1
   

How can you not believe in evolution? Also ideas on Genesis

 
 
Treya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Oct, 2006 05:08 am
Cyracuz wrote:
Btw, I thought I was speaking with a pretty woman. Turns out it's a scarecrow in a pointy hat and a blue coat. Twisted Evil


hehe... That was my evil twin! Twisted Evil

Everyone... please say hello to Beatrice

http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e179/princesshephzibah/strawmanavatar.jpg

She sneaks on here every once in a while if I don't keep a close eye on her. :wink:

Cyracuz wrote:
Could be breeding purposes. Some species of birds select their mates on account of which one has the brightest and strongest yellow in their feathers.

Could be a mutational side-effect.

But I think it has to do with temperature. Don't know why. I just do.


LOL Cyracuz... you are SO grasping at straws... Cool

wandeljw wrote:
Quote:
The color in feathers is caused either by pigments or light refraction on the structure of the feathers called structural colors. Only one bird, Touracos, contain green pigmentation in their feathers. Green feathers are caused by a combination of yellow pigment and the refraction of light on the structure of the feather. In blue-jays, the feather barbs contain three layers of melanin-containing cells. Air-filled cavities in these cells scatter blue light and absorb the longer red wavelengths. Thus, the blue is reflected into the eyes.

Source: NSTA (National Science Teachers Association)


Hmmmmm...

wandeljw wrote:
Quote:
Birds acquire their color from pigments collected from the environment. Red, orange and yellow colors are usually derived from carotenoids (such as occur in carrots). These compounds occur naturally in seeds and fruits, but can be scarce in the wild. Accordingly, individuals must invest time and energy in finding sufficient quantities. Because individuals differ in their ability to find and metabolize these pigments, we see a range of color variation within a species. It is important to note that bright coloration, on its own, is rarely directly related to survival and reproduction. Rather, bright coloration is an indicator of high quality individuals that are also good foragers and are in good health. On average, females tend to select males that have brighter plumage to gain access to a bright males' foraging ability and genes. Thus, males that are able to maintain bright plumage tend to reproduce more than do less brightly-colored males. This pattern is common in many species of birds, as well as in mammals and other vertebrates.

Source: Cornell University Science Inquiry Partnership


Hmmmmm...

All very interesting stuff wandle...

I don't think it answers the question "why" though...

What do you think mega? Twisted Evil
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Oct, 2006 05:28 am
heph wrote:
hehe... I decided to show my true colors....



heph wrote:
LOL Cyracuz... you are SO grasping at straws...


Yea, I've got my hand under that blue coat already.. Twisted Evil
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Oct, 2006 05:29 am
hey, you edited that...

or I've lost my mind completely.. Confused
0 Replies
 
Treya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Oct, 2006 05:31 am
LOL Cute Cyracuz... Very cute!

I changed my last post on ya. :wink:

hehehe... Cool
0 Replies
 
Treya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Oct, 2006 05:33 am
Or did I?

Hmmmm...

Perhaps you've been straining your brain too much grasping at those straws. :wink:
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Oct, 2006 05:37 am
Hmmm now there's just too many blue birds in here :wink:
0 Replies
 
Treya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Oct, 2006 05:39 am
Funny thing about this is...

My real name happens to be that of a "blue bird"

Go figure... Cool
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Oct, 2006 05:46 am
Watch it little bluebird. My real name means 'eagle in the woods' in the old norse tounge. Smile
0 Replies
 
Treya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Oct, 2006 05:49 am
Ha! I aint afraid of no eagle! I could outfly you any day of the week!

Zoooooooom!

Speaking of which....

Hi ho hi ho it's off to work we go...

heph fly's out the door whistling a merry toon

Catch ya later. Cool
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Oct, 2006 07:56 am
hephzibah wrote:
wandeljw wrote:
Quote:
The color in feathers is caused either by pigments or light refraction on the structure of the feathers called structural colors. Only one bird, Touracos, contain green pigmentation in their feathers. Green feathers are caused by a combination of yellow pigment and the refraction of light on the structure of the feather. In blue-jays, the feather barbs contain three layers of melanin-containing cells. Air-filled cavities in these cells scatter blue light and absorb the longer red wavelengths. Thus, the blue is reflected into the eyes.

