ATS Library of Scientific Evidence for Evolution - Open to All Members

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: charlyv
A not so subtle clue for evolution.

This predator flea has imprints of ants in it's wings, so it can be right there with them, without the ants knowing it is there.

I see, so this was actually initially a picture of the Sydney Opera House?(sorry, sarcastic silliness there).

But seriously, ants have compound eyes and are mostly blind to visual detail (compound eyes are better for movement detection) and ants navigate mostly by pheromone scents.

So the pictures of ants on the wings of this flea have to serve another purpose other than the one suggested. Most probably one that includes a life form that can actually see the detail.

Therefore this is not a particularly good example of evolutionary process of itself.

The picture is an example of predator mimicry. It's an adaptive mechanism which is very much an example of the evolutionary process. It's a well known phenomenon in the natural world.

Research Article

Predator Mimicry: Metalmark Moths Mimic Their Jumping Spider Predators
Jadranka Rota , David L. Wagner

PLOS
Published: December 20, 2006
•DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0000045

journals.plos.org.../journal.pone.0000045

But if the ant cannot see the "predator mimicry" then the whole basis of the 'proof' is faulty reasoning.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: charlyv
A not so subtle clue for evolution.

This predator flea has imprints of ants in it's wings, so it can be right there with them, without the ants knowing it is there.

I see, so this was actually initially a picture of the Sydney Opera House?(sorry, sarcastic silliness there).

But seriously, ants have compound eyes and are mostly blind to visual detail (compound eyes are better for movement detection) and ants navigate mostly by pheromone scents.

So the pictures of ants on the wings of this flea have to serve another purpose other than the one suggested. Most probably one that includes a life form that can actually see the detail.

Therefore this is not a particularly good example of evolutionary process of itself.

The picture is an example of predator mimicry. It's an adaptive mechanism which is very much an example of the evolutionary process. It's a well known phenomenon in the natural world.

Research Article

Predator Mimicry: Metalmark Moths Mimic Their Jumping Spider Predators
Jadranka Rota , David L. Wagner

PLOS
Published: December 20, 2006
•DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0000045

journals.plos.org.../journal.pone.0000045

But if the ant cannot see the "predator mimicry" then the whole basis of the 'proof' is faulty reasoning.

I'd have to look up the research paper, if there is one. I'm assuming that the member who posted the picture has a link - I'll ask him/her.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: charlyv
A not so subtle clue for evolution.

This predator flea has imprints of ants in it's wings, so it can be right there with them, without the ants knowing it is there.

I see, so this was actually initially a picture of the Sydney Opera House?(sorry, sarcastic silliness there).

But seriously, ants have compound eyes and are mostly blind to visual detail (compound eyes are better for movement detection) and ants navigate mostly by pheromone scents.

So the pictures of ants on the wings of this flea have to serve another purpose other than the one suggested. Most probably one that includes a life form that can actually see the detail.

Therefore this is not a particularly good example of evolutionary process of itself.

Really?? Care to provide research regarding ant vision??


www.sciencedirect.com...

www.frontiersin.org...

antvisions.wordpress.com...

On last link you can find info about scholarship to study exactly this - anti vision, as most of data is based on research from 100 years ago...

originally posted by: SuperFrog

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: charlyv
A not so subtle clue for evolution.

This predator flea has imprints of ants in it's wings, so it can be right there with them, without the ants knowing it is there.

I see, so this was actually initially a picture of the Sydney Opera House?(sorry, sarcastic silliness there).

But seriously, ants have compound eyes and are mostly blind to visual detail (compound eyes are better for movement detection) and ants navigate mostly by pheromone scents.

So the pictures of ants on the wings of this flea have to serve another purpose other than the one suggested. Most probably one that includes a life form that can actually see the detail.

Therefore this is not a particularly good example of evolutionary process of itself.

Really?? Care to provide research regarding ant vision??


www.sciencedirect.com...

www.frontiersin.org...

antvisions.wordpress.com...

On last link you can find info about scholarship to study exactly this - anti vision, as most of data is based on research from 100 years ago...

Ants have compound eyes. Compound eyes are made of multiple repeating visual receptors. Each individual receptor being similar to a tube with a lens at the top. The inside surfaces of the tube are light sensitive and the lens does not serve to focus an image, but merely diffuses the light entering the tube so that it shines on the sides and registers the presence of light of the wavelength detected by the sensor surface. As such, each receptor tube does not resolve an image but merely shows the light in direct line with the axis of the tube.

The resolution of the sight of the ant relates to the density of the receptor tubes. As you can see from this photograph, the number of receptor units in an ants eye is quite low. Especially considering that the receptor units subtend a curved surface do not all point in the same direction.

