Slashdot Mirror


Cockroaches Evolving To Avoid Roach Motels

sciencehabit writes "Only a few years after roach motels were introduced in the 1980s, they lost their allure for an increasing number of German cockroaches. Researchers soon realized that some roaches had developed an aversion to glucose—the sugary bait disguising the poison—and that the insects were passing that trait on to their young. Now, scientists have figured out how this behavior evolved."

219 of 315 comments (clear)

  1. That's fine by phantomfive · · Score: 5, Funny

    Maybe soon they will learn an aversion to everything in my house. Then they can live outside and we will all be happy.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    1. Re:That's fine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Then they can live outside and we will all be happy.

      I understand many of them have found alternative employment with Microsoft and Apple's IP standover^h^h protection legal teams.

    2. Re:That's fine by hairyfeet · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Dude you might not like them living outside. I don't know about the German ones but here we have what is locally called the "VC cockroach" named because it is as tough as the Viet Cong and those things are happy to live outside in the sewers...until the storm drains flood and then they'll try to climb up through the pipes and get into your house. Since they can live without worrying about poisons they get fricking HUGE, we are talking bigger than a grown man's thumb and tough as hell to kill, you can't use an ordinary fly-swat as it won't even stun 'em, you better have a shoe ready and be putting some arm behind your swing, TOUGH bastards.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    3. Re:That's fine by fisted · · Score: 2

      what is/are "Microsoft and Apple's IP standov protection legal teams"?

    4. Re:That's fine by smooth+wombat · · Score: 2

      you better have a shoe ready and be putting some arm behind your swing, TOUGH bastards.

      So like the ones in Damnation Alley

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    5. Re:That's fine by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

      Awesome movie reference. The Landmaster was the ultimate ATV, of course I was a kid but it was cool.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    6. Re:That's fine by Tyler+Durden · · Score: 2

      -1: Nightmares

      --
      Happy people make bad consumers.
    7. Re:That's fine by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1

      I saw that movie when I was a kid as well. My dad took me (obviously) and I always remember those roaches. I wasn't scared of them, I thought they were cool.

      Now of course I know they were Madagascar Hissing cockroaches.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    8. Re:That's fine by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      Just turn on the lights in the morning.

    9. Re:That's fine by Runaway1956 · · Score: 2

      Roaches are averse to very little. The one thing that kills them dead, and permanent, is boric acid. No - don't try to mix up a poison for them. Just dust the building they infest. Really dust - get it into every crack and crevice, behind light switches, behind wall receptacles, under cabinets, on top of cabinet, under the false floor under your sinks, in the attic, in the basement, get the rafters and floor joists, behind molding, in the heating ducts, hot water tank room, crawlspaces, EVERYWHERE.

      Leave the dust undisturbed for as long as possible. Can you leave the building empty for a month? Do it! They walk in it, they feel dirty, so they groom themselves. Grooming is just like a cat - they lick themselves clean. POISONED, SUCKER!!!

      All those fancy, expensive preparations are just a waste of time. They never worked in the first place, is why the roaches seem to be "averse" to them now.

      How do I know this? I once moved into a home that was perfect - except it was roach infested. We tried everything, then asked around. The professional exterminators couldn't even rid the house of roaches, which was part of the reason the previous tenants had moved out.

      Dusting worked, where everything else had failed. The house was roach free after a month. (There WILL be reinfestations after the first treatment, because there are eggs in your walls that won't hatch for a couple of weeks. Just leave the dust laying everywhere - those hatchlings will be gone soon enough.)

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    10. Re:That's fine by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      they get fricking HUGE, we are talking bigger than a grown man's thumb

      Oh you happily sheltered child.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    11. Re:That's fine by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      Pfft. The cockroaches in Japan can grow to be the size of an eclair. You need a shotgun to kill them - which is unfortunate, since you can't have shotguns in Japan...

      True story... my Uncle couldn't get rid of the roaches in his apartment in Tokyo, so he camped them with a pump pellet gun - which was illegal, of course. He grew up shooting squirrels and stuff in NY with such a pellet rifle, and the roaches require more pumps and more precise body location shooting than the rodents...

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    12. Re:That's fine by rjr162 · · Score: 1

      We saw some down in Myrtle Beach. Being that the wife already hates them (and spiders) it made for an amusing time sitting outside at this one "bars" patio enjoying a beer when one ran up the chair beside her!

    13. Re:That's fine by lgw · · Score: 2

      I wonder how practical dusting the insides of the walls throughout the house with boric acid would be. I guess it wouldn't be a permanent solution due to moisture (and it is an acid, so it might end badly as it slowly washed away), but it does sound worth trying.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    14. Re:That's fine by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      If you were wiling and able to remove paneling, yeah, it would be great. But, it's a good bit of work. If you happened to be doing remodeling anyway, no problem. It's not a chore that I would willingly take on just to get rid of roaches.

      On the other hand - I would consider removing the molding around the bottom of the room, drill a few one inch holes, and blow the dust into the holes. Nail the molding back in place, and your walls are permanently poisoned for roaches.

