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

[chris butterworth]

Your understanding ability has problem.
I said 'ghastly sight'. That meant that to common people, the bird was ghastly; but to the female bird, it was beautiful.
Do you still think I am anthropocentric?

Biologists think that bird is beautiful. This does not beyong my theory, according which the more one likes an object, the more beautiful the object will be.

Thank you for referring to the people on here as 'common people' ( and as they are the only ones to be reading this you must mean us ). Do I still think you are anthropogenic? You've shown very little to make me think otherwise. The core argument of all your 'proof' has been based on what you, and only you, consider the birds find 'beautiful' without the slightest thought that a birds comprehension of 'beauty', if they have one, may be different. Yet again you attempt to force your ideas onto species which you know nothing about. How can I think otherwise. If you read my post properly, and did not impose your own meaning upon it, you would see I never said 'biologists think that bird is beautiful'. I said biologists think it's a ' wonderful case of evolutionary adaption'. A couple of answers to my previous questions wouldn't come amiss. You seem to be the only one receiving answers so would make a change to get some feed back from you. Here's another to be going on with. By what criteria did you wholly dismiss my reason for Toucans and Hornbills appearing as they do? It was as valid as anything you put forward - and it was backed up by knowledge of both the groups.

Chris

 

[fugl]

Shameless cherry picking, of course, and no real evidence anywhere, but I still find some of morninglight's examples interesting. The trick is to think of what he's doing not as botched science but as a kind of performance art.

 

[Mike in Cumbria]

I have similar consideration: ducks' plumage show patterns that look like river, island, aquatic snail, clam. Yet, phesants' plumage do not show. They show more frequently grains, insects, fruits. This is because they live in different environments. If they have opposite plumage, for example, a pheasant has plumage with island-like pattern, My theory must be wrong.

Please take a look at this bird. http://www.pbase.com/image/56810380

You will see that it has a neck pattern that exactly replicates waves crashing on to a desert shoreline from a deep blue sea. It also has a head pattern that exactly matches the colour of raw meat. It is quite obvious that this pheasant nests on sandy beaches next to the ocean and eats meat. I have lots more examples.

 

[morninglight]

you would see I never said 'biologists think that bird is beautiful'. I said biologists think it's a ' wonderful case of evolutionary adaption'.
-------------------------
I admit a fault. Please use this example to explain why the red headed vulture evolved like that, and why you call the male vulture's appearance a ' wonderful case of evolutionary adaption'. The female is very different. Is the female appearance is also a ' wonderful case of evolutionary adaption'? Why do they look different?

 

[morninglight]

pseudo-Lamarckism?
I have been defending the Survival of the fittest principle and basing the beauty-selection on it.

 

[foresttwitcher]

One more forecast for you to test: I guess that this bird must like eating beetles.
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/home.php?mod=space&uid=2056&do=album&picid=326538#pic_block

According to the Opus section of this Forum, which you could access to check your predictions, Wilson's Bird of Paradise feeds on fruit & arthropods - not beetles.

 

[fugl]

According to the Opus section of this Forum, which you could access to check your predictions, Wilson's Bird of Paradise feeds on fruit & arthropods - not beetles.

Beetles are arthropods.

 

[morninglight]

Please take a look at this bird. http://www.pbase.com/image/56810380

You will see that it has a neck pattern that exactly replicates waves crashing on to a desert shoreline from a deep blue sea. It also has a head pattern that exactly matches the colour of raw meat. It is quite obvious that this pheasant nests on sandy beaches next to the ocean and eats meat. I have lots more examples.

So far I do not have good explanation for the head of this pheasant. But I never had prospect as you describe.

The red comb is similar to the flower cockscomb. I guess the pheasant like eating the seeds of cockscomb very much.

Also, I found some birds has a pattern on face whick seemly draw a symmetrical beak or head. Is that for puzzling natural enemy or making himself clear to the similar? I am not sure.

Perhap this pheasant also like water. But this does not mean they want to swim in river.

Please have a look at this bird:
magnificent bird
I guess thay live in a pace where water is ofent absent, since dissatisfaction
can strenthern beauty sense.

Welcome you to provide more these kind of examples.

 

[morninglight]

The neck is more like a tree trunk with snow on buttom.
I do not think every special form of birds is for beauty. Some is for identity so that the simiar can seek easily, some is for concealment.