In the linked articles that you provided, the first two are explorations of the color sensitivity of the eyes of different ants.

The first article notes that the ant eyes seem to be only able to differentiate two narrow bands, one in the green, the other in the UV parts of the optical spectrum. The article says that the receptors did not functionally seem to be able to discern the intensity of the light in the visible range, merely its presence or absence. This was determined from behavioral analysis of the ants under experimental conditions.

The second article is a deeper, genetic based analysis and showed that there are actually receptors for blue light as well as green and UV. This blue light reception capability is very weakly expressed and may indicate that it is a trait that is in the process of being 'lost' from the genome. The article largely supports the conclusions of the first one in regard to the general bi-chrominacy of ant eyes.

The third link you posted was not for a peer reviewed article. I'm not sure what a request for researchers into ant vision actually proves scientifically?

As you noted, most research into compound eyes is quite dated. This is because we have had a fair understanding of the physical attributes of compound eyes for some time, one that does not require sustained research. Modern research is more involved with informatics and computer vision in relation to primitive natural eyes.

Without going into specifics, an ant simply could not 'see' the images on the wings of the flea. At most, they would be fuzzy dark blotches. Therefore the conclusion proposed, that this is "predator mimicry" is obviously fallacious.

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: charlyv
A not so subtle clue for evolution.

This predator flea has imprints of ants in it's wings, so it can be right there with them, without the ants knowing it is there.

I see, so this was actually initially a picture of the Sydney Opera House?(sorry, sarcastic silliness there).

But seriously, ants have compound eyes and are mostly blind to visual detail (compound eyes are better for movement detection) and ants navigate mostly by pheromone scents.

So the pictures of ants on the wings of this flea have to serve another purpose other than the one suggested. Most probably one that includes a life form that can actually see the detail.

Therefore this is not a particularly good example of evolutionary process of itself.

The picture is an example of predator mimicry. It's an adaptive mechanism which is very much an example of the evolutionary process. It's a well known phenomenon in the natural world.

Research Article

Predator Mimicry: Metalmark Moths Mimic Their Jumping Spider Predators
Jadranka Rota , David L. Wagner

PLOS
Published: December 20, 2006
•DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0000045

journals.plos.org.../journal.pone.0000045

In the case of spiders, they can visually resolve detailed images, so this IS a valid example of predator mimicry.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: charlyv
A not so subtle clue for evolution.

This predator flea has imprints of ants in it's wings, so it can be right there with them, without the ants knowing it is there.

I see, so this was actually initially a picture of the Sydney Opera House?(sorry, sarcastic silliness there).

But seriously, ants have compound eyes and are mostly blind to visual detail (compound eyes are better for movement detection) and ants navigate mostly by pheromone scents.

So the pictures of ants on the wings of this flea have to serve another purpose other than the one suggested. Most probably one that includes a life form that can actually see the detail.

Therefore this is not a particularly good example of evolutionary process of itself.

Well, that is what the biologists suspect is the reason that the flea developed this ruse, as to confuse it's prey, and probably also protect it. This certainly is a great example of evolution, as irregardless of the exact reason it evolved those near perfect representations of ants, it is the reason for it's survival. The millions of years that it would take for trial and error is troubling when you look at the detail. There has to be some other mechanisms in DNA/RNA that understands the needs of the creature and provides solutions for it's survival. I find it absolutely amazing.

a reply to: charlyv

The flea has blown my mind.

a reply to: randyvs

Isn't evolution awesome.
I don't see how God and evolution can be against each other.
God put the rules in the universe and let it ride.
I think she will be proud of it all.

a reply to: chr0naut

Although, I would thing that horizontal genetic transfer falls outside the definition of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis.

Why would you think that?

If the process is OBSERVED then it will, of necessity, be accounted for in the MES, eventually.

That is a serious fault with the anti-evolutionist's thought process: 'you cannot explain X with the MES, therefore it must be Y'.

In fact if the process is "something real" and it cannot be explained with the current understanding embodied within the MES, then the question will be added to the list of 'things to do' and people will start proposing hypotheses to explain it and research to confirm or deny the various hypotheses will take place. Eventually, when process X is figured out to the satisfaction of 'everyone' then it can be said to have been included in the MES. The rest of the MES is not invalidated, new understanding has been added.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: charlyv
A not so subtle clue for evolution.

This predator flea has imprints of ants in it's wings, so it can be right there with them, without the ants knowing it is there.

I see, so this was actually initially a picture of the Sydney Opera House?(sorry, sarcastic silliness there).