      Depending on where you live, and the construction of your home, moisture shouldn't be a problem on any interior walls. Exterior walls, maybe.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    15. Re:That's fine by HiThere · · Score: 2

      I believe he exaggerated how thoroughly you need to apply the dust. Just be sure you get places that the cockroaches will walk should be enough. Under the stove, refrigerator, on the shelves, etc. And don't remove it.

      Mind you, I'm sure his approach would work, I just think it's probably overkill based on what I've heard previously. You do, however, need to be sure the boric acid remains in place, because you will be continually reinfested from where-ever the original infestation came from.

      P.S.: Boric acid is not non-toxic, though it's also not terrible. But keep it away from food. Wash your hands after handling it, avoid breathing the dust, etc. If you put any on food handling surfaces, be sure they are well washed before you again use them for food handling.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    16. Re:That's fine by doccus · · Score: 1

      Do those ones also stink as bad when you kill 'em? Is that in N America, if so i can hardly wait until they get here.. NOT

    17. Re:That's fine by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      The one thing that kills them dead, and permanent, is boric acid.

      Really? We don't have any significant cockroach problem on this side of the Atlantic - I had to struggle to recognise them the first time I saw them, in the Middle East - but it slightly surprises me that what is so often reported as a terrible scourge, could have such a relatively simple solution. (OK ; I'm more of a chemist than the average street full of people, so I'm more realistic about the hazards of using such chemicals ; but if that's going to put people off, more fool them.)

      Googly-google ... Looks good. OK ; cockroaches no longer considered a problem by me.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    18. Re: That's fine by janerules · · Score: 1

      Here too! After some reading I also learned they can live for 3 days without their head, survive 30 min without air, breed approx 90 to 1, and (by looking in my kitchen) that they are able to ration sparse food supplies. 3 roaches to one grain of rice. Go figure. They will outlive us all!

    19. Re:That's fine by DirtyLiar · · Score: 1

      I lived in a medium sized Indiana town, and once jumped off of a high curb onto my heel to crush a HUGE cockroach, it was almost half the size of my palm. I came down on that thing from at least 1 foot with a hard soled shoe, and the thing gave me a dirty look, then skutteled off!

      You don't have to be in a big city, or some jungle to find HUGE, Tough cockroaches.

      --

      THINK! It's patriotic

    20. Re:That's fine by dontclapthrowmoney · · Score: 1

      From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boric_acid#Toxicology

      Long term exposure to boric acid may be of more concern, causing kidney damage and eventually kidney failure (see links below). Although it does not appear to be carcinogenic, studies in dogs have reported testicular atrophy after exposure to 32 mg/kg bw/day for 90 days. This level is far lower than the LD50.

      I'd rather put up with roaches?

    21. Re:That's fine by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      "boric acid is poisonous if taken internally or inhaled in large quantities."

      Try to avoid eating the stuff, and maybe use a respirator while dusting? I have managed to handle truly dangerous chemicals in my lifetime, in bulk quantities (as much as 5000 gallons at a time) without ingesting or inhaling them.

      Roaches are harmful. Boric acid is potentially harmful to idiots. I'll take my chances with the acid.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    22. Re:That's fine by volmtech · · Score: 1

      You're talking about a palmetto bug. Here in north Florida I have large clumps of palmettos growing near my home and of course large palmetto bugs blundering into my house. They don't want to be inside, I just coach them into a cup and throw them out the door. Do NOT squash one, or spray it with roach spray, The stench is nauseating.

  2. Ah, yes! by Black+Parrot · · Score: 4, Funny

    That Intelligent Designer is a crafty one! You'll never best his cockroaches!

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    1. Re:Ah, yes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      That Intelligent Designer is a crafty one! You'll never best his cockroaches!

      IDers accept microevolution.

    2. Re:Ah, yes! by girlintraining · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That Intelligent Designer is a crafty one! You'll never best his cockroaches!

      I see your intelligently designed cockroaches, and raise you intelligently designed science.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    3. Re:Ah, yes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      IDers accept microevolution.

      Which just makes them more illogical, not less. For example, I accept that I live in my mother's basement, but I don't accept that I will never get a date. Yet the latter is a consequence of the former.

    4. Re:Ah, yes! by Black+Parrot · · Score: 5, Informative

      That Intelligent Designer is a crafty one! You'll never best his cockroaches!

      IDers accept microevolution.

      Do they? Back before they got pwned all their marquee arguments[*] took the form of "this-or-that-structure-or-system could not have evolved".

      If you want to defend them, maybe you should clarify what definition of microevolution they accept, and what other flavors of evolution they reject.

      [*] Except for Dembski's "no free lunch" argument that evolution doesn't work any better than blind chance, which of course would apply to microevolution as well as to any other flavor.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    5. Re:Ah, yes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Microevolution? Is that like calling something slow motion and fast forward instead of just saying "motion in the forward direction"? They are the same, dim wit.

