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

November 13, 2013


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.

  • 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?

  • Wow, you are really angry. Look, I am not here to tease or torment you, I am just trying to show you that there is more than one way of looking at the evidence (yes, I do look at the same evidence you do - but I believe a different explanation fits better). Evolution is NOT as clear as you think it is. I have offered you a chance to look at the 'data' - the website I gave you is full of excellent articles. Be open to looking at them. I have read many articles not from my viewpoint and they often make some very good points. You can learn from everyone, whether or not you agree with their total viewpoint.
    You are correct about one thing - that Creation cannot be observed or proven. What you don't understand is that evolution cannot be proven either. It is a theory, a story, about what people see. They do their best but looking at the big picture it is impossible to claim an irrefutable set of circumstances.
    Richard Dawkins suggests that aliens may have brought the seeds of life to our planet, since it has become evident to even evolutionary scientists that life could not have originated on our planet. Now what do you think sounds more plausible - Aliens? Or God?
    If aliens, then where did THEY get the seeds of life from? Skip all the stuff in between and go back to origins. There just isn't an answer. Now I don't stick my hands in the air and simply say "It must have been God because I can't explain it any other way". I study science too. It is absolutely fascinating. By "science" I mean observable, repeatable science, not a story made up about the origins of earth and the creatures on it.
    You asked me how many PhD scientists are employed by Creation Ministries. This is a serious organisation which is immersed in science. I looked up their "about us" page (which I earlier invited you to do) and counted 30 Bachelor and Masters degrees in serious sciences: biology/zoology/geology/engineering of various types/paleontology/missile development and testing/chemistry/physics/fluvial geomorphology/atmospheric science/marine biology/mathematics). There are other supporting professionals; I have simply mentioned the scientists. Other scientists occasionally write and speak for the group as well. I attended an excellent lecture earlier this year by Professor Stuart Burgess, who invented the dragonfly spy robot, based on his study of real dragonflies. He is humble in his praise for God's design. A four-bar mechanism cannot occur naturally by chance. All four bars must be present at once for this function to work. And that is only one tiny part of the design.
    The number of scientists working for Creation Ministries is not incredibly important. What is important is having a questioning mind and being able to objectively follow truth wherever it leads. Even if it leads us where we don't want to go. We can't afford to do anything else.
    I respect your right to choose which viewpoint you want. It is a common viewpoint. I just don't happen to think that viewpoint best fits the evidence. But you do have the right to believe as you wish. Now the challenge is to respect others' viewpoints.
    I wish you all the best.

  • glebealyth


    You really are presumptuous.

    Not only are you incapable of assessing factual information without inserting your presuppositional beliefs, you are sufficiently conceited to believe that you can divine my emotional state from an environment in which emotions are not displayed.

    I am not in the least bit angry. The only emotion I am filled with is dismay at the loss of another otherwise fine mind to the foolishness of religious belief.

    It was an expected ploy for you to characterize me as angry - you have obviously read the same apologetics tracts that I once did - and allows you neatly to sidestep the fact that you have yet to provide any evidence at all for the only wit
    ness you claim to have to back up your preposterous myth.

    I understand.
    I have played that game.
    I now prefer to deal honestly with people using facts and reason.
    You have clearly yet to reach that point and release yourself from the delusion of your religious beliefs.

  • You are clearly very angry. True, I can't see your body language, but unless you are really having me on and laughing all the way, words are one of the main means of communication in this world, and you are using angry words to excess.
    I have given you facts and reasons for my viewpoint, and a place to look up more should you wish to (which you obviously don't). I have been polite to you.
    You have chosen not to address the information I have given you. All I have had from you is scorn and unreasonable abuse. Anyone reading our dialogue would realize that you have offered me no corresponding courtesy, no respect for a different point of view. Everything you accuse me of being and doing, is exactly what you are doing to me!
    So, as I am a very busy person, I choose to have meaningful conversations with those I can dialogue with and exchange information with, not insults. I really do wish you the best, but I fear you have blinkers on, my friend.

  • glebealyth

    You have not given me any information I have not read before.

    We have different definitions of "polite".
    I was brought up eduvated to consider it to be impolite to propagate nonsense based upon foolishness, especially when that foolishness is written by people with PhDs whicg are either of the standard of the one claimed by Kent Hovind (have you read that? You should) or whose doctorates are in fields which are irrelevant, such as the preponderance od Dentistry PhD holders at the Creation Institue.

    I wish you well, but hope that you soon desist from supporting religious myths that result in children being taught lies.

  • glebealyth

    And you, dear lady, are still very clearly deluded as well as beung a liar.

    you have said goodbye once. Now, please, before I lose my cool and my dismay at your delusion turns to pity, act on your own suggestion.

    I am not in the least bit angry. Concern might be the most powerful emotion now with respect to you. Anger is so far from my character, especially in response to the extremely smal pinprick that you represent.

    Now, I understand just how piqued you are that you have been called out as to your inability to produce evidence to back up your position and that you need to hide your pique behind accusations, for which you have no evidence - I discern a patter, that I am angry.

    You, dear lady, could not be more wrong. Curious indeed, that you continue the form you hae for being wrong in terms of knowledge over into the filed of being wrong when making accusations to cover your ensuing folly.

    Yes. I was right. I feel the pity forming.

    Sleep well: should your conscience allow it.

    p.s. You have neither the intellectual nor linguistic wherewithal that you would need to goad me into anger. Please stop trying.

blog comments powered by Disqus
Previous Post
Next Post