Skip to comments.10 Incredible Close-Up Photos of Bugs
Posted on 05/26/2013 5:06:45 AM PDT by SkyPilot
And with babies
Praying Mantis with prey
(Excerpt) Read more at weather.aol.com ...
All that happened randomly, ya know.
NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!! Run away, run away!!!!!
Look at the incredible detail and design.
The Mantis and the dragonfly can stay.
I’m getting out the can of Raid for everything else.
Except in the case of the spider, in which case I may follow up the can of raid with taking off and nuking the site from orbit.
I don’t really like spiders. Can you tell?
Look at the reduction in the bee population...
We had grasshoppers galore around here when I was a kid....No more...
Kinda puts evolution in the “dumb” category.
Back in 1966 I was taking out the trash. I felt an exrutiating pain on the top of one of my forearms and there was this gray jumping spider. They are the one spider I can’t tolerate to this day. They are also darned hard to kill. The way they move creeps me out.
But they are the one spider I will attempt to kill every time I see one.
Yuk...get the Raid!
He has cbs-logo eyes.
Not as scary as this:
“...in which case I may follow up the can of raid with taking off and nuking the site from orbit.”
It’s the only way to be sure...
Engineered by a mind so great, He knows every hair of my head. He knows the end from the beginning. He inhabits eternity and He is the lover of my soul... He has a son, Jesus... I love that man, He is my God!!!
Or as venomous, either.
Scientists are just beginning to create insect-sized flying robots. But as someone with a degree in mechanical engineering, I can tell you that such machines are a simplistic joke, compared to the insects captured in these photographs, which are countless orders of magnitude greater in complexity.
And notice that the scientists are using their intellects in attempting to imitate these magnificent creatures, rather than the random chance method.
Along with anybody who still believes in it...
The big lie which is being promulgated by evolutionites is that there is some sort of a dialectic between evolution and religion. There isn't. In order to have a meaningful dialectic between evolution and religion, you would need a religion which operated on an intellectual level similar to that of evolution, and the only two possible candidates would be voodoo and Rastafari.
The dialectic is between evolution and mathematics. Professing belief in evolution at this juncture amounts to the same thing as claiming not to believe in modern mathematics, probability theory, and logic. It's basically ignorant.
Evolution has been so thoroughly discredited at this point that you assume nobody is defending it because they believe in it anymore, and that they are defending it because they do not like the prospects of having to defend or explain some expect of their lifestyles to God, St. Peter, Muhammed...
To these people I say, you've still got a problem. The problem is that evolution, as a doctrine, is so overwhelmingly STUPID that, faced with a choice of wearing a sweatshirt with a scarlet letter A for Adulteror, F for Fornicator or some such traditional design, or or a big scarlet letter I for IDIOT, you'd actually be better off sticking with one of the traditional choices because, as Clint Eastwood noted in The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly:
God hates IDIOTS, too!
The best illustration of how stupid evolutionism really is involves trying to become some totally new animal with new organs, a new basic plan for existence, and new requirements for integration between both old and new organs.
Take flying birds for example; suppose you aren't one, and you want to become one. You'll need a baker's dozen highly specialized systems, including wings, flight feathers, a specialized light bone structure, specialized flow-through design heart and lungs, specialized tail, specialized general balance parameters etc.
For starters, every one of these things would be antifunctional until the day on which the whole thing came together, so that the chances of evolving any of these things by any process resembling evolution (mutations plus selection) would amount to an infinitessimal, i.e. one divided by some gigantic number.
In probability theory, to compute the probability of two things happening at once, you multiply the probabilities together. That says that the likelihood of all these things ever happening, best case, is ten or twelve such infinitessimals multiplied together, i.e. a tenth or twelth-order infinitessimal. The whole history of the universe isn't long enough for that to happen once.
All of that was the best case. In real life, it's even worse than that. In real life, natural selection could not plausibly select for hoped-for functionality, which is what would be required in order to evolve flight feathers on something which could not fly apriori. In real life, all you'd ever get would some sort of a random walk around some starting point, rather than the unidircetional march towards a future requirement which evolution requires.