    6. Re:Ah, yes! by Sperbels · · Score: 2

      Like: What is the question to the answer 42?

    7. Re:Ah, yes! by sqrt(2) · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There's really no distinction. What is called macro evolution is determined by hindsight, usually because we are only able to compare fossils separated by millions of years. By definition every organism is a member of the same species as its parents. We only place them into discrete categories for taxonomical convenience. It's not a fact of nature, it's a human contrivance to make doing (some aspects) of biology easier.

      It's like natural languages. I speak English, a Germanic language. I can speak to my father and mother just fine. I can speak to my grandfather, and also converse in German with him. If my great-grandfather were still alive I'd doubtless have no trouble speaking to him, too. He could speak to his parents. They could speak to their parents, and so on. Each person in the chain can speak to and understand the people directly around them. But if you go back just a few hundred years, I wouldn't be able to easily converse with my ancestors, despite the fact that there is an unbroken chain connecting them to myself linguistically. Farther back and I wouldn't even recognize the language they're speaking as English, or German. So from microevolution comes macroevolution of languages.

      So to with biology. If we had access to a fossil or living specimen of every intermediary individual from single cell to human then the very idea of species would become meaningless, lost in the smooth gradient of gradual change. You could line them all up and walk down the line and see them change, almost imperceptibly from one form into another. Every individual would look so much like his parents and offspring that you wouldn't even be able to tell there was a change at all. But you could compare every 10, 100, or 1000 individuals and see that they are in fact changing. At some point they'd be so different as to need a new name, for humans have an almost pernicious compulsion to place things into discrete categories.

      Some people find it impossible to break out of this mindset. Some find that their religion even compels them not to try.

      --
      If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
    8. Re:Ah, yes! by JoshuaZ · · Score: 4, Informative

      So, most of the other responses here meet most of the major relevant issues. But one thing that's curious is that while some young earth creationists clam they accept "microevolution" what they mean by this is quite hard to pin down. One common claim is that by microevolution one means evolution below the species level. But Answers in Genesis, the world's largest YEC ministry lists claiming that speciation does not occur as an argument that creationists should not use because the evidence for speciation is so strong. http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/arguments-we-dont-use. Now, here's the really neat bit: A variety of ID proponents argue that speciation doesn't happen. There's an interview in Expelled where one of the ID proponents says that speciation doesn't happen. This isn't the only example. So it looks like the ID proponents are frequently even more reactionary than the most sophisticated YECs. That's what happens when you are constructing viewpoints to sound just plausible enough to have an appearance of controversy and not actually trying to figure out the truth.

    9. Re:Ah, yes! by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      Just not the implications of iterating microevolution over even ten thousand years-- much less a million-- much less a hundred million-- much less a billion years.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    10. Re:Ah, yes! by JoshuaZ · · Score: 5, Informative

      IDes can accept evolution...the only thing they don't accept is that life on the planet was not in some way fashioned for some particular purpose (which was presumably either already fulfilled long ago, or hasn't been completed yet, or else has been completely forgotten about)

      And now we have yet another variant of ID, and this version is so vague that it isn't even clear what the point is. Sometime there may ave been a purpose at some point- and this is supposed to be a scientific hypothesis?

      But let's look at what the ID proponents actually say.. The primary ID textbook, Of Pandas and Peoples rejected evolution. Of course this is the book that apparently had a litera search and replace from "creationist" to "intelligent design proponents" leading to among other fun bits leading to the infamous ""cdesign proponentsists" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_Pandas_and_People#Pandas_and_.22cdesign_proponentsists.22. But let's look at what other ID proponents have said. Michael Behe accepts most of evolution, except for apparent occasional tinkering. His primary example is malaria so you could summarize his views as "There is a designer and he's a bit of a dick". William Demski used to be ok with an old Earth but now questions that and believes in a literal global flood http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_A._Dembski#Southwestern_Baptist_Theological_Seminary_flood_controversy. Paul Nelson is a straight out YEC while claiming that that view isn't common among IDers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Nelson_(creationist). Etc. Etc. Ad infinitum et nauseam

      ID exists to disguise creationism as something more palatable to be taught in schools or discussed by respectable people. But the proponents aren't very good at having anything like a coherent hypothesis, with each of them trying to decide just how vocal a creationist they'll be and which parts of science they'll reject. ID was made to try to infiltrate public schools under the guise of science, and it shows.

    11. Re:Ah, yes! by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      This appears to speak to your question, especially the last two paragraphs before the notes section.

      The Peppered Moth Story: Vindicated!

      A quick search appears to show they haven't folded their cards as yet.