Source: NSTA (National Science Teachers Association)


Hmmmmm...

wandeljw wrote:
Quote:
Birds acquire their color from pigments collected from the environment. Red, orange and yellow colors are usually derived from carotenoids (such as occur in carrots). These compounds occur naturally in seeds and fruits, but can be scarce in the wild. Accordingly, individuals must invest time and energy in finding sufficient quantities. Because individuals differ in their ability to find and metabolize these pigments, we see a range of color variation within a species. It is important to note that bright coloration, on its own, is rarely directly related to survival and reproduction. Rather, bright coloration is an indicator of high quality individuals that are also good foragers and are in good health. On average, females tend to select males that have brighter plumage to gain access to a bright males' foraging ability and genes. Thus, males that are able to maintain bright plumage tend to reproduce more than do less brightly-colored males. This pattern is common in many species of birds, as well as in mammals and other vertebrates.

Source: Cornell University Science Inquiry Partnership


Hmmmmm...

All very interesting stuff wandle...

I don't think it answers the question "why" though...

What do you think mega? Twisted Evil


I would also like to hear mega's opinion.

This is what I get out of the 2 sources:
The color in feathers is a result of pigments acquired through what birds eat. Different natural habitat - different food. Different food - different colors. The birds with the best skills in foraging (acquiring food) have better color and are healthier. These birds have more success in attracting mates and thus reproduce more than birds that do not have a healthy looking color.
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Oct, 2006 08:10 am
wandel

Maybe you are grasping at the same straws I am. Your answer seems adequate, since I fear that a specific cause for the evolution of blue feathers may be lost to us.

No one as to this day can map all the evolutional steps that led to the evolution of horses, such as they are, but it is still reasonable to say that the creature did evolve in steps from something else.

There's been found remnants of creatures that are by all evidence the ancestors of whales. These creatures were land dwellers, who evolved to creep back into the sea.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Oct, 2006 08:40 am
Cyracuz,
I probably should add that the color itself does not give them a survival advantage. The passing on of the color is more a matter of sexual selection than natural selection. The pigments for the color come from whatever food is available to that species of bird. I would say that color of bird feathers is related to their specific environment in that different environments have different things that are edible.
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Oct, 2006 08:50 am
But in the case of bluejays it is a case of light refraction, not pigments. If a bluejay's feather is crushed, it is no longer blue. So it's not directly environmental as you suggest with foodsupplies and so on.
0 Replies
 
megamanXplosion
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Oct, 2006 09:26 am
wandeljw wrote:
hephzibah wrote:
wandeljw wrote:
Quote:
The color in feathers is caused either by pigments or light refraction on the structure of the feathers called structural colors. Only one bird, Touracos, contain green pigmentation in their feathers. Green feathers are caused by a combination of yellow pigment and the refraction of light on the structure of the feather. In blue-jays, the feather barbs contain three layers of melanin-containing cells. Air-filled cavities in these cells scatter blue light and absorb the longer red wavelengths. Thus, the blue is reflected into the eyes.

Source: NSTA (National Science Teachers Association)


Hmmmmm...

wandeljw wrote:
Quote:
Birds acquire their color from pigments collected from the environment. Red, orange and yellow colors are usually derived from carotenoids (such as occur in carrots). These compounds occur naturally in seeds and fruits, but can be scarce in the wild. Accordingly, individuals must invest time and energy in finding sufficient quantities. Because individuals differ in their ability to find and metabolize these pigments, we see a range of color variation within a species. It is important to note that bright coloration, on its own, is rarely directly related to survival and reproduction. Rather, bright coloration is an indicator of high quality individuals that are also good foragers and are in good health. On average, females tend to select males that have brighter plumage to gain access to a bright males' foraging ability and genes. Thus, males that are able to maintain bright plumage tend to reproduce more than do less brightly-colored males. This pattern is common in many species of birds, as well as in mammals and other vertebrates.

Source: Cornell University Science Inquiry Partnership


Hmmmmm...

All very interesting stuff wandle...

I don't think it answers the question "why" though...

What do you think mega? Twisted Evil


I would also like to hear mega's opinion.

This is what I get out of the 2 sources:
The color in feathers is a result of pigments acquired through what birds eat. Different natural habitat - different food. Different food - different colors. The birds with the best skills in foraging (acquiring food) have better color and are healthier. These birds have more success in attracting mates and thus reproduce more than birds that do not have a healthy looking color.


Blue Jays are not blue due to pigments though. The melanin-containing cells give the bird a grey color but that has little to do with the reason they are blue. I do think I have figured something out that may be worthy of consideration though.

Their light blue color is the result of deep blue being reflected along with the wavelengths that correspond to other colors, brightening it and making it appear light blue instead of deep blue. For example, if you were to open a graphics program and set the Blue value to 255 (100%) and slowly increase the Red and Green values so they approach 255 (100%) then the resulting color will be lighter and lighter blue and slowly becomes white. This tells me that they are reflecting much more than the wavelengths that correspond with the color blue. The blue wavelength, however, is the most reflected of the bunch. That is assuming, of course, that the our visible light spectrum is the only colors they are refracting or are the only ones that are important to birds. Blue is a short wavelength color, one of the shortest that we are capable of perceiving, and ultraviolet, which humans cannot directly perceive, is a shorter wavelength color that isn't far away from blue in the light spectrum. They may be reflecting blue quite strongly, but they may be reflecting ultraviolet just as strongly.

