild animals to humans.
Ive seen another meme where they claim that they SHOW the baby to the predator to gain sympathi ;)
Quokkas don't have any predators on Rottnest Island, they were all eradicated about 30yrs ago.