      About Irreducible Complexity
      Michael Behe Hasn't Been Refuted on the Flagellum
      mouse trap illustration vs. 3-glasses-3-knives illustration — Irreducible Complexity, Depth of Integration

      I would think that evolutionary theory would predict, and even practically demand, the presence of ID theorists and Creationists of various flavors as part of the scientific community. Every scientific community, and they are segmented, is its own little ecosystem. It has sources of energy (grants), and consumers (scientists) and various forms of reproduction (ideas and new scientists, etc.). Some members of the ecosystem will consume resources, but give little back, or produce poor quality offspring. The herd only improves if the strongest survive. Think of the role of predators taking the weak in any animal stock. In this case it is weak theories and science. By the two communities engaging in adversarial struggle, the weak science is exposed and made stronger. What is passed over in silence by on community is exposed by the other and account demanded. Intellectual rigor increases. Their ways are strange to you, perhaps even irritating. But directly and indirectly they help real science grow stronger, and more innovative. They probably also bring additional funding into the scientific community that it otherwise wouldn't have. And without them, your droll post would have no meaning.

      The evolutionary theory of punctuated equilibrium came about for a reason - to explain missing data - transitional forms, data that couldn't be found but evolutionary theory said should be there. It is certainly a bold approach to the problem - we can't find it because it doesn't exist so, never mind. In a way it brings to mind the Fermi Paradox.

      Of course the ID community has a view: Punctuated Equilibrium and Patterns from the Fossil Record

      Note to moderators: I am neither kidding nor trolling. Feel free to ignore the post.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    12. Re:Ah, yes! by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      The micro- and macro-evolution terms are clumsy labels for what they're being used to describe.

      Mainstream evolution states that each change is an adaptive measure, but that when taken in concert, over time, can results in a distinct organism. From what I understand, some IDers consider evolution to be a purely adaptive mechanism. That is, if you take a bacteria, drop it in a pond, and let evolution run for a billion years, what you'll end up with is bacteria perfectly adapted to life in that pond; it won't have evolved into a more complex form of life.

      Yeah, that means that evolutionary changes won't likely cross the species barrier, but that's not the point of what they're trying to say.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    13. Re:Ah, yes! by sqrt(2) · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Mutations are random, and most aren't improvements, aren't adaptive. Natural selection then goes to work. The mutations which are better become more numerous by virtue of being better. Detrimental changes terminate the organism's lineage by killing it outright or making it less successful at reproducing. Drop a bacterium into a pond and after a billion years I'd expect to still find bacteria or something analogous in that pond. Ignore the fact that location on the Earth loses meaning at that time scale due to plate tectonics. I'd expect to find bacteria AND lots of other forms of life all over the place everywhere I looked. This demonstrates another misunderstanding ID people have with evolution. Bacteria and humans are equally evolved. We've all been evolving for the same amount of time. Bacteria are just as old as humans, all contemporary species are. No extant species is "less evolved" than any other. You can say they are "more primitive" but what does that really mean? Compared to what?

      Anthropocentrism is a vice biologists are broken of early on. Religious people often find the idea that humans aren't special, that the world wasn't made just for us, positively abhorrent. Strangely these same religions often preach humility. What a contradiction.

      --
      If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
    14. Re:Ah, yes! by JoshuaZ · · Score: 1

      Mainstream evolution states that each change is an adaptive measure,

      No. Evolution can occur due to neutral drift, founder effects http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founder_effect among other causes. Indeed, the founder effect is a major cause of speciation events.

    15. Re:Ah, yes! by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 1

      And flat-Earthers accept that the Earth looks round in the exceptional and unimportant case of viewing the planet from the moon.

      --
      "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
    16. Re:Ah, yes! by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      This demonstrates another misunderstanding ID people have with evolution. Bacteria and humans are equally evolved.

      That's not a misunderstanding of ID people; that's a misunderstanding of evolution by people in general. I blame X-Men, but even stuff like Darwin's Radio falls victim to it. Anything that uses the phrase "next phase of human evolution" is probably doing it.

      That's why I used the term "complex" rather than "more evolved" or "advanced". Humans are more complex than bacteria, but "evolved" isn't a measure of complexity, it's a measure of adaptivity, and needs to be contextualized. For instance, humans are poorly evolved for life in deep space; fish are poorly evolved for life on land. Some bacteria are highly evolved for survival in extreme temperature or acidity.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    17. Re:Ah, yes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      At work, I had to explain that mutations happen all the time for human. For them, if a mutation happens, it must mean that there will be a third arm or something like that to happen. And these are people who did scientific studies. :(

    18. Re:Ah, yes! by LordLucless · · Score: 2

      Fine; I was imprecise. The mainstream perspective of evolutionary history is that the current state of the species are due to beneficial changes in the genome being distributed across a population due to natural selection.

      Yes, there are other means of evolution, but in the longterm, the changes themselves are either beneficial (in which case they're distributed across the population), harmful (in which case they're removed from the gene pool), or neutral (in which case, they are present in some individuals, but the population as a whole can't be said to have "evolved" that trait).

      I wasn't trying to provide an accurate definition of evolution in detail; I was trying to highlight the distinction between adaptive changes, and the results of the accretion of those changes.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    19. Re:Ah, yes! by Black+Parrot · · Score: 3, Interesting

      A quick search appears to show they haven't folded their cards as yet.

      Creationists never fold their cards, no matter how many times their claims are refuted.

