Cool! that's neat that they've studied them for 30 years, and now have enough data to show something like this that would otherwise go unnoticed.
It does make you think about how much selection processes are being effected by human interaction, directly or indirectly.

ONLY LIMITED EVOLUTION POSSIBLE IN NATURE All real evolution in nature is within limits. The genes already exist for micro-evolution (variations within a biological kind such as varieties of dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc.), but not for macro-evolution (variations across biological kinds such as from sea sponge to human). The unthinking environment has no ability to design or program entirely new genes. Only variations of already existing genes and traits are possible. A dog will always be a dog no matter how many varieties come into being.
Evolutionists hope and assume that, over millions of years, random mutations (accidental changes) in the genetic code caused by radiation from the environment will produce entirely new genes for entirely new traits in species so that macro-evolution occurs. It’s much like hoping that, if given enough time, randomly changing the sequence of letters in a cook book will turn the book into a romance novel, or a book on astronomy! Another problem for macro-evolution is the issue of survival of the fittest. How can a partially evolved species be fit for survival? A partially evolved trait or organ that is not complete and fully functioning from the start will be a liability to a species, not a survival asset. Plants and animals in the process of macro-evolution would be unfit for survival.
Imagine an evolving fish having part fins and part feet, with the fins evolving into feet. Where’s the survival advantage? It can't use either fins or feet efficiently. These fish exist only on automobile bumper stickers!
In fact, how could species have survived at all while their vital organs were supposedly evolving? Survival of the fittest (aka natural selection) may explain how species survive, due to minor variations and adaptations to the environment, but not how they originated. Natural selection merely “selects” from biological variations that are possible. It’s not a creative force.
Genetic and biological similarities between species are no proof of common ancestry. Such similarities are better and more logically explained due to a common Genetic Engineer or Designer (yes, God) who designed similar functions for similar purposes in various species. Genetic information, like other forms of information, cannot arise by chance, so it's more rational to believe that DNA or genetic similarities between species are due to intelligent design.
What about "Junk" DNA? The latest science shows that "Junk DNA" isn't junk after all! It's we who were ignorant of how useful these segments of DNA really are. Recent scientific research published in scientific journals such as Nature and RNA has revealed that the "non-coding" segments of DNA are essential in regulating gene expression (i.e. how, when, and where genes are expressed in the body). All the fossils that have been used to support human evolution have ultimately been found to be either hoaxes, non-human, or human, but not human and non-human. All species in the fossil record and living are complete, fully-formed, and fully functional. There's no macro-evolution in nature. Visit my newest Internet sites, THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION and WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS (2nd Edition) Sincerely, Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. Bible/Biology) Author of the popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS
*I have given successful lectures (with question and answer period afterwards) defending creation before evolutionist science faculty and students at various colleges and universities. I've been privileged to be recognized in the 24th edition of Marquis "Who's Who in The East" for my writings on religion and science.

@babu:
There is no such thing as a "partially evolved species", however individuals which show the transition between species are easy to find. An individual dog will always be a dog, but eons from now its descendants could be something entirely different that could never interbreed with a dog of today. That is how new species evolve. Nothing in the theory of evolution implies that a dog will have a litter of kittens. It does explain how dogs and cats have a common ancestor and how humans share a common ancestor millions of years ago with every living thing on earth.
You have a basic misunderstanding of evolution.
By the way, all you have to do to get into any Who's Who book is pay for it.

@Babu G. Ranganathan
"It’s much like hoping that, if given enough time, randomly changing the sequence of letters in a cook book will turn the book into a romance novel, or a book on astronomy! " Not at all. Evolution is gradual and there is selection pressure on each generation. It's more like "if a word is randomly formed and there is an external observer that does the selecting, in deep time there will emerge a coherent work of writing". The book is an analogy to the swallow and the external observer is analogous to the natural environment or, in this case, mostly with moving vehicles.

re; kwarks
The problem is that the intervening generations wont survive to reproduce. lets hope the long wing instructions do not bread themselves out of the swallow could be in real trouble. Imagine if the The peppered moth had lost the genes for the light color form during the coal blight.

Cars didn't produce Birds with shorter wings, and this isn't evolution. The physiological process which produced Birds with shorter wings, actual evolution, is entirely different to natural selection. Depending on their flight profile these birds with shorter wings could actually be evolving longer wings contrary to their suitability for life on the road side, but natural selection will keep it in check and they with the shortest will survive - however i imagine a low flying flight profile such as that along the road is producing shorter wings anyway, which makes sense as to why they'd be better at surviving cars (still nothing to do with the cars other than the cars are also at low level)
There's nothing random about evolution, or anything. "Random" is Human for "I don't know". An exact environment built an exact life form, and it continues to alter it
Suggesting that mutation occurs randomly works everywhere except real life, which limits it to the human imagination. I can imagine anything, i can imagine that babies are delivered by Stalks, the theory works right? The stalks just do deliver babies, there are babies and there are stalks, stalks can fly and babies can fit in blankets and therefor my theory works - except in real life. "Random" mutations might influence survival but it's not evolution, it's not the cause of a physiological change to the species
A "Random" mutation could either be:
1) Positive 2) Neutral 3) Negative
In which case the world would be full of animals with neutral mutations which make no sense whatsoever. However it's just not the case
Getting a uniform "random" mutation across an entire species is completely ridiculous, DNA is big, so to speak; the options for molecular change are difficult to imagine, after you remember that something has to cause it. The only "random" mutations are deformity and disease, and even they are simply caused by factors currently beyond our ability to predict in most cases
The old (and it is falling apart) "random mutation" theory completely ignores the sheer scale of it's own claim, and says "they just do evolve exactly the way we want them to and it is random because that theory is easiest to understand"

Babu:
You are so full of Babu that you should take a basic biology class. Genetic similarities are proof of common ancestry!!!!!

What an interesting discussion. Personally I think it's an act of faith to believe in Macro Evolution. The incredible amount of missing links should make any scientific mind suspicious. Irrespective, none of us were around a billion plus years ago to witness what life looked like, nor it's genesis. Whatever the causes, it's good to inquire why the changes are apparent. I'm skeptical if 112mm average wing diameter would equate to such a different performance to the 107mm wing diameter in terms of manuverability. It is only a 4.7% difference. Further, whatever losses are encountered would likely be offset by other advantages. Arguably a greater wingspan would provide better ability to rapidly reduce speed which creatures in nature also use to avoid collisions. A greater wingspan would also assist in taking advantages of thermals. This could mean the bird would expend less energy when hunting and so would need to consume less food for energy. This, in turn could mean less time on the wing, reducing chances of collision. IMHO there are too many factors to simply imply a greater wingspan is a disadvantage where vehicles are concerned. In my mind, the jury is (perhaps should be) still out.
Out of curiosity, does anyone know if there is any biological life on earth that is sustained by consuming purely inorganic matter?

That's not evolution. That's natural selection (google peppered moths & industrial revolution).

"Out of curiosity, does anyone know if there is any biological life on earth that is sustained by consuming purely inorganic matter?"
Yes. Plants.