And the real killer, i.e. the thing which simply kills evolutionism dead, is the following consideration: In real life, assuming you were to somehow miraculously evolve the first feature you'd need to become a flying bird, then by the time another 10,000 generations rolled around and you evolved the second such reature, the first, having been disfunctional/antifunctional all the while, would have DE-EVOLVED and either disappeared altogether or become vestigial.
Now, it would be miraculous if, given all the above, some new kind of complex creature with new organs and a new basic plan for life had ever evolved ONCE.
Evolutionism, however (the Theory of Evolution) requires that this has happened countless billions of times, i.e. an essentially infinite number of absolutely zero probability events.
And, if you were starting to think that nothing could possibly be any stupider than believing in evolution despite all of the above (i.e. that the basic stupidity of evolutionism starting from 1980 or thereabouts could not possibly be improved upon), think again. Because there is zero evidence in the fossil record (despite the BS claims of talk.origins "crew" and others of their ilk) to support any sort of a theory involving macroevolution, and because the original conceptions of evolution are flatly refuted by developments in population genetics since the 1950's, the latest incarnation of this theory, Steve Gould and Niles Eldredge's "Punctuated Equilibrium or punc-eek" attempts to claim that these wholesale violations of probabilistic laws all occurred so suddenly as to never leave evidence in the fossil record, and that they all occurred amongst tiny groups of animals living in "peripheral" areas. That says that some velocirapter who wanted to be a bird got together with fifty of his friends and said:
Guys, we need flight feathers, and wings, and specialized bones, hearts, lungs, and tails, and we need em NOW; not two years from now. Everybody ready, all together now:
You could devise a new religion by taking the single stupidest doctrine from each of the existing religions, and it would not be as stupid as THAT.
But it gets even stupider.
Again, the original Darwinian vision of gradualistic evolution is flatly refuted by the fossil record (Darwinian evolution demanded that the vast bulk of ALL fossils be intermediates) and by the findings of population genetics, particularly the Haldane dilemma and the impossible time requirements for spreading genetic changes through any sizeable herd of animals.
Consider what Gould and other punk-eekers are saying. Punc-eek amounts to a claim that all meaningful evolutionary change takes place in peripheral areas, amongst tiny groups of animals which develop some genetic advantage, and then move out and overwhelm, outcompete, and replace the larger herds. They are claiming that this eliminates the need to spread genetic change through any sizeable herd of animals and, at the same time, is why we never find intermediate fossils (since there are never enough of these CHANGELINGS to leave fossil evidence).
Obvious problems with punctuated equilibria include, minimally:
1. It is a pure pseudoscience seeking to explain and actually be proved by a lack of evidence rather than by evidence (all the missing intermediate fossils). Similarly, Cotton Mather claimed that the fact that nobody had ever seen or heard a witch was proof they were there (if you could SEE them, they wouldn't BE witches...) This kind of logic is less inhibiting than the logic they used to teach in American schools. For instance, I could as easily claim that the fact that I'd never been seen with Tina Turner was all the proof anybody should need that I was sleeping with her. In other words, it might not work terribly well for science, but it's great for fantasies...
2. PE amounts to a claim that inbreeding is the most major source of genetic advancement in the world. Apparently Steve Gould never saw Deliverance...
3. PE requires these tiny peripheral groups to conquer vastly larger groups of animals millions if not billions of times, which is like requiring Custer to win at the little Big Horn every day, for millions of years.
4. PE requires an eternal victory of animals specifically adapted to localized and parochial conditions over animals which are globally adapted, which never happens in real life.
5. For any number of reasons, you need a minimal population of any animal to be viable. This is before the tiny group even gets started in overwhelming the vast herds. A number of American species such as the heath hen became non-viable when their numbers were reduced to a few thousand; at that point, any stroke of bad luck at all, a hard winter, a skewed sex ratio in one generation, a disease of some sort, and it's all over. The heath hen was fine as long as it was spread out over the East coast of the U.S. The point at which it got penned into one of these "peripheral" areas which Gould and Eldredge see as the salvation for evolutionism, it was all over.