      I remember reading about a debate where the scientist pointed out that the creationist's argument was based on a long-since refuted claim, the creationist replied that they don't rely on that claim anymore, and the scientist then asked "So why is it in the literature you're selling in the lobby?"

      I would think that evolutionary theory would predict, and even practically demand, the presence of ID theorists and Creationists of various flavors as part of the scientific community. Every scientific community, and they are segmented, is its own little ecosystem. It has sources of energy (grants), and consumers (scientists) and various forms of reproduction (ideas and new scientists, etc.). Some members of the ecosystem will consume resources, but give little back, or produce poor quality offspring. The herd only improves if the strongest survive. Think of the role of predators taking the weak in any animal stock. In this case it is weak theories and science. By the two communities engaging in adversarial struggle, the weak science is exposed and made stronger. What is passed over in silence by on community is exposed by the other and account demanded. Intellectual rigor increases. Their ways are strange to you, perhaps even irritating. But directly and indirectly they help real science grow stronger, and more innovative. They probably also bring additional funding into the scientific community that it otherwise wouldn't have. And without them, your droll post would have no meaning.

      I suspect it's something like the reason physicists don't feel a need to have Time Cube proponentists and historians don't need holocaust deniers.

      As the saying goes, you're entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts. If you don't deal in facts, science doesn't need you.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    20. Re:Ah, yes! by JoshuaZ · · Score: 4, Interesting

      No, there's a serious misconception here. Neutral traits can become universal in a population, and frequently do. This is especially likely in small populations (which is part of why bottlenecks matter so much).

    21. Re:Ah, yes! by cold+fjord · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You are complaining to the wrong person. Make your complaint to Black Parrot or some of the other ones up thread. He started it off with a joke post involving ID, started the thread topic, and then made the inquiry I responded to. There are other posts about it as well. Complain to them. If it is OK for them to post on it, it is OK for me to post on it. Fair is fair. If it is just a matter of viewpoint discrimination - well, sorry, but I will continue to post on running topics, but do not agree to one sided discussions.

      If you're bored with it, feel free to ignore the posts. I often ignore threads in a story, or even entire stories, in which the discussion is one in which I am uninterested, or at least find to be a lesser priority.

      I don't think the ID community would agree that what they do either is, or has, spirituality as a central component to the day to day work. Many of them are working scientists as well. They just hold a particular view about what the ultimate source of everything is. Drop an anvil on your toe and a physicist that ascribes to ID will tell you it was gravity that pulled it to earth, not God's will. A chemist that ascribes to ID will tell you that the anvil is made of high carbon steel with traces of scandium, not "stuff that God holds together." A physician that ascribes to ID will still tell you that the toe has to be amputated. Don't make the mistake of thinking that people that believe either ID or associated beliefs must be stupid.

      I know a PhD physicist that graduated from a major research university, is the head of an academic physics department (last I knew), and believed in either ID or Creationism, I forget which. Besides his academic duties, the good doctor does solid research for outside customers and is well regarded in that particular research community. Believing that God exists, created the universe, and established creation in a particular fashion is a very remote question from trying to understand a particular problem in surface physics.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    22. Re:Ah, yes! by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      Which is why I contextualized by saying that it's the perspective on the current state of the species. Yeah, there are niche cases - geographical isolation, no natural predators, or whatever. But by and large, when you look at the evolution of species as a whole, the picture is that of advancement by adaptation.

      Take white tigers for an example; yes, due to controlled inbreeding, isolated environments, and being maintained in circumstances where there's no predation, a "negative" trait is spread through a population. Leaving aside the notion that such a trait is positive by definition (white tigers are poorly evolved for survival in the wild, but highly evolved for visually pleasing humans). But when you're talking about the evolution of panthera tigris, white tigers are a footnote or an interesting sidelight, not indicative of the whole.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    23. Re:Ah, yes! by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      Well obviously; If the earth has only been around for a few thousand years, there simply hasn't been enough time for macroevolution yet.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    24. Re:Ah, yes! by hawkinspeter · · Score: 2

      Slightly off topic, but how do IDers explain things like retinas being designed backwards and various other poor design choices for humans? Doesn't the idea become more like "Idiot Design" when considering how badly "designed" we are?

      --
      You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
    25. Re:Ah, yes! by sFurbo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It isn't an idiot designer, as cephalopods have their eyes the right way around. The designer clearly can do it correctly, but chose not to do it with vertebrates. Furthermore, when looking at the way the world works, it becomes clear that the designer is evil, mad or both. All in all, Cthulhu is the best guess at a designer, given the evidence.

    26. Re:Ah, yes! by jkflying · · Score: 3, Informative

      Just a quick pointer, most evolution (in mammals at least) isn't through mutations, but through recombination. Just as an example, in humans, on average there is only one new mutation (ie. one corrupted base-pair) per two generations. When you consider the size of the genome is equivalent to 3.5GB of data, that is virtually nothing.