I decided to look into the use of ultraviolet colors in the bird kingdom and ultraviolet seems to plays a large role in distinguishing siblings from birds of a different species. As such, adaptation to refracting ultraviolet color would confer a survival advantage. They may be refracting ultraviolet light to attract females just like peacocks flash their colors to get the attention of females. I think it is quite possible that the appearance of blue is a side-effect of trying to refract the shorter ultraviolet wavelength. Instead of calling them Blue Jays, perhaps it would be more appropriate to call them Ultraviolet Jays?

But this leaves open the question of why the blue and white colors have not been selected against by their environment. From the perspective of a cat or similar bird-hunter looking up into a tree, the blue color can blend in with the color of the sky. The white can also blend in with the color of the snow. These two colors may be side-effects but they also confer some small survival advantages. Any disadvantages caused by these colors would be offset by the advantages caused by the refraction of ultraviolet.

I don't know if this is the correct answer, but it seems plausible on first glance.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Oct, 2006 09:48 am
I like your explanation, megaman. (I only had a few pieces of the solution to hepzibah's very compelling question.)
0 Replies
 
Treya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Oct, 2006 03:06 pm
wandeljw wrote:
hephzibah wrote:
wandeljw wrote:
Quote:
The color in feathers is caused either by pigments or light refraction on the structure of the feathers called structural colors. Only one bird, Touracos, contain green pigmentation in their feathers. Green feathers are caused by a combination of yellow pigment and the refraction of light on the structure of the feather. In blue-jays, the feather barbs contain three layers of melanin-containing cells. Air-filled cavities in these cells scatter blue light and absorb the longer red wavelengths. Thus, the blue is reflected into the eyes.

Source: NSTA (National Science Teachers Association)


Hmmmmm...

wandeljw wrote:
Quote:
Birds acquire their color from pigments collected from the environment. Red, orange and yellow colors are usually derived from carotenoids (such as occur in carrots). These compounds occur naturally in seeds and fruits, but can be scarce in the wild. Accordingly, individuals must invest time and energy in finding sufficient quantities. Because individuals differ in their ability to find and metabolize these pigments, we see a range of color variation within a species. It is important to note that bright coloration, on its own, is rarely directly related to survival and reproduction. Rather, bright coloration is an indicator of high quality individuals that are also good foragers and are in good health. On average, females tend to select males that have brighter plumage to gain access to a bright males' foraging ability and genes. Thus, males that are able to maintain bright plumage tend to reproduce more than do less brightly-colored males. This pattern is common in many species of birds, as well as in mammals and other vertebrates.

Source: Cornell University Science Inquiry Partnership


Hmmmmm...

All very interesting stuff wandle...

I don't think it answers the question "why" though...

What do you think mega? Twisted Evil


I would also like to hear mega's opinion.

This is what I get out of the 2 sources:
The color in feathers is a result of pigments acquired through what birds eat. Different natural habitat - different food. Different food - different colors. The birds with the best skills in foraging (acquiring food) have better color and are healthier. These birds have more success in attracting mates and thus reproduce more than birds that do not have a healthy looking color.


Ok, this presents another question then. Why is a male cardinal red and a female cardinal brown? Are their diets THAT different?

Cyracuz wrote:
wandel

Maybe you are grasping at the same straws I am. Your answer seems adequate, since I fear that a specific cause for the evolution of blue feathers may be lost to us.

No one as to this day can map all the evolutional steps that led to the evolution of horses, such as they are, but it is still reasonable to say that the creature did evolve in steps from something else.

There's been found remnants of creatures that are by all evidence the ancestors of whales. These creatures were land dwellers, who evolved to creep back into the sea.


Wait a second here though big bird. How can you be so certain that there was evolution of these blue feathers in the first place? Has science found evidence of such a thing?

And how can you say it is "reasonable to say" that the creature (a horse) did evolve in steps from something else when they can't map it?

Ok, here's another question too while we're at it. Who's to say that these remnants they have found are not just remnants of creatures that are extinct, and not necessarily an "in between" stage of evolution?

wandeljw wrote:
Cyracuz,
I probably should add that the color itself does not give them a survival advantage. The passing on of the color is more a matter of sexual selection than natural selection. The pigments for the color come from whatever food is available to that species of bird. I would say that color of bird feathers is related to their specific environment in that different environments have different things that are edible.


