Wed 17 Jan 2007
The story is from last December:
“Moths drink the tears of sleeping birds“
A species of moth drinks tears from the eyes of sleeping birds using a fearsome proboscis shaped like a harpoon, scientists have revealed. … The team does not yet know whether the insect spits out an anaesthetic to dull the irritation. They also want to investigate whether, like their counterparts elsewhere, the Madagascan tear-drinkers are all males who get most of their nutrition from the tears.
Now, I’m not opposed to evolution per se, as IMHO theistic evolution is at least a possibility, even though there are numerous problems with macroevolution (for example, abiogenesis (generation of life from non-life), the fossil record, the evolution of sex, and evolutionary morality). But if macroevolution is true (few would contest microevolution) then I would tend to think that whatever explanation could be given for how these tear-drinking moths evolved would have to amount to a miracle. It is at least, as one blog commented, “weird”, although I truly fail to see how “only evolution could produce” this phenomenon; unless a person’s worldview considered evolution the only option, that is.
October 30th, 2008 at 7:56 am
Just because you or I cannot explain how these moths evolved, Its still highly probable that they did evolve.
Possible explaniation are:
- less likly to be eaten by predators
- tears are a better source of nutrients
- scarcity of water/nutrients means some moths will accidentally find alternative sources.
After all, thats what science is all about: asking questions, take a guess at the answers, then try to prove the guess right (or wrong).
January 22nd, 2010 at 8:04 am
I wonder if Noah picked up a couple of these?
July 28th, 2010 at 3:05 pm
Well first of all, you don’t seem to know much about evolution. How can you believe in micro-evolution without believing in macro-evolution? Macro-evolution is just a lot of micro-evolution, to the point of speciation (the starting species and the evolved species are so different, they cannot interbreed).
And, the theory of evolution never claims to explain abiogenesis; that’s completely unrelated.
Fossil records? You have to be kidding me. There are COUNTLESS fossil records indicating evolution.
Not sure what you mean about the evolution of sex, but morality has always been there. Morality is categorized as a form of behavior. Look at an ant colony, look at a wolf pack, look at an elephant herd. They all have a set of morals. And it’s not as if the bible explains morality. I’m an atheist, so where do I get my morals from? Think about it.
July 28th, 2010 at 4:20 pm
Hi Sarah, as I said in my post, I’m not against evolution per se, I just don’t believe in it to the extent that I trust it beyond any doubt. Regarding the micro/macro distinction, I saw a blog post here on the topic a few days ago … it isn’t just an arbitrary distinction.
But as you’ve said, it’s not like I’m an expert in evolution or science in general. The last pure science course I took (not including computer science, math, psychology, etc) was grade 12 physics. That’s why I took the time to link the items I listed to further information, if someone was interested in knowing more (Ex, evolution of sex.)
Your comment raises some good questions though! You asked it rhetorically, but I wonder as an atheist, where do you get your morals from? I don’t mean to suggest you do not generally behave in a moral way; the question is regarding foundations (ontology) not practice (pragmatism). Is there anything moral about an ant’s actions, ie, is there any moral “oughtness” to what an ant does> Are the kind of moral decisions that humans make are of the same kind as ants, wolves, and elephants?
July 28th, 2010 at 6:16 pm
Well, murder for example. I don’t believe in an afterlife, and therefore greatly value my short life here on Earth. I simply don’t have the emotional coldness to take something I value so much away from someone else. And, with murder, there is a finite amount that can occur in a species before the very species becomes unstable. The murder rate cannot exceed the birth rate, or the species goes extinct.
I’m a human with human emotions and human needs, social and physical, and my morality suits those needs accordingly. That’s how morality works.
Ant’s have the hive think. They’re cooperative and efficient. They know to bring food to the queen, to put the dead ants in one room and the eggs in another. In some regions of the world, a deadly parasitic fungus will infect an ant, and other ants will give their lives to carry the infected ant away from the colony. Ants know to follow orders.
We actually have a lot in common with elephants. Did you know that grief, making music, art, play, altruism, use of tools, compassion and self-awareness are all thing elephants are capable of?
Wolves have social hierarchies determined by fighting skill. Wolves are mostly monogamous, and wolves are highly territorial.
I’m not sure what you mean by the same “kind”. I’m not sure what other “kind” there would be. The moral decisions we make dependent on species(and by extension, intelligence), circumstance, and perspective.