      Then compare that to something like HIV, which only has a genome size of 1.2KB of data, but still averages about 1 to 2 mutations per generation.

      --
      Help I am stuck in a signature factory!
    27. Re:Ah, yes! by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

      Some bacteria are highly evolved for survival in extreme temperature or acidity.

      Pedant point: those are generally archaeans.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    28. Re:Ah, yes! by hawkinspeter · · Score: 3, Informative

      I like the way you're thinking there, but I have a counter-example for the whole Intelligent Squid Designer philosophy:

      Cephalod gills don't use a counterflow arrangement (where blood and water move in opposite directions) which would provide a maximum concentration gradient. However, the much more efficient counterflow system is used all over the place (e.g. lungs, fish gills, kidneys, penguin feet) but not in cephalopods.

      It's almost as if Cthulhu came up with a great design and then decided to give all his children the retard version of it. Maybe he just hates his kids.

      --
      You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
    29. Re:Ah, yes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Complexity is usually a workaround for an detrimental mutation that happened down the line. Evolution is not a championship of the fittest and strongest, but a never ending rerouting around obstacles. The strongest and fittest stay as they are from one generation to another; the outcasts and "damaged good" specimens are pushed to the limbs of their worlds to explore neighboring niches and then evolve into them. Some of them might some day become more powerful then their former "betters", if their evolutionary path leads them that way. You can see that pattern in history of nations too. Rejects from prosperous nations gather on frontiers toughen and become able barbarians who eventually migrate back in power and seize rich lands. But first step into conquest is typically a step back.

    30. Re:Ah, yes! by treeves · · Score: 1

      the latter is a consequence of the former, IF IT happens. The former doesn't guarantee the latter. Well, it might in your case...

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    31. Re:Ah, yes! by Smauler · · Score: 1

      Don't make the mistake of thinking that people that believe either ID or associated beliefs must be stupid.

      I don't. I never have. I'm a flirting Christian in that I love some of the tenets of the religion (I don't believe in god yet... that is a small drawback). It's just nothing to do with the scientific method. ID ascribes something to something that by definition cannot be proven or disproven, A book I love to illustrate my views is A J Ayers' "Language, Truth and Logic".

    32. Re:Ah, yes! by cyborg_zx · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I know a PhD physicist that graduated from a major research university, is the head of an academic physics department (last I knew), and believed in either ID or Creationism, I forget which.

      Yes, it's always the physicists and mathematicians for some reason who hold these ideas.

      Don't make the mistake of thinking that people that believe either ID or associated beliefs must be stupid.

      Don't make the mistake of thinking that smart people can't be stupid.

    33. Re:Ah, yes! by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

      cephalopods have their eyes the right way around ... ... Cthulhu ...

      OMG! It all makes sense!

    34. Re:Ah, yes! by Sique · · Score: 1

      Which is because they don't have much competition there.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    35. Re:Ah, yes! by Sique · · Score: 2

      The "discrete categories" aren't, as you seem to think, completely arbitrary.

      They are for any non sexual species, like most microorganisms. Bacteria don't interbreed.

      They are for many geographical species whose only reason of non-interbreeding is that they don't meet.

      They are for species with a somewhat more complex live cycle than "parents generate offspring". My pet example is the common dandelion, whose generational cycle can span hundreds of generations, and where most individuals can't interbreed at all.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    36. Re:Ah, yes! by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

      It's almost as if Cthulhu came up with a great design and then decided to give all his children the retard version of it. Maybe he just hates his kids.

      Well, he also gave cephalapods inefficient blood (copper based as opposed to iron based), so they probably wouldn't benefit nearly as much from good exchangers.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    37. Re:Ah, yes! by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

      And now we have yet another variant of ID, and this version is so vague that it isn't even clear what the point is. Sometime there may ave been a purpose at some point- and this is supposed to be a scientific hypothesis?

      Now you're beginning to understand. First give it a more sciency sounding name and make up sicency sounding "theories". Then try to find some scientific facts which are hard to explain (helps to have a very big stock of them since science has the annoying habit of actually explaining interesting problems in the end).

      Then finally, it helps if everyone has a different definition of ID. Then you can say:

      Oh no, that's not ID, you see ID really is... ... and then change it to just not quite fit what the person was saying.

      I think the idea is to make it as difficult to argue with as possible because you have to argue against a set of rapidly moving goals.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    38. Re:Ah, yes! by hawkinspeter · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't that mean that they'd benefit more from a decent concentration gradient as the copper can't carry as much oxygen as iron?

      --
      You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
    39. Re:Ah, yes! by blane.bramble · · Score: 1

      That's clearly not true. It's because you can only see the gnomes *if you believe in them*.

    40. Re:Ah, yes! by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      Why are we even talking about ID and creationism in this discussion? How has spirituality got dragged into this scientific topic?

      What? Don't you know ID hasn't got anything to do with religion?