Ok, so again... why the red for the male cardinal and brown for the female?

Cyracuz wrote:
But in the case of bluejays it is a case of light refraction, not pigments. If a bluejay's feather is crushed, it is no longer blue. So it's not directly environmental as you suggest with foodsupplies and so on.


Righto Cool

megamanXplosion wrote:


Blue Jays are not blue due to pigments though. The melanin-containing cells give the bird a grey color but that has little to do with the reason they are blue. I do think I have figured something out that may be worthy of consideration though.

Their light blue color is the result of deep blue being reflected along with the wavelengths that correspond to other colors, brightening it and making it appear light blue instead of deep blue. For example, if you were to open a graphics program and set the Blue value to 255 (100%) and slowly increase the Red and Green values so they approach 255 (100%) then the resulting color will be lighter and lighter blue and slowly becomes white. This tells me that they are reflecting much more than the wavelengths that correspond with the color blue. The blue wavelength, however, is the most reflected of the bunch. That is assuming, of course, that the our visible light spectrum is the only colors they are refracting or are the only ones that are important to birds. Blue is a short wavelength color, one of the shortest that we are capable of perceiving, and ultraviolet, which humans cannot directly perceive, is a shorter wavelength color that isn't far away from blue in the light spectrum. They may be reflecting blue quite strongly, but they may be reflecting ultraviolet just as strongly.

I decided to look into the use of ultraviolet colors in the bird kingdom and ultraviolet seems to plays a large role in distinguishing siblings from birds of a different species. As such, adaptation to refracting ultraviolet color would confer a survival advantage. They may be refracting ultraviolet light to attract females just like peacocks flash their colors to get the attention of females. I think it is quite possible that the appearance of blue is a side-effect of trying to refract the shorter ultraviolet wavelength. Instead of calling them Blue Jays, perhaps it would be more appropriate to call them Ultraviolet Jays?

But this leaves open the question of why the blue and white colors have not been selected against by their environment. From the perspective of a cat or similar bird-hunter looking up into a tree, the blue color can blend in with the color of the sky. The white can also blend in with the color of the snow. These two colors may be side-effects but they also confer some small survival advantages. Any disadvantages caused by these colors would be offset by the advantages caused by the refraction of ultraviolet.

I don't know if this is the correct answer, but it seems plausible on first glance.


Very good answer mega. But... where is the answer to "why" in this? It could have just as easily been red, green, orange, yellow, or my personal favorite... purple, couldn't it have been? Granted, purple is not going to provide any sort of survival advantages... but so what... I like it, so I must throw it in there, just because there's a big huge WHY to this question that has yet to be answered.

Well I think anyway.

Soo... do you think there is an answer?

Hey... I just realized Eorl has disappeared from this conversation....

Hmmm... wonder where he wandered off to! Twisted Evil
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Oct, 2006 03:26 pm
BookMark
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Oct, 2006 06:35 pm
heph wrote:
Ok, here's another question too while we're at it. Who's to say that these remnants they have found are not just remnants of creatures that are extinct, and not necessarily an "in between" stage of evolution?


I'll just answer that one because I think it encompasses the other questions.

In the case of the whales, which is the one most fresh in my memory, there have been found remnants of creatures that dwelled on land. From later periods, creatures that resembled these land-dwellers were found, but these looked to have gone into the sea. On those were found the beginnings of characteristics found on modern whales. Also, on modern whales (some at least) we find tiny remnants of feet, suggesting that the creatures once walked the earth. A final point; whales are mammals, and breathe air through lungs, not gills.

But more to the point.
We cannot know with full certainty that these remnants I mention are the ancestors of whales, despite the strong indications. But the pattern reappears in countless areas. Today's birds share the anatomy of ancient dinosaurs to such an extent that it may be reasonable to assume that birds are the decendants of the dinosaurs that didn't go extinct.

Quote:
Wait a second here though big bird. How can you be so certain that there was evolution of these blue feathers in the first place? Has science found evidence of such a thing?


What's the alternative?
0 Replies
 
Treya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Oct, 2006 06:47 pm
Quick response...

Key word: Suggest

Suggesting something is not proof of something. Therefore it is not fact but ideal.

The alternative?

You answer the question I asked. It's a simple yes or no question Cyracuz. :wink:
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Oct, 2006 06:56 pm
It's a yes or no question for those who know the answer to it. For me the answer is "I don't know", and I proceed to ask "how else could it have been" in the hopes that someone has a suggestion. Rolling Eyes :wink:
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 01:38:27