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

[fugl]

morninglight:
I'm guessing that English isn't your first language, and that some of the subtleties of some of the replies has been lost on you. I feel someone should point out that most (all?) posters are not trying to help you; they're mostly being sarcastic, making fun of you.

So, as long as you are aware of this, please continue with the "entertainment". However, the one way traffic is becoming a bit boring, so please try to give back a bit of what you're getting

I'm sure--or at least I sure hope--that the OP knows what's been going on, but well said anyway--very well said.

But subtleties and a bit boring? You are waay too kind!

 

[ChrisKten]

[...]

But subtleties and a bit boring? You are waay too kind!

:-O I never been accused of being kind before o

 

[Andy Hurley]

:-O I never been accused of being kind before o

You could always complain to the mods.....oh no, Fugl is one. Its a conspiracy I tell you

 

[lazza]

W O W

I hadn't read this thread until just now, as the title in itself just seemed too ridiculous. So, now I've read it, and I couldn't even have begun to guess how ridiculous the thread would be!!

There are so many flaws in the arguments put forward by morninglight, I'm not sure I know where to start.

For one thing, you state as FACT that a parrots face looks like clay. But I state as (equally acceptable) FACT that is does not - not even slightly. Your repeat this error in many of your comparisons - a pheasant looks like grains? No, it does not - not even slightly. A Muscovy duck's skin patch looks like a frog...? What?! For one thing, the skin patch differs greatly on muscovy ducks, for another thing, the example you show does not look like a frog - not even slightly.

Secondly, you relate many of these "similarities" to foods that the bird in question does not eat, but provide no explanation as to why this is relevant to your argument.

Thirdly, you are making these connections through a human's perception of similarity, but each animal's perception has been shown to be very different to our own. (My cat, for example, possibly thinks my car is another animal because it has two headlights which look like eyes).

Fourthly, you mention several times that you have no need to prove your theory - that it is for someone else to do this - but then you continually return to this thread to argue your case. This suggests that you are trying to prove something, but unfortunately, the arguments you make are entirely unscientific and the links you suggest are - at best - tentative. If you want us to accept this as a scientific theory (even an unproven one), then you need to put your ideas over in a scientifically rigorous way.

Fifthly, you impose a human emotion or perception ("Beauty") on birds (and animals) whereas there is no evidence that any animal other than humans has any such perception. Psychologically, beauty is very complex and is entirely subjective (mostly developed through nurture rather than nature), and is almost certainly accounted for by the human brain's complexity, so is unlikley to be a characterstic of animal psychology. You don't see a sheep wistfully staring at an aesthetically pleasing landscape, for example, even one full of grass.

Should I go on?

 

[ovenbird43]

If only word duck has a snail-like head, we can said that is coincidental.
But asian king eider also has a snail-like head where the snail is asian snail.
Are they coincidental?

Without a true test, then coincidence is at least as plausible an explanation. What about the fact that wood ducks are primarily vegetarian? If it looks like a snail that it doesn't regularly eat, then yes I'd say that's coincidence.

As to if Muscovy Duck's face has a frog like pattern, I put a frog ther for you to compare.
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/home.php?mod=space&uid=2056&do=album&picid=423238

Sorry, but I still find this one far-fetched, and it highlights the subjectivity involved. Can you not admit that where you see a frog, another person may see something else entirely? Not to mention how the birds themselves interpret what they see- how can we possibly know?

 

[RafaelMatias]

Can you not admit that where you see a frog, another person may see something else entirely? Not to mention how the birds themselves interpret what they see- how can we possibly know?

It reminds me a bit of this.