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    41. Re:Ah, yes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What makes you think human retinas are backwards? The way human vision works, each layer of cells in the retina actually detects a different wavelength of light; reddish-orange on the top layer, green in the middle layer, and blue at the bottom layer. Where infra-red would be detected is where the blood vessels are located. So the logical assumption is that the design is to take away excess heat.

      Other critters like deer actually have retinas sensitive to ultra-violet, but they trade the risk of long-term eye damage from having a UV transparent lens through having a shorter life-span.

      For ocean dwelling critters, blue light is the only wavelength that reaches the depths of the ocean, so there aren't any risks of heat damage. Conservation of heat is more important, so the blood vessels can be closer to the body.

      Though I do think it would be more interesting if we could perceive polarized light naturally like locusts (which they need to avoid flying into water).

    42. Re:Ah, yes! by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      At work, I had to explain that mutations happen all the time for human. For them, if a mutation happens, it must mean that there will be a third arm or something like that to happen. And these are people who did scientific studies. :(

      Someone up-thread mentioned X-men. I suspect that most people think evolution works that way.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    43. Re:Ah, yes! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      No extant species is "less evolved" than any other. You can say they are "more primitive" but what does that really mean? Compared to what?

      Disagree. Some traits provide an organism with greater advantage, and are based on earlier traits. Those later, greater traits? They're more evolved — they went through more evolution!

      Now, that doesn't mean that the most highly evolved organisms are the fittest. We still have some of the oldest "designs" running around without significant changes. But just, you know, look around. Birds came from reptiles, and their adaptations permit them to inhabit more ecosystems. How are birds not more highly evolved than reptiles? It doesn't make them better people or whatever (I consider animals to be people, is that a separate conversation?) but it does make them able to function in more situations. As a group they can handle more situations, and the most adaptable birds are more adaptable than the most adaptable reptiles.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    44. Re:Ah, yes! by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      I'm still hoping to evolve adamantium claws.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    45. Re:Ah, yes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      reddish-orange on the top layer, green in the middle layer, and blue at the bottom layer

      And that is actually backwards. The absorption by the tissue scales with some negative power of wavelength. Our retinas would be overall much more efficient if the order was reversed - the absorption of red by all the layers would be less than the absorption of blue. Now if somehow our retinas are optimized for red sensitivity, then sure, the current design is OK. I don't have a any argument as to why red sensitivity would be preferable over wide-spectrum sensitivity, because we have those fine color-insensitive cells in there after all!

    46. Re:Ah, yes! by wisnoskij · · Score: 2

      I have not run into a IDer who did not accept that some breeds of dogs, for example, were not crafted identically to the way they are now by God, however many thousand of years ago they think the world was created.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    47. Re:Ah, yes! by hawkinspeter · · Score: 4, Informative
      Richard Dawkins states the case quite clearly in The Blind Watchmaker:

      My second example of an evolutionary progression that didn't happen because of disadvantageous intermediates, even though it might ultimately have turned out better if it had, concerns the retina of our eyes (and all other vertebrates). Like any nerve, the optic nerve is a trunk cable, a bundle of separate 'insulated' wires, in this case about three million of them. Each of the three million wires leads from one cell in the retina to the brain. You can think of them as the wires leading from a bank of three million photocells (actually three million relay stations gathering information from an even larger number of photocells) to the computer that is to process the information in the brain. They are gathered together from all over the retina into a single bundle, which is the optic nerve for that eye. Any engineer would naturally assume that the photocells would point towards the light, with their wires leading backwards towards the brain. He would laugh at any suggestion that the photocells might point away from the light, with their wires departing on the side nearest the light. Yet this is exactly what happens in all vertebrate retinas. Each photocell is, in effect, wired in backwards, with its wire sticking out on the side nearest the light. The wire has to travel over the surface of the retina, to a point where it dives through a hole in the retina (the so-called 'blind spot') to join the optic nerve. This means that the light, instead of being granted an unrestricted passage to the photocells, has to pass through a forest of connecting wires, presumably suffering at least some attenuation and distortion (actually probably not much but, still, it is the principle of the thing that would offend any tidy-minded engineer!).

      --
      You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
    48. Re:Ah, yes! by hawkinspeter · · Score: 2

      I've just realised what you're saying - that it's different layers of cells in the retina to detect different wavelengths. Can you point to any diagram of how you think it works, as I was under the impressions that we have different cone cells in the retina which are sensitive to red, blue or green i.e. different cones in the same "layer" not different layers.

      Here's a couple of helpful diagrams: http://webvision.med.utah.edu/book/part-i-foundations/simple-anatomy-of-the-retina/

      If I were designing an eye and I found that the retina cells were prone to overheating from ordinary daylight (which they aren't), then I'd be more likely to stick some kind of filter into the cornea rather than turning all the retinal cells back to front and then introducing wiring complexities and extra muscles to fudge it so that it works.

      --
      You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
    49. Re:Ah, yes! by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      If one just changes the poison every 60 to 75 days, with a rotation cycle of about 6 different "smells", the this problem is solved.

      Another issue to solve is that small mamels, and reptiles also get caught. Those critters are looking for a place to hide/nest, and eating the bugs.