 

[chris butterworth]

you would see I never said 'biologists think that bird is beautiful'. I said biologists think it's a ' wonderful case of evolutionary adaption'.
-------------------------
I admit a fault. Please use this example to explain why the red headed vulture evolved like that, and why you call the male vulture's appearance a ' wonderful case of evolutionary adaption'. The female is very different. Is the female appearance is also a ' wonderful case of evolutionary adaption'? Why do they look different?

To use your succinct reply to one of my questions, in fact the only one you've graced with answer - No!

Chris

 

[morninglight]

Victoria pigen also has a symmetrical beak or head.

 

[chris butterworth]

pseudo-Lamarckism?
I have been defending the Survival of the fittest principle and basing the beauty-selection on it.

You haven't 'defended' anything. All you've done is post some photographs, manufacture untenable links between bird's plumage and your opinion of what they should eat ( with the occasional mammal or habitat thrown in as a pitiful attempt at a diversion ) and continually refuse to believe anyone had the capacity to know more than you. If you are serious about defending anything then it should be a defence of your premise. You could start by going back through the thread and provide answers to the questions that have been put to you.

Chris

 

[chris butterworth]

So far I do not have good explanation for the head of this pheasant. But I never had prospect as you describe.

The red comb is similar to the flower cockscomb. I guess the pheasant like eating the seeds of cockscomb very much.

You do not have a good explanation for the head of the Pheasant? May I suggest you read back through your posts. You continually demanded that we accept your delusion that Pheasant ate Pine cones. Now your babbling about Cockscomb?

Also, I found some birds has a pattern on face whick seemly draw a symmetrical beak or head. Is that for puzzling natural enemy or making himself clear to the similar? I am not sure.

There is nothing remotely new about the fact of bilateral symmetry. What did you hope to bring to this debacle by introducing this.

Please have a look at this bird:
magnificent bird
I guess thay live in a pace where water is ofent absent, since dissatisfaction
can strenthern beauty sense.

This is possibly your most ludicrous attempt so far. Didn't you look at the photographs? Didn't it strike you as odd that the birds look ........... different? Didn't it cross your mind that they may be different species? Didn't you think to check if the habitat these birds live in may be in some of the wettest forests on earth? I'm beginning to suspect this whole thread is either a remedial assignment or a spoof.

Chris

 

[foresttwitcher]

Beetles are arthropods.

My mistake, I knew I should have kept out of this.

 

[Andy Hurley]

I'm beginning to suspect this whole thread is either a remedial assignment or a spoof.

Chris

Shameless cherry picking, of course, and no real evidence anywhere, but I still find some of morninglight's examples interesting. The trick is to think of what he's doing not as botched science but as a kind of performance art.

I refer the honourable gentlemen to the reply I gave in thread #35.

 

[chris butterworth]

My mistake, I knew I should have kept out of this.

Ahhh, but morninglight specifically chose 2 species of beetles, one of them from the most heavily chitinised family, that would require breaking up before the bird could eat it ( Do B-o-p break up their food, morninglight?) and the other from outside the range of the bird. He also claimed, according to his premise, that it was one, or both, of these species that was so delicious that the Wilson's Bird-of-paradise somehow had to evolve a head pattern that resembled it. Arthropod refers, not only to these two species of beetle, but to all other insects, spiders, mites, scorpions etc. There are tens of thousands of species ( not including the cartoon butterflies ) that could have provided an impetus - but not those two. Yet again, it was an example of morninglight's Dualism and lack of knowledge of the subject, winning over common sense.

Chris

 

[chris butterworth]

I refer the honourable gentlemen to the reply I gave in thread #35.

He's had a good run though. 10/10 for entertainment value. :t:

Chris

 

[Mike in Cumbria]

He's had a good run though. 10/10 for entertainment value. :t:

Chris

10/10 for audience participation alone.

 

[chris butterworth]

10/10 for audience participation alone.

It is the run-up to pantomime season. Just getting some practice in. :-O

Chris

 

[hampers]

It is the run-up to pantomime season. Just getting some practice in. :-O

Chris

Chris
I am amazed that you still have the patience to respond to the views of an individual who will not listen to common sense and well balanced counter arguments to what, is in my eyes, a completely flawed hypothesis.

Great perseverance is all I can say.

Phil