 

[lazza]

hmmm.... I wonder if we are part of an experiment here. I looked into some of the other information on Mr Lu's personal website, and found:

Actually, philosopher K. R. Popper suggested using information as criterion to evaluate a scientific
theory or a proposition (see page 250 in [12]) long time ago. But he didn’t provide suitable information
formula. The above information measure accords with Popper’s theory very much [8]. If Q(Aj|xi)≡1,
then there must be I(x; yi)=0. This is just the mathematical description of Popper’s affirmation that a
proposition that cannot be falsified provides no information and hence is meaningless. The less a fuzzy
set Aj is, or the more unexpected the events in Aj are, the less the Q(Aj) is, and hence the bigger the I(x;
yi) is while Q(Aj|xi)=1. This is just the mathematical description of Popper’s affirmation that a
proposition with less prior logical probability has more important scientific significance if it can go
though tests of facts.

and

Popper and his successors tell us that reliability of a scientific proposition comes from the repeated
tests by facts. What is the difference between the repeated tests and verification emphasized by logical
positivism? Now we distinguish prior logical probability and posterior logical probability of a
proposition. For the prior logical probability Q(Aj), the less the better; yet for the posterior logical
probability Q(Aj|xi), the bigger the better. So, both falsification and verification are necessary.

And from what I can understand of other publications from the same Mr Lu (which I admit I cannot understand much of!), I wonder if the misleading and unqualified responses are deliberately vague to test "information theory", which seems to relate to how information communication variability affects the "quality" of the understanding....!

 

[fugl]

hmmm.... I wonder if we are part of an experiment here. I looked into some of the other information on Mr Lu's personal website, and found:



and



And from what I can understand of other publications from the same Mr Lu (which I admit I cannot understand much of!), I wonder if the misleading and unqualified responses are deliberately vague to test "information theory", which seems to relate to how information communication variability affects the "quality" of the understanding....!

Very interesting--the biter bit! If so, I wonder if the broken English is part of the act? As I suggested in a previous post, my thought was that he might be engaged in a kind--admittedly a very peculiar kind--of performance art; but that he might be conducting an experiment in the sociology of communication never occurred to me. I wonder if we'll ever know the truth? An enigma wrapped in a mystery (or however exactly it goes) is our Mr. Lu!

 

[morninglight]

Male king vulture and Paradisaea raggiana seemly provide mimic food.
Please have a look at
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/home.php?mod=space&uid=2056&do=album&picid=423471
Is that like gut?

http://blog.sciencenet.cn/home.php?mod=space&uid=2056&do=album&picid=423470#pic_block
Two pictures show this case. It is not occasional.

 

[Barred Wobbler]

Male king vulture and Paradisaea raggiana seemly provide mimic food.
Please have a look at
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/home.php?mod=space&uid=2056&do=album&picid=423471
Is that like gut?

http://blog.sciencenet.cn/home.php?mod=space&uid=2056&do=album&picid=423470#pic_block
Two pictures show this case. It is not occasional.

Looks more like a poison arrow frog of some sort.

 

[morninglight]

hmmm.... I wonder if we are part of an experiment here. I looked into some of the other information on Mr Lu's personal website, and found:



and



And from what I can understand of other publications from the same Mr Lu (which I admit I cannot understand much of!), I wonder if the misleading and unqualified responses are deliberately vague to test "information theory", which seems to relate to how information communication variability affects the "quality" of the understanding....!

Contrarily, information research is helpful to beauty research.
I first research beauty and sexual selection, then color and philosophy, and then information and scientifi method.

 

[morninglight]

W O W

I hadn't read this thread until just now, as the title in itself just seemed too ridiculous. So, now I've read it, and I couldn't even have begun to guess how ridiculous the thread would be!!

There are so many flaws in the arguments put forward by morninglight, I'm not sure I know where to start.

For one thing, you state as FACT that a parrots face looks like clay. But I state as (equally acceptable) FACT that is does not - not even slightly. Your repeat this error in many of your comparisons - a pheasant looks like grains? No, it does not - not even slightly. A Muscovy duck's skin patch looks like a frog...? What?! For one thing, the skin patch differs greatly on muscovy ducks, for another thing, the example you show does not look like a frog - not even slightly.

Secondly, you relate many of these "similarities" to foods that the bird in question does not eat, but provide no explanation as to why this is relevant to your argument.

Thirdly, you are making these connections through a human's perception of similarity, but each animal's perception has been shown to be very different to our own. (My cat, for example, possibly thinks my car is another animal because it has two headlights which look like eyes).