    50. Re:Ah, yes! by rgbatduke · · Score: 1

      Just for the record, I'm a PhD physicist, graduated from and teach at a major research university, and think both ID and creationism are utterly absurd propositions, repeatedly confounded by observation after observation. Believing in things without evidence, or in the teeth of directly contradictory evidence, is certainly possible for anybody, including physicists who should know better, but it almost invariably involves being brainwashed when they were too young to know better or think critically into thinking that antique scriptural writings had some magical cachet that simply looking at the world and letting it speak for itself does not.

      Evidence directly contradicting creationism in physics starts with this little thing called the Law of Conservation of Mass-Energy . This law states in essence that we have never observed the mass-energy content of the Universe being increased or decreased (outside of the tiny transient violation in quantum theory). Ever. Not as far away as we can see with the biggest telescopes. Not as far back in time as we can see with the biggest telescopes. Not in the laboratory. Not in any physical theory that works to explain a whole host of experimental observations not directly concerned with energy. Not in our everyday lives, where I can be confident that the bed in my bedroom is still there when I cannot see it because mass-energy is conserved.

      Empirically, there isn't any good reason to believe that anything, ever was created ex nihilo, let alone everything. It's as silly as believing that the dark side of the moon contains a full-featured Disney resort underneath a crater somewhere, just because we haven't looked (yet), or if you think that is too easy to falsify, believing that there exists a full-featured Disney resort on a moon orbiting the fourth planet orbiting Arcturus, or a full-featured Disney resort "in Heaven" (making it really impossible to obtain either positive or negative evidence.

      Then (since you bring it up) there is the information theoretic argument. Both creationism and ID sweep under the rug the entire issue of information theory and intelligence and entropy. Here's precisely how idiotic it is:

      We observe complex structure in the real Universe. One asserts -- without proof, and rather in contradiction to both everyday observation of a multiplicity of entirely natural complex forms and common sense -- that complex forms cannot occur naturally. To explain them, we invoke intelligence that must have designed/created the complex forms, the basic teleological "watch implies a watchmaker" argument for God. But of course this makes God even more complex, and by the same argument, even more unlikely to have occurred naturally! The hypothesis thus begins with a special exception -- a natural entity, God, is permitted to have infinitely more complexity than any complexity we observe in nature, all because somebody has a hard time believing that complexity in nature can come about without an active intelligence designing it. Who designs the designer?

      Entropy is even worse. All of our observations of "intelligence" involve considerable structure and a fairly rigorous state-switching mechanism supported by physical biology and/or electronics. Entropy is (literally) the log of the missing information (to a physicist) and there are theorems concerning energy, entropy, and heat generation in switching mechanisms supporting intelligence. To be able to perceive time at all -- to enable free will, the ability to act on the basis of an uncertain future -- one requires a point of view that has incomplete information. The derivation of the Nakajima-Zwanzig equation for the time evolution of an open (quantum) system embedded in a larger Universe typifies how intelligent agents have entropy bleed into them from an uncertain external universe, and hence can exhibit non-deterministic behavior. God by definition

      --
      Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
    51. Re:Ah, yes! by tom17 · · Score: 1

      What do you get if you multiply six by nine?

    52. Re:Ah, yes! by tom17 · · Score: 1

      As others have mentioned, a great post.

      I hope you don't mind if I quote it. I tried googling parts of it to see if you grabbed it somewhere but it seems to be genuine OriginalContent. :)

    53. Re:Ah, yes! by kbg · · Score: 1

      So they accept small changes. But what do you call a lot of small changes? A big change. And what do you call a lot of big changes? Evolution.

    54. Re:Ah, yes! by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Yes, it's always the physicists and mathematicians for some reason who hold these ideas.

      No, not always. If I recall correctly, engineers are most likely to believe in God, but I would think that all scientific disciplines are represented. Here are just a few.

      Francis Collins - Physician - director of the Human Genome Project
      John Polkinghorne, KBE, FRS - Physicist, author of From Physicist to Priest
      Donald Knuth - Computer Scientist - Creator of TeX, and author of:
                                      The Art of Computer Programming Availble on Amazon
                                      Things a Computer Scientist Rarely Talks About Available on Amazon
                                      3:16 Bible Texts Illuminated Available on Amazon

      There are many more.

      Don't make the mistake of thinking that smart people can't be stupid.

      Spending much time on Slashdot will disabuse you of that notion. What is smart and stupid can be an elusive quality, and you may find as you go through life that they will rearrange themselves at times. The phrase, "It seemed like a good idea at the time." exists for a reason. "Stupid" people can show up in surprising places, like the mirror. Everyone should check there, from time to time.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    55. Re:Ah, yes! by tom17 · · Score: 2

      I have a lower UID and I can NOT vouch for said link.

      So what happens now?

    56. Re:Ah, yes! by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Once again the scourge of viewpoint moderation come out.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    57. Re:Ah, yes! by cyborg_zx · · Score: 1

      No, not always. If I recall correