The more honest title should have been: "Convergent Evolution HYPOTHESIZED For Poison Frogs"
Oh, I thought this had something to do with FRANCE...
Does Clark smoke?
Not only that, but they found nicotine--the same chemical found in cigarettes--in one Mantella baroni frog out of 22 examined. Nicotine is produced by plants and can sometimes be found in animals that eat these plants. But so far no nicotine-producing plants have been found growing in the area where this frog was found. This was the first time researchers observed this phenomena and they are not sure how the chemical enters the frog's system.The second greatest use of nicotine after cigarettes is insecticides. I'll venture a wild guess that the frog ate insects exposed to insecticides.
frog ping
This is Darwinist propaganda. A giant invisible man in the sky created these frogs so that they would eat these ants. Noah put seven frogs and seven ants on the ark (which was hard on the frogs having to eat only one ant during the time they were on board, but ultimately harder on the ants).
Thank God that two ants must have survived and that one was a male and one was a female and that they were able to migrate from Turkey to the same far away place so that His will could be done.
good read ..thanks
I have to dissent starting from the first sentence. Scientists haven't "discovered" examples of covergent evolution. They have "constructed" examples of covergent evolution.
I love a story that goes "first this had to happen, then this had to happen, then a final thing had to happen..., etc".
No evidence that it actually happened, of course.
Just a presupposition that because the frogs are there, and evolution is the only allowable explanation for it, then it must have happend by covergent evolution.
Sorry, not convincing.
And while I see no proof of evolution, I do see proof that God is fantastic, only one fantastic God could design a frog like that.
As for them evolving? Well, show me the in-betweens. Tell me why the first frog to eat poison ants didn't die, and if they didn't die, than how is that these frogs have now evolved? Evolved from what to what, frogs that eat poisonous ants to frogs that eat poisonous ants?
Why is it that those who support evolution keep avoiding the issue of the Bombardier Beetle and the human eye?
The one that reminds me and almost swayed me about evolution went like this:
...When I look in the face of my grandchildren I see the face of God, but when I look at and listen to Olympia Snowe, I can see the remnants of pond scum in her eyes and genes. ...
I had never heard of the paper til they printed that letter and the leftist down at 560Am in the morning got a hold of it and demanded an apology from the publisher, who promptly went on their show and told them where to go, how to get there and what to do with the horse when they arrived. That was the time he asked the more liberal of the two extreme left wing wackos and I’ll never forget the quote so I can quote him exactly: “Isn’t there anything about our Republic and our Constitutional Republican form of government that you don’t hate?”
Jake
And you know, when I look at olympai Snowe and Susan Collins, John Baldacci and David R. Hastings da turd I can see that pond scum.
But that is not enough to convnce me that evolution is nothing more than one big lie, not a big bang, but a big lie.
I really don't think this is as surprising as it seems. After successive generations developed the ability to retain the alkoids in their skin, there simply wasn't any need for camouflage, because whatever picked them up in its mouth would immediately dropped dead, and they would happily hop away to spawn again. This permitted wider variation in colours and skin patterns.
I'm also wondering if the bright colours which do exist or predominate are primarily to attract mates, not to warn predators. It doesn't really make sense to say that they evolved as warning colours, since most of their mammilian predators can't distinguish between them. I wonder if this could be tested either by studying the frequency of particular patterns in male and female members of the same species, or by identifying the genes responsible for transmitting colours and patterns.
Amphibious ping.
Hilarious scenario. All those frogs eating poisonous ants despite getting sick and possibly dying througout the eons knowing that their sacrifice will make it possible for their ancestors to have poisonous secretions in the future. And not just in one place on earth...but two! Never have so many sacrificed so much for so many.
I'm curious...Who informed the frogs that the ants were poisonous?
The headline should read "Convergent Design Found in Poison Frogs"
Whoa!...and its still early.
And yes, why would an intelligent designer go through such contorted physiological mechanisms like this - why not just give the stupid frog a real weapon? Claws, talons, a 38 revolver?
Funny line.
No one is avoiding them, some just don't listen to the answers.
Point taken. :/
I'll bet that tobacco worms do too!
Psst....
Look REALLY close for tiny patches!!
Nicotine is very toxic. Tobacco doesn't really have very much.
The more honest title should have been: "Convergent Evolution HYPOTHESIZED For Poison Frogs"