The sort of things noted in items 3 and 5 are generally referred to as the "gambler's problem", in this case, the problem facing the tiny group of "peripheral" animals being similar to that facing a gambler trying to beat the house in blackjack or roulette; the house could lose many hands of cards or rolls of the dice without flinching, and the globally-adapted species spread out over a continent could withstand just about anything short of a continental-scale catastrophe without going extinct, while two or three bad rolls of the dice will bankrupt the gambler, and any combination of two or three strokes of bad luck will wipe out the "peripheral" species. Gould's basic method of handling this problem is to ignore it.
And there's one other thing which should be obvious to anybody attempting to read through Gould and Eldridge's BS:
They are claiming that at certain times, amongst tiny groups of animals living in peripheral areas, a "speciation event(TM)" happens, and THEN the rest of it takes place. In other words, they are saying:
ASSUMING that Abracadabra-Shazaam(TM) happens, then the rest of the business proceeds as we have described in our scholarly discourse above!
Again, Gould and Eldridge require that the Abracadabra-Shazaam(TM) happen not just once, but countless billions of times, i.e. at least once for every kind of complex creature which has ever walked the Earth. They do not specify whether this amounts to the same Abracadabra-Shazaam each time, or a different kind of Abracadabra-Shazaam for each creature.
I ask you: How could anything be stupider or worse than that? What could possibly be worse than professing to believe in such a thing?
My in-laws, from years ago!
It has eyes for ya!
The third week into the summer I left for a few days off after re-supplying the mantis with another ten crickets. I came back a few days later and found the preying mantis torn to pieces, and the crickets chirping happily.
What comes around, goes around I guess.
I wouldn’t “believe” in evolution as a static theory. We shouldn’t pretend to know how any of it works at this point. Our job is to continue gathering evidence and let that do the talking.
There’s pretty convincing evidence that birds (let’s use your example) came from dinosaurs. They likely didn’t have to reinvent themselves. Dinosaurs already had light bone structures; some had feathers and many other bird like qualities. I agree that it’s highly unlikely they just *poof* generated the necessary organs for flight if they didn’t previously exist.
Scientists and others get themselves in trouble when they begin to take theories whether it is evolution, creationism or even global warming too seriously. They begin to refer to things as “matter of fact” and turn these issues into a religion. Let’s just keep making discoveries and see where it takes us.
There actually are flavors of junk science which are relatively harmless. Evolution is not one of those. Evolution was the main philosophical corner stone for Nazism, Communism, and the various eugenics programs; it is a flavor of junk science with 200,000,000+ dead bodies to its credit. We need to get rid of it.
One also supposes that if evolution was a reasonable explanation, it wouldn’t recognize perfection. All of today’s insects would still be undergoing changes. With the thousands of varieties, one of them, at any time should be morphing new abilities or shedding limiting traits. Yet we’re unable to find the one that heralds an improved version of current model year.
I clicked on this thread, knowing full well I had no business doing so, and I deeply regret it, LOL.
Eewww, creepy, scary. Time to don the boots.
It takes a super lens to do that!
Jumping spiders are cool, and many are really cute. When we find them in the house, we either leave them alone or help them outside (in warm weather).
I can look at close ups of bugs, but this really really creeps me out.
Cute until is jumps on me, then it’s dead!
That picture makes it look like he has pupils, makes him seem intelligent.
One of the most intricate designs in nature!
I heard a rumor she is doing coke. Great. Such a role model.
Are you saying that a compound eye could not evolve over 16 billion years? You must not be a scientist. /s
Definitely not the meanest-looking, but DEFINITELY one that has left a lot of pain and suffering in people that messed with him.
You write for “The Big Bang Theory,” don’t you? ;)
#32 was pretty good.
That was an amazing post. Are you a genius or something?
Insects have to be small.
If they weren’t they’d devour everything faster than nature could replace it.