Geekologie I Watch Stuff The Superficial Hedonistica

Fruit Fly That's Evolved Pictures Of Spiders On Its Wings


Because Mother Nature clearly has way too much time on her hands, this is a species of fruit fly that's evolved realistic looking pictures of jumping spiders on its wings. Impressive, but I'd still like to see a pair of those naked lady trucker mudflaps.

The idea of the ant design, as explained to The National by Dr Brigitte Howarth of Zayed University who first discovered G tridens in the UAE, is that these flies use their wings to ward off predators. The fly flashes it wings back and forth to make it seem as if the ants [or spiders] are moving around and that movement would confuse the predator.

Man, if I were a fruit fly you know what I'd want on my wings to ward off predators? GUNS. Not pictures of guns either, actual f***ing guns. Oh shit, you wanna eat me? *PEW PEW PEW!* I don't think so. Ideally I wouldn't want to be a fruit fly at all though.

Thanks to peacedove, who's often depicted with an olive branch in its beak even though it was really a marijuana leaf.

There are Comments.
  • Hang on - are you saying this artwork has no artist?? You really are kidding us. This is amazing DESIGN, people.

  • Brant_Alan

    It's things like this. And I've es seen more than one similar example that makes me think there's something beyond just evolution and mother nature than we know. Like an awareness in nature beyond the actual life forms in it.

  • Would you believe, a Designer. A Designer who designs.

  • Kaizer Chief

    Right, so this evolved. So for hundreds of thousands of years before they finished evolving (to have a frighteningly believable image of an ant on their wings), you had fruit-flies with random, indistinct brown discolorations on their wings? I wonder what evolutionary advantage that would have given them?

  • glebealyth

    Very little advantage, Kaizer Chief, which is why they did not survive the process.
    Do you actually understand how evolution works, or do you just deny that it did?

  • Evolution has no viable way of working. Hasn't worked, doesn't work, won't work. Natural Selection is the only tool - and it only SELECTS, it doesn't CREATE.

  • glebealyth


    I suppose one should not use shorthand with people like Kaizer Chief, who have made no attempt to understand the longhand.

  • People who believe that something this complex happened by chance over long periods of time have more faith than I do. They believe that nothing times nobody equals everything. Wow.

  • glebealyth


    They have more evidence than you do.


  • LOL I don't think so! There just isn't any evidence.
    Cambrian explosion, no intermediates. Natural selection - just that, no creative ability, just selection from existing DNA. Evolution predicts small rising to large, simple rising to complex, fewer numbers rising to greater populations. Instead we see exactly the opposite: huge populations in times past now diminishing numbers of species, huge animals in the past but much smaller now (have you seen the skeletons of dinosaurs and ancient crocs?) and more specialisation indicating less complexity in the DNA.
    Geneticists tell us that with each new generation in every species there is a slew of negative mutations, resulting in genetic deterioration. We are DEvolving, not Evolving. Many species have become extinct.
    What evolution predicts is occasional positive mutations leading to gradual changes in creatures. What we actually see is a multitude of neutral or negative mutations (many of them lethal) and NO positive mutations. At this rate animals become extinct from genetic meltdown without the slightest chance at becoming something 'better'.
    Heads in sand...ignoring the 'elephant in the room'...The emperor of evolution has no clothes but the people are too afraid to mention it.

  • glebealyth

    You might consider taking the time to read the actual evidence.

    All you have done is to repeat the lies, propaganda and apologetics of Ham, Comfort et el, whose incomes depends upon duping folk such as you into parting with their cash so they can build boats and museums and mansions.

    Yes, Ihave seen dinosaur skeletons.

    You are conflating size with complexity. I guess your PC still fills three floors.

  • I have read the evidence, and it keeps changing. At least, the story about it keeps changing. I studied evolution at tertiary level so I do know what evolutionists teach. It constantly amazes me that they focus on details, string them together ignoring huge gaps, and won't consider anything but their own viewpoint. Actually many have. Consider nuclear physicist Dr Jim Mason and geneticist Dr John Sanford, two superb (and honest) scientists who have been convinced of the impossibility of evolution and recognize the hand of Design in the natural world.
    You talk of computers evolving - and I imagine you recognize the role of intelligence in their development? Or do you think they also evolved without any thought or design? ;-)
    At least our Creator got it right the first time. He didn't have to go through Mark 1, Mark 2 etc.
    I have a deep interest in science and read a lot. "Test all things, prove all things..." Don't get sucked into the evolutionary party line, mate. Really look at it. And don't be above checking out the excellent articles on, because there are more PhD scientists who work for them than any other organisation in the world. There are a very large (silent) group of scientists working in the academic world who are too nervous to speak of their convictions on evolution because they would lose their jobs if their employers knew. Seriously, the emperor of evolution has no clothes. It is a very recent theory and is a very unstable one.

  • glebealyth

    The number of PhD scientists who work for is how many?

    The total number of PhD holders is?

    Do the arithmetic and let me know the proportion of PhD holders worldwide who work for thios purvetor of ignorance.

  • Read my reply to your last comment. I am not communicating with you anymore unless your attitude changes, sorry. If you really want to know you will find out for yourself. Good luck!

  • glebealyth

    When faced with data, you run for cover.

    Evolution has evidence to support and is observed daily.

    Creationism has wishful thinking to support it and has never been observed: the only witness you can claim has yet to be shown to exist?

    How is it that I have an attitude and evidence, whereas you do not have an attitude, despite having no evidence?

  • glebealyth

    Of course it keeps changing. That is the nature oof science.

    Unlike religion, science does not claim to have absolute truth based upon a complete lack of evidence. Rather, science is merely the best available explanation within the constraints of the evidence to hand.

    Science does not have the conceit of the religious, born out of ignorance and unjustified hope.

  • Looks like you've run out of polite and rational argument. Resorting to personal insults now I see. So goodbye, end of conversation. I won't get into any mudslinging.
    I do however disagree with your comment, "Unlike religion, science does not claim to have absolute truth..." Your comments indicate otherwise.
    Goodbye, and good luck.

  • hey you got your wish I've been booted off the ex Christian site awesome- seems you jokers over there just hate to see some one beat your own game at every opportunity- wow what a bunch of sore losers you guys are- what a sham that site is- If we don't like you we censor you- real democratic comrade. hey do you debate posers ever get tired of stroking each other all day? your a big baby- friend.

  • Guest

    probably something like this but less so. fast moving brown dot might make something hesitate a little

  • Kaizer Chief

    I can accept that, but going from a brown dot to a 3-dimensional brown ant stretches my belief a bit too far I'm afraid.

blog comments powered by Disqus