"Proboscis", even...
Posted on 11/08/2005 6:04:06 AM PST by Loud Mime
"a small, East African jumping spider has a taste for blood"
I stopped reading right there! I think i passed out on my keyboard.....
"This bring up an interesting question that I have wondered about before, if male mosquitoes do not eat blood, what do they eat?"
They are vegetarians, who drink nectar for food.
Ok, I'm going to need a tiny little cross, a sharpened matchstick and an eyedropper full of holy water.
>>A spider which has evolved to drink blood. But, it can't get blood from animals that manufacture blood. So, it evolved to drink blood from animals that already drank blood. Because that's easier.
Evolution is surprising.
If the spider evolved to drink blood but at the same time couldn't get it due to it's inefficient fangs, then it would have died due to a lack of blood -- and the potential lineage would have gone with it.
Think about it, if it couldn't get blood from any other animal, how was it to survive? How did it know about fat juicy mosquitos?
Those who believe in the DOGMA of evolution treat the process as an intelligent entity, able to make conscious decisions. It's sad because there is much to be said about the theory of evolution, but it get's clouded by the adherents of the "religion" of evolution...
So it feeds off of the thing that sucks the blood from its victims?
Welfare recipients!
Or PBS!
*So it feeds off of the thing that sucks the blood from its victims?
Welfare recipients!*
I was thinking lawyers.............
"Proboscis", even...
That's why evolution doesn't work in the ridiculously simple-minded way you describe.
Think about it, if it couldn't get blood from any other animal, how was it to survive? How did it know about fat juicy mosquitos?
...because it evolved from a spider that lived on a more generalized insect diet (like most spiders), but eventually evolved to specialize on just the blood-laden mosquitoes it was catching along with all the other stuff, because they were a more nutritious food source.
Duh.
Those who believe in the DOGMA of evolution treat the process as an intelligent entity, able to make conscious decisions.
No, we don't, because we know how the process actuall works. But idiotic creationist pamphlets like to portray it that way, based on their own misunderstandings about how such a process could "only" work that way (via "foresight", etc.)...
It's sad because there is much to be said about the theory of evolution, but it get's clouded by the adherents of the "religion" of evolution...
There is no such "religion of evolution", but there's a lot of false propaganda said about evolutionary biology by followers of actual religions.
Poing.
Junior, archival ping.
Yet you can't prove your earlier statement:
...because it evolved from a spider that lived on a more generalized insect diet (like most spiders)...
Without that proof, it is a matter of faith. Don't misunderstand me--it may very well have dined on the general insect population at one point. But there is no proof of that.
>>There is no such "religion of evolution", but there's a lot of false propaganda said about evolutionary biology by followers of actual religions.
Really? While there may not be a central diety, there is nevertheless a dogmatic *philosophy/ideology* concerning the theory of evolution.
The theory is treated as if it were infallible fact that simply cannot be questioned by rational people...
Yet in reality, it is simply a theory with many holes. Does this mean "creationists" are right? No.
>>No, we don't, because we know how the process actuall works
STOP THE TAPE! You *think* you know how the process works. This is my point, you treat the possible as actual instead of a hypothetical.
Also, if you read what you write, you give character to evolution which it does not have.
...I can't even go there...
Hey, I tried..LOL..whatever it is, it ain't a Fang..
>>Sure there is. It's called the scientific method. You are entitled to incorrectly believe that science is a religion
The scientific method is open to being wrong when there is reasonable uncertainty, weights all evidence, and doesn't declare contrary thinking an anathema.
This does not describe Evoluntionists for the most part.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.