Fourthly, you mention several times that you have no need to prove your theory - that it is for someone else to do this - but then you continually return to this thread to argue your case. This suggests that you are trying to prove something, but unfortunately, the arguments you make are entirely unscientific and the links you suggest are - at best - tentative. If you want us to accept this as a scientific theory (even an unproven one), then you need to put your ideas over in a scientifically rigorous way.

Fifthly, you impose a human emotion or perception ("Beauty") on birds (and animals) whereas there is no evidence that any animal other than humans has any such perception. Psychologically, beauty is very complex and is entirely subjective (mostly developed through nurture rather than nature), and is almost certainly accounted for by the human brain's complexity, so is unlikley to be a characterstic of animal psychology. You don't see a sheep wistfully staring at an aesthetically pleasing landscape, for example, even one full of grass.

Should I go on?

I understan why you deny those similarities from very beginning. Because you think "there is no evidence that any animal other than humans has any such perception". I have met many aethetic researchers like you. I do not want to waste time to persuaid them.

 

[morninglight]

Without a true test, then coincidence is at least as plausible an explanation. What about the fact that wood ducks are primarily vegetarian? If it looks like a snail that it doesn't regularly eat, then yes I'd say that's coincidence.


Sorry, but I still find this one far-fetched, and it highlights the subjectivity involved. Can you not admit that where you see a frog, another person may see something else entirely? Not to mention how the birds themselves interpret what they see- how can we possibly know?

Do you like to bet with me about whether that king eider likes eating aquatic snail?

Please draw a rough draft of frog, then to compare the pattern on the duck with your draft to see which is better image of frog.

 

[chris butterworth]

I understan why you deny those similarities from very beginning. Because you think "there is no evidence that any animal other than humans has any such perception". I have met many aethetic researchers like you. I do not want to waste time to persuaid them.

Nice to see you won't waste time on aesthetic researchers. A total waste of space, unlike those that rely on proving facts based on scientific research and methodologies. Don't you agree?

Chris

 

[chris butterworth]

Do you like to bet with me about whether that king eider likes eating aquatic snail?

Please draw a rough draft of frog, then to compare the pattern on the duck with your draft to see which is better image of frog.

You know you'll lose the bet, no matter how you phrase it - and then welch on it, just as you've done before. ( BTW. I'm a lecturer in Applied Malacology as well as a birder. Just think about it )

Chris

 

[morninglight]

Nice to see you won't waste time on aesthetic researchers. A total waste of space, unlike those that rely on proving facts based on scientific research and methodologies. Don't you agree?

Chris

Do not distort what I said. I only do not want to argue with those aesthetic researchers that deny that birds can perceive beauty.
Dio you think you understand scientific method?

 

[ovenbird43]

Do you like to bet with me about whether that king eider likes eating aquatic snail?

No, because it would be a waste of time- Chris already provided detailed evidence against this, yet you did not address it nor admit you were wrong. So why should I try, when somebody much more knowledgeable on the matter than me (or you) failed?

Please draw a rough draft of frog, then to compare the pattern on the duck with your draft to see which is better image of frog.

Naturally I will find my own drawing more representative of a frog than a blob on a duck's face, because my drawing is a representation of my own perception- and thus I refer you back to my question about how differently two people (let alone two species) might perceive the same pattern.

 

[morninglight]

morninglight:
I'm guessing that English isn't your first language, and that some of the subtleties of some of the replies has been lost on you. I feel someone should point out that most (all?) posters are not trying to help you; they're mostly being sarcastic, making fun of you.

So, as long as you are aware of this, please continue with the "entertainment". However, the one way traffic is becoming a bit boring, so please try to give back a bit of what you're getting

Yes, English is not my first language. I began learning English when I was 23 years old. But I understand most of those taunts. I do not mind because I got a lot of information.

 

[morninglight]

Yes that's right, and how's this for help? If you ever submit a paper for publication, whether it is to a peer-reviewed or non peer-reviewed publication, please feel free to use my photo of the tragopan and the grasshopper. In fact - please, please do.

Mike

Thank you very much!

 

[morninglight]

I guess that yellow throat of bee eater is also related to breeding birdlings. It raises birdlings's interest to yellow prey.