I found that bird's colorful plumages reflect their needs for foods and enviroments (1 Viewer)

[Barred Wobbler]

Puffin's beak looks like northern pole clam.
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/home.php?mod=space&uid=2056&do=album&picid=171702#pic_block
It head is also like a conch.

And yet it looks nothing like a sand eel.




"Food - Chiefly marine fish; in adult diet, more invertebrates, especially crustaceans,"

 

[chris butterworth]

Yes, counter evidence is welcome.

But you reject 'counter evidence' at each turn. Time and time again you've been shown that your assumptions regarding the food choices of the birds you've chosen are woefully inaccurate and each time you've ignored the evidence. You presented a fresh water mollusc as a food source of King Eider- and were shown how this was false. You claimed ducks of the genus Aix ate 'clams' yet they are vegetarian. You have been presented with hard facts regarding Temmincks Tragopan, and how 'grasshoppers, are not part of their diet. Now you have moved to Atlantic Puffin and are linking them to 'clams' and, wonder of wonders, 'conch'. Atlantic Puffin eat, mainly, Sand-Eels with a smaller proportion of other small oily fish and crustaceans such as shrimps and prawns. Their bill and jaw musculature is not equipped to deal with 'clams". As for 'conchs'? Look at the size of an Atlantic Puffin, then look at the size of a Conch. Even the smallest species of Conch would be far too large to handle. There is one other rather important flaw in your Puffin / Conch 'example' Atlantic Puffin are a cold water species, Conch species, on the other hand, are tropical and sub-tropical so how would Atlantic Puffin, in fact, any of the Puffin species, come into contact with Conch? Yet again you fail to do even the slightest amount of research in order to provide some kind of real world basis for your claims, instead you rely on nothing more than teleology, dualism and fantasy.

Chris

 

[chris butterworth]

A perfect evolutionary theory should tell us the origin of life, including the origins of sense organs and plumages.

You show a woeful lack of understanding of the scientific meaning of the word 'theory'. A theory can never be 'perfect'. In order for a theory to be 'perfect' it would leave no room for further discoveries. We would know everything. Science is not religion. At best science can only be 99.9% sure.

Only birds present beauty in this way because birds produce their colorful plumages in lower cost.

Yet you brought up monkeys and Giant Anteater as examples of 'proof'? Could you provide some references regarding the 'cost' of birds production of colourful plumage?

Chris

 

[Andy Hurley]

instead you rely on nothing more than teleology, dualism and fantasy.

Chris

I think you meant tellytubbyology, either way its all Lala 8-P

 

[chris butterworth]

I think you meant tellytubbyology, either way its all Lala 8-P

:-O :-O :-O :t:

Chris

 

[chris butterworth]

Did you see this picture:
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/home.php?mod=space&uid=2056&do=album&picid=410907&goto=up#pic_block
Biologists tell us that the parrot eats clay to expel toxin contained in leaves they ate before.

The exact reason is not known. It may be they eat mineral rich clay to counteract the toxins in their food ( mainly fruit, seeds and nuts ) or, as it tends to happen in regions with soils that are very low in trace elements, they may be visiting pockets of 'richer' soil to gain those trace elements in quantities large enough for their continued health. One thing is certain, the diet of the species gathering at these sites is not primarily leaves. Fruit, seeds, nuts etc. are nutritionally more advantageous in that it requires a lesser amount to provide the calorific values needed for birds. For birds, even as large as Macaws, to exist on leaves they would have to eat huge quantities, meaning a larger stomach, ( which would compromise their flying ability ), as leaf eaters need to allow a longer time for the gut flora and fauna to break down the cellular structure of the leaves. Simple physiology. Yet again you take an impression, or part of a fact, and twist it to fit your pre-conceived ideas. You'll just keep getting shot down every time.

Chris

 

[Mono]

We know the mechanism by which sexual selection can bring about the seemingly counterintuitive traits in animals. Finding individual precursor characteristics for particular species will not add one iota to evolutionary theory, even if they are correct.

Indeed how would we measure if they are correct?