But seriously, ants have compound eyes and are mostly blind to visual detail (compound eyes are better for movement detection) and ants navigate mostly by pheromone scents.

So the pictures of ants on the wings of this flea have to serve another purpose other than the one suggested. Most probably one that includes a life form that can actually see the detail.

Therefore this is not a particularly good example of evolutionary process of itself.

The picture is an example of predator mimicry. It's an adaptive mechanism which is very much an example of the evolutionary process. It's a well known phenomenon in the natural world.

Research Article

Predator Mimicry: Metalmark Moths Mimic Their Jumping Spider Predators
Jadranka Rota , David L. Wagner

PLOS
Published: December 20, 2006
•DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0000045

journals.plos.org.../journal.pone.0000045

In the case of spiders, they can visually resolve detailed images, so this IS a valid example of predator mimicry.

We're sort of splitting hairs here. Predator mimicry is a well researched phenomenon. Interpreting the image of ants on the wings of fleas is above my pay grade. It's not my field. But I do know one thing: nature has a way of allowing organisms to develop and evolve in order to survive. The ones that do not adapt are history. They're gone. The ones who develop these odd properties survive. You really don't have to go much deeper than that.

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: chr0naut

Although, I would thing that horizontal genetic transfer falls outside the definition of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis.

Why would you think that?

If the process is OBSERVED then it will, of necessity, be accounted for in the MES, eventually.

That is a serious fault with the anti-evolutionist's thought process: 'you cannot explain X with the MES, therefore it must be Y'.

In fact if the process is "something real" and it cannot be explained with the current understanding embodied within the MES, then the question will be added to the list of 'things to do' and people will start proposing hypotheses to explain it and research to confirm or deny the various hypotheses will take place. Eventually, when process X is figured out to the satisfaction of 'everyone' then it can be said to have been included in the MES. The rest of the MES is not invalidated, new understanding has been added.

MES is not indistinct and vaporous. It consists of a specific list of postulates and was defined in 1942 by Julian Huxley in his book "Evolution: The Modern Synthesis". You can't simply redefine it as whatever you want and neither can anyone else.

If you browse the Wikipedia article on MES you will see the reference to "After the Synthesis" that is because the synthesis is a past event and new discoveries have led away from some of its basic postulates (e.g: genetic drift is rather played down now as we have a better understanding of genetics than in 1942).

The definition of the MES is not arbitrary!

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: charlyv
A not so subtle clue for evolution.

This predator flea has imprints of ants in it's wings, so it can be right there with them, without the ants knowing it is there.

I see, so this was actually initially a picture of the Sydney Opera House?(sorry, sarcastic silliness there).

But seriously, ants have compound eyes and are mostly blind to visual detail (compound eyes are better for movement detection) and ants navigate mostly by pheromone scents.

So the pictures of ants on the wings of this flea have to serve another purpose other than the one suggested. Most probably one that includes a life form that can actually see the detail.

Therefore this is not a particularly good example of evolutionary process of itself.

The picture is an example of predator mimicry. It's an adaptive mechanism which is very much an example of the evolutionary process. It's a well known phenomenon in the natural world.

Research Article

Predator Mimicry: Metalmark Moths Mimic Their Jumping Spider Predators
Jadranka Rota , David L. Wagner

PLOS
Published: December 20, 2006
•DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0000045

journals.plos.org.../journal.pone.0000045

In the case of spiders, they can visually resolve detailed images, so this IS a valid example of predator mimicry.

We're sort of splitting hairs here. Predator mimicry is a well researched phenomenon. Interpreting the image of ants on the wings of fleas is above my pay grade. It's not my field. But I do know one thing: nature has a way of allowing organisms to develop and evolve in order to survive. The ones that do not adapt are history. They're gone. The ones who develop these odd properties survive. You really don't have to go much deeper than that.

I am not denying that predator mimicry exists, I was just pointing out that in the case of the flea with images similar to ants on its wings, it could not have been an example of predator mimicry because the ants could never see the images with enough resolution to mistake them for actual ants.

Agh!

Perhaps the flea itself is predated upon by another species which can see the images and has an aversion to ants!

I don't know, but it's better that stupidly chanting the same mantra if it doesn't apply.

Use those brain cells!

a reply to: chr0naut

I find that a strong possibility as well. Nice observation.
One thing is for sure, they are there for a real good reason, the reason the flea survives to this day.

a reply to: boymonkey74

Isn't evolution awesome.
I don't see how God and evolution can be against each other.
God put the rules in the universe and let it ride.
I think she will be proud of it all.

All I know is I don't even know squawt. And some people know a little more.
But I think you're right about the mix.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: charlyv
A not so subtle clue for evolution.

This predator flea has imprints of ants in it's wings, so it can be right there with them, without the ants knowing it is there.

I see, so this was actually initially a picture of the Sydney Opera House?(sorry, sarcastic silliness there).

But seriously, ants have compound eyes and are mostly blind to visual detail (compound eyes are better for movement detection) and ants navigate mostly by pheromone scents.

So the pictures of ants on the wings of this flea have to serve another purpose other than the one suggested. Most probably one that includes a life form that can actually see the detail.

Therefore this is not a particularly good example of evolutionary process of itself.

The picture is an example of predator mimicry. It's an adaptive mechanism which is very much an example of the evolutionary process. It's a well known phenomenon in the natural world.

Research Article

Predator Mimicry: Metalmark Moths Mimic Their Jumping Spider Predators
Jadranka Rota , David L. Wagner

PLOS
Published: December 20, 2006
•DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0000045

journals.plos.org.../journal.pone.0000045

In the case of spiders, they can visually resolve detailed images, so this IS a valid example of predator mimicry.

We're sort of splitting hairs here. Predator mimicry is a well researched phenomenon. Interpreting the image of ants on the wings of fleas is above my pay grade. It's not my field. But I do know one thing: nature has a way of allowing organisms to develop and evolve in order to survive. The ones that do not adapt are history. They're gone. The ones who develop these odd properties survive. You really don't have to go much deeper than that.

I am not denying that predator mimicry exists, I was just pointing out that in the case of the flea with images similar to ants on its wings, it could not have been an example of predator mimicry because the ants could never see the images with enough resolution to mistake them for actual ants.

Agh!

Your analysis may be totally correct. As I said, it's not my field and I haven't read the research papers. But the pictures were good!! You have to admit that. Halloween costume - dress up as a flea with ants embedded in the wings. A prize winner for sure!

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: charlyv
A not so subtle clue for evolution.

This predator flea has imprints of ants in it's wings, so it can be right there with them, without the ants knowing it is there.

I see, so this was actually initially a picture of the Sydney Opera House?(sorry, sarcastic silliness there).

But seriously, ants have compound eyes and are mostly blind to visual detail (compound eyes are better for movement detection) and ants navigate mostly by pheromone scents.

So the pictures of ants on the wings of this flea have to serve another purpose other than the one suggested. Most probably one that includes a life form that can actually see the detail.

Therefore this is not a particularly good example of evolutionary process of itself.

The picture is an example of predator mimicry. It's an adaptive mechanism which is very much an example of the evolutionary process. It's a well known phenomenon in the natural world.

Research Article

Predator Mimicry: Metalmark Moths Mimic Their Jumping Spider Predators
Jadranka Rota , David L. Wagner

PLOS
Published: December 20, 2006
•DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0000045

journals.plos.org.../journal.pone.0000045

In the case of spiders, they can visually resolve detailed images, so this IS a valid example of predator mimicry.

We're sort of splitting hairs here. Predator mimicry is a well researched phenomenon. Interpreting the image of ants on the wings of fleas is above my pay grade. It's not my field. But I do know one thing: nature has a way of allowing organisms to develop and evolve in order to survive. The ones that do not adapt are history. They're gone. The ones who develop these odd properties survive. You really don't have to go much deeper than that.

I am not denying that predator mimicry exists, I was just pointing out that in the case of the flea with images similar to ants on its wings, it could not have been an example of predator mimicry because the ants could never see the images with enough resolution to mistake them for actual ants.

Agh!

Your analysis may be totally correct. As I said, it's not my field and I haven't read the research papers. But the pictures were good!! You have to admit that. Halloween costume - dress up as a flea with ants embedded in the wings. A prize winner for sure!

Ah ha, a wampire flea! Coming to suck their blood, and converting their corpses to anty matter!

a reply to: chr0naut

MES is not indistinct and vaporous. ... The definition of the MES is not arbitrary!

Correct.

But it does EVOLVE.

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: chr0naut

MES is not indistinct and vaporous. ... The definition of the MES is not arbitrary!

Correct.

But it does EVOLVE.

Knowledge and biology evolves but the definition of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis is fixed.

originally posted by: chr0naut
I am not denying that predator mimicry exists, I was just pointing out that in the case of the flea with images similar to ants on its wings, it could not have been an example of predator mimicry because the ants could never see the images with enough resolution to mistake them for actual ants.

Agh!

On contrary, thanks to resolution, ants are unable to distinguish between real ants and images on wings of flea.

Those links I posted above actually show that most what we know about ant vision is dated and incomplete. Newer studies find more interesting things we did not know before.

It might be as you said about flea, but again, we would need more info and complete research paper to find that out...