Pavo cristatus

| 102 Comments

By RPM, http://scienceblogs.com/evolgen/

peacocks.jpg

Pavo cristatus — Indian Peafowl, Barcelona Zoo

102 Comments

Unfortunately, feeding the blue chicken with pop rocks and soda turned out to be a terrible mistake.

Who ever would have thought that meiosis would lead to such extravagant iridescent show-offs?

Seems the peahens are generally less taken by the displays than are humans. Then again, peahens are out for more than just the flash.

Glen D

http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

Hey baby… how you doin’?

I’d say the eyes have it.

NPD said:

Hey baby… how you doin’?

Animals and their mating songs:

http://69.89.21.80/~emergin2/wp-con[…]ingSongs.JPG

I don’t know if it’s mating songs or territorial calls or what, but peacocks have got to be the loudest of domestic birds. Their calls can be extremely annoying.

Here’s its page on the Tree-of-Life website: http://tolweb.org/Pavo/57452

Too bad humans don’t have nearly so much to work with. We have no tails!

My first reaction - OOoooooohhh!

I had 3 peacocks on my roof a couple of weeks ago - that was a surprise! :-)

KTH said:

Too bad humans don’t have nearly so much to work with. We have no tails!

Obviously, you’ve never seen Elton John’s “improvisations”

Paul Burnett said:

I don’t know if it’s mating songs or territorial calls or what, but peacocks have got to be the loudest of domestic birds. Their calls can be extremely annoying.

And deceptively human-like, Paul. I was once forced to throw myself through a thick hedge by the cries coming from the other side. I distinctly heard a child calling, “Ha-elllp! Ha-elllp!”

When I struggled into the neighboring yard, minus bits of clothing and flesh, there was a male peacock in full display and voice and two pea hens. The looks they gave me were less than approving. I took the long way around on my way back.

Keep up the great photos about the animals (and other organisms) that evolution “created.”

Peacocks make sense as a result of sexual selection, but certain not by intelligent design.

a lurker said:

Peacocks make sense as a result of sexual selection, but certain not by intelligent design.

Actually, Phil Johnson pointed to the peacock’s tail as a disproof of Darwinism, asking why evolutionary selection would produce organisms with life-threatening ornaments.

When I read that I stared at it with my mouth slightly open for a minute and then thought: “OK, so why would a DESIGN process produce organisms with life-threatening ornaments? Was the Designer on recreational drugs? Wanted to design a Cadillac with meter-high tailfins?”

These guys …

White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/gblog.html

Spectacular!

Thanks for posting this.

Did the peacock deliberately choose this background?

How long did it take to evolve? An atom, a molecule, or a feature (e.g. feather) at a time?

“OK, so why would a DESIGN process produce organisms with life-threatening ornaments?

… the same reason we have poodles and siamese cats.

jobby: I hope you are not suggesting that God (or whoever is your Intelligent Designer) is just as worse a Designer than we humans (sometimes) are. Blasphemy!

Eddie Janssen said:

jobby: I hope you are not suggesting that God (or whoever is your Intelligent Designer) is just as worse a Designer than we humans (sometimes) are. Blasphemy!

… no a male peacock is a beautiful creature. as are many domestic dogs and cats. but as you might know many domesticated animals could not compete in the wild against the less attractive wild dogs etc. the point is that much of animal life seems designed. in a survival arms race it is unlikely that many of these creatures would have evolved thur NS.

a not unfeasible scenario is that some super intelligence was tinkering with the DNA to see what beautiful, curious and interesting creatures could arise. to completely dismiss this without overwhelming evidence is not science.

Peacocks make sense as a result of sexual selection

Not anymore. In fact, “Peahens do not prefer peacocks with more elaborate trains,” as Takahashi et al wrote last April in the journal Animal Behavior. Peacocks no longer constitute evidence of evolution via sexual selection.

“This is a falsified prediction. This means that numerous textbooks and websites need to be revised.”

—- David Tyler, ARN

********

You guys better go hire a new poster boy (or in this case, poster bird) for the religion of evolution, because THIS one has definitely flown the coop!!!

For more details, go to:

http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/[…]n_the_case_o

FL :)

FL said:

Peacocks make sense as a result of sexual selection

Not anymore. In fact, “Peahens do not prefer peacocks with more elaborate trains,” as Takahashi et al wrote last April in the journal Animal Behavior. Peacocks no longer constitute evidence of evolution via sexual selection.

“This is a falsified prediction. This means that numerous textbooks and websites need to be revised.”

—- David Tyler, ARN

********

You guys better go hire a new poster boy (or in this case, poster bird) for the religion of evolution, because THIS one has definitely flown the coop!!!

For more details, go to:

http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/[…]n_the_case_o

FL :)

… Darwinists do not need evidence or data. FAITH is all they need. They are living in the middle ages.

Surely you guys are not going to allow this vile exhibitionist to pollute yet another thread with his inane flatulence.