 

[morninglight]

The exact reason is not known. It may be they eat mineral rich clay to counteract the toxins in their food ( mainly fruit, seeds and nuts ) or, as it tends to happen in regions with soils that are very low in trace elements, they may be visiting pockets of 'richer' soil to gain those trace elements in quantities large enough for their continued health. One thing is certain, the diet of the species gathering at these sites is not primarily leaves. Fruit, seeds, nuts etc. are nutritionally more advantageous in that it requires a lesser amount to provide the calorific values needed for birds. For birds, even as large as Macaws, to exist on leaves they would have to eat huge quantities, meaning a larger stomach, ( which would compromise their flying ability ), as leaf eaters need to allow a longer time for the gut flora and fauna to break down the cellular structure of the leaves. Simple physiology. Yet again you take an impression, or part of a fact, and twist it to fit your pre-conceived ideas. You'll just keep getting shot down every time.

Chris

The parrots cannot store up seeds and fruits. So, some time, they eat leaves and flowers.

 

[morninglight]

We know the mechanism by which sexual selection can bring about the seemingly counterintuitive traits in animals. Finding individual precursor characteristics for particular species will not add one iota to evolutionary theory, even if they are correct.

Indeed how would we measure if they are correct?

1)to explain various phenomena in comparison with other theories.
2)to forecast something and than to test. For example, to forecast that The tragopan temminckii that likes to eat grasshoppers.

 

[morninglight]

Can you prove that heliocentric theory is correct? No way!
Why do we believe heliocentric theory instead of geocentic theory?
not because heliocentric theory can be proved, only because using heliocentric theory, we can expain planetary orbits more conveniently.

 

[fugl]

2)to forecast something and than to test. For example, to forecast that The tragopan temminckii that likes to eat grasshoppers.

And if the test failed one could argue that some ancestor of temminckii liked to eat grasshoppers. In other words, your idea is completely unfalsifiable.

 

[morninglight]

You always ask me to prove. I do not think I can prove a scientific theory (as talked by Popper). I do not force you to believe. I only propose a cenjecture that seems better in explaining sexual selection.

Conjecture is prior to test. For example, first Albert Einstein proposed the hypothesis that light speed is constant. This hypothesis was tested by Michelson-Morley experiment later .

About if The tragopan temminckii likes eating grasshoppers, the parrot likes eating leaves, the tests have been done above. Why do you turned a blind eye to them?

 

[morninglight]

And if the test failed one could argue that some ancestor of temminckii liked to eat grasshoppers. In other words, your idea is completely unfalsifiable.

If so, the we should decrease its evaluation. and even try to seek better theory.

 

[morninglight]

This is not physics where we can quasify a scientific theory by one or two tests.
For sexual selection theory, I think that one example or test can increase or decrease our a bit of belief to this theory.

 

[chris butterworth]

About if The tragopan temminckii likes eating grasshoppers, the parrot likes eating leaves, the tests have been done above. Why do you turned a blind eye to them?

The diet of Temmincks Tragopan has been tested ( by years of field observation ) - and your proposition has been proven false. The diet of the 'Parrot' (Scarlet Macaw) has been tested ( by years of field observations) - and your proposition has been proven false. The same goes for Peacock, King Eider, Wood Duck, Mandarin Duck as well as your latest attempt, Atlantic Puffin. It is you who has turned a blind eye - to the facts that have been repeatedly laid before you. Your constant refusal to consider any other view than your own brings nothing to the discussion. Even Popper acknowledged the reality of fact.

Chris

 

[Mike in Cumbria]

Would a photo of puffins enjoying a plateful of conches and a glass of well chilled Chablis help at all?

 

[Andy Hurley]

Nah, photos can be photoshopped... but if a five year old did a crayon drawing.....Children ALWAYS tell the truth...

 

[chris butterworth]

You always ask me to prove. I do not think I can prove a scientific theory (as talked by Popper). I do not force you to believe. I only propose a cenjecture that seems better in explaining sexual selection.

1. Popper is only one of many, many philosophers. Not everyone is an adherent of his.

2. We ask you to, at least, research your examples , not to prove your conjecture. You cannot put forward examples that are patently false and expect us not to comment.

Chris

 

[chris butterworth]

Would a photo of puffins enjoying a plateful of conches and a glass of well chilled Chablis help at all?

One showing them tucking into Spam fritters with a pint of Guinness would convince me. :t:

Chris

 

[Mike in Cumbria]

One showing them tucking into Spam fritters with a pint of Guinness would convince me. :t:

Chris

How about a toucan enjoying a guiness?