Science Avenger said:

Surely you guys are not going to allow this vile exhibitionist to pollute yet another thread with his inane flatulence.

Beavis is back!

iml8 said:

Actually, Phil Johnson pointed to the peacock’s tail as a disproof of Darwinism, asking why evolutionary selection would produce organisms with life-threatening ornaments.

They can’t be too life-threatening, because peacocks do in fact exist in the wild without any intervention from intelligent agents, which essentially destroys all the value of analogies to domestic dogs some would like to draw. Now if we were to find a creature that was decidedly unable to survive in the wild, then such analogies might have some force.

Pavo Cristatus? Isn’t he one of the Three Tenors?

As usual, when a creationist says the sky is blue, go outside and check. From Discovery Channel news:

Since male peacocks appear to shiver in response to female run-arounds, the scientists think that male mating calls, which consist of multiple notes and sound very different than the noises females make, could affect mating success. The trains, on the other hand, may just be obsolete signals at this point, they suggest.

Louise Barrett, a member of the Faculty of Science and Technology at the University of Central Lancashire in Preston, U.K., thinks the reason for their obsolescence could be that, unlike many other elaborate traits in birds and animals, peacock trains are dictated by the female hormone estrogen, rather than testosterone.

Barrett said that “it is the absence of estrogen in the male that produces the train, rather than the presence of testosterone.”

“Traits under the control of estrogen are usually very poor indicators of phenotypic (visible physical attributes) and genotypic (DNA) condition,” she explained. “Accordingly, females are known to disregard estrogen-dependent male plumage cues when choosing mates.”

Barrett, however, mentioned that this theory, along with the rest of the new findings, is bound to be controversial, since other researchers have presented data suggesting that a peacock’s train does influence whether or not a female will choose to mate with him.

jobby:

“a not unfeasible scenario is that some super intelligence was tinkering with the DNA to see what beautiful, curious and interesting creatures could arise. to completely dismiss this without overwhelming evidence is not science.”

Obviously you are not referring to God. God knows how a peacock’s tail will look like when He (God, not the peacock) has some fun with the A’s, G’s, T’s and C’s (God does not tinker; according to my English-Dutch dictionary “to tinker” means something like doing a bad job). Maybe God (excusez-moi: some super intelligence) gave women **** (i am looking for a decent word here) for the same reason…

They can’t be too life-threatening, because peacocks do in fact exist in the wild

. … Then how would we know when and if a secondary sexual characteristic becomes too life threatening and outweighs its mating advantage??

Eddie Janssen said:

jobby:

“a not unfeasible scenario is that some super intelligence was tinkering with the DNA to see what beautiful, curious and interesting creatures could arise. to completely dismiss this without overwhelming evidence is not science.”

Obviously you are not referring to God. God knows how a peacock’s tail will look like when He (God, not the peacock) has some fun with the A’s, G’s, T’s and C’s (God does not tinker; according to my English-Dutch dictionary “to tinker” means something like doing a bad job). Maybe God (excusez-moi: some super intelligence) gave women **** (i am looking for a decent word here) for the same reason…

if life were designed the entity doing so could be far superior in intelligence to us so to do try to comprehend its motives would be as difficult as a dog understanding why humans read books.

.. or it could be just and experiment by a life form somewhat moe advanced then we are

… we wil probably be able to ‘design’ DNA in 20 years and do our own ‘tinkering’. and would we not see if we could develop unusual creatures with unusual features?

To expand on Eric’s point a bit, what ID and creationism in general lacks, is positive evidence in favor of their position. Their entire case, such as it is, rests on poking holes in evolution.
Imagine a murder. Negative evidence in favor of the ex-wife-diddit hypothesis would be the butler having an alibi (to make the analogy more apt it should be a remarkably flimsy alibi.) Positive evidence for the ex-wife-diddit hypothesis would be her fingerprints on the murder weapon. It is this kind of positive evidence that is completely lacking from cdesignproponentists side. Imagine being a prosecutor trying to convict the ex wife with a case that amounted to nothing more than “we can’t figure out who else could have done it.”

Let me adjust your example, tresmal…

Imagine a murder where a man was killed by being bludgeoned to death with an overstuffed recliner…

The butler is accused and charged of the man’s murder, even though he’s only 5’1” tall, 110 lbs, and the recliner is 200 lbs, and is covered with the fingerprints of the 6’9” tall, 300 lbs former bodybuilder-turned-chauffeur, and that the wife, whom everyone but the murder victim knows has been having an affair with the chauffeur, stands to inherit the murder victim’s millions, while the butler is left with the clothes on his back and the duster in his hand.

And the only reason why the prosecution insists that the butler be sent to the Gas Chamber is that “the butler always did it.”

tresmal said:

Imagine a murder. Negative evidence in favor of the ex-wife-diddit hypothesis would be the butler having an alibi (to make the analogy more apt it should be a remarkably flimsy alibi.) Positive evidence for the ex-wife-diddit hypothesis would be her fingerprints on the murder weapon. It is this kind of positive evidence that is completely lacking from cdesignproponentists side. Imagine being a prosecutor trying to convict the ex wife with a case that amounted to nothing more than “we can’t figure out who else could have done it.”

There is a larger point here, which is that FL is arguing the false dichotomy.

Yeah, even if it is an unanswered question, nothing in the theory promises to provide instant answers to all the details; the theory provides general principles. Details take work to figure out, even when the theory is “assumed” to be fairly accurate. (I put “assumed” in quotes because when a theory is already firmly established, new studies aren’t expected to have to establish it all over again, even though anti-evolutionists like to imply such.)

Henry

Stanton said: …And the only reason why the prosecution insists that the butler be sent to the Gas Chamber is that “the butler always did it.”

And belief and tradition always trump evidence! All I know is that the butler did it. That’s what I was taught and that’s good enough for me.

Try to realize that this line of argument, even if successful, never rationally leads to science’s accepting a hypothesis that has no evidence whatsoever behind it.

… I think the point is that both ID and Darwinism theories have points that dispute them and points that support them. To say Darwinism is a fact is simply not being objective or scientific.

Evolution is a fact, Darwinism is part of the explanation of the fact. Darwinism is a fact in the sense that the aspects of it have been observed: inheritance, variation and natural selection. The question thus remains, to what extent is the fact of evolution explained by the fact of Darwinism. Since Darwinian theory has a vast amount of evidence supporting it, it has remained the best explanation of observed facts, although the theory itself has undergone quite a bit of transformation to include new knowledge.

The problem with ID is that it is scientifically speaking ‘content free’ and thus science will never have the opportunity to come to accept it, as it has nothing to offer.

Cobby said:

Try to realize that this line of argument, even if successful, never rationally leads to science’s accepting a hypothesis that has no evidence whatsoever behind it.

… I think the point is that both ID and Darwinism theories have points that dispute them and points that support them. To say Darwinism is a fact is simply not being objective or scientific.

Darwinism is a fact in the sense that the aspects of it have been observed: inheritance, variation and natural selection

… well of course many aspects of Darwinism have been proven. But all of the subtheories must have substantial validation which they do not.

Of course NS happens but is it responsible for causing complex structures to evolve from simple ones? If that cannot be validated the whole theory is just another guess.

what are these subtheories to which you refer? In fact, it is quite simple to show that NS and variation can increase complexity of the genome. As to causing complex structures, again, NS and variation, as well as other mechanisms found in evolutionary theory, can explain the scale free nature of the many networks found in an organism. Once again, we have arguments from ignorance, opposed by facts and Jobby’s position is that the validity of Darwinism depends on his level of understanding. By that criterion, almost anything would have to be rejected. Luckily we are not constrained by Jobby’s ignorance when doing science.

Thank God.

Cobby said:

Darwinism is a fact in the sense that the aspects of it have been observed: inheritance, variation and natural selection

… well of course many aspects of Darwinism have been proven. But all of the subtheories must have substantial validation which they do not.

Of course NS happens but is it responsible for causing complex structures to evolve from simple ones? If that cannot be validated the whole theory is just another guess.

Cobby said: … I think the point is that both ID and Darwinism theories have points that dispute them and points that support them. To say Darwinism is a fact is simply not being objective or scientific.

Hi jobby. You are wrong. ID does not have anything that supports it. And the only point against evolution is that there is more to learn.
Are you a raelian?

That is a good point. ID, contrary to Jobby’s belief, is not in the business of presenting a coherent theory or hypothesis/hypotheses. Since there is no ID theory beyond, Darwinian theory cannot explain ‘x’, is it clear that ID presents nothing to compare to scientifically fruitful theories.

Perhaps Jobby can provide us with some non begging the question examples of what would support ID. Since in fact, ID could be fully compatible with Darwinian theory, what principles guides Jobby to believe that ID makes any relevant predictions.

tresmal said:

Cobby said: … I think the point is that both ID and Darwinism theories have points that dispute them and points that support them. To say Darwinism is a fact is simply not being objective or scientific.

Hi jobby. You are wrong. ID does not have anything that supports it. And the only point against evolution is that there is more to learn.
Are you a raelian?

Yes, bobby - what is one point of support for ID?

Not a point against evolution: a point against evolution is not a point of support for ID, unless you are also claiming that there are only two possible explanations for speciation.

PvM said: … I think the point is that both ID and Darwinism theories have points that dispute them and points that support them. To say Darwinism is a fact is simply not being objective or scientific.

Oops, my mistake, the blockquote in my previous quote should be attributed to “Cobby,” not PvM. My apologies.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Guest Contributor published on October 10, 2008 12:00 PM.

Tamias minimus was the previous entry in this blog.

Christians v. Intelligent Design: Featured: George Coyne is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.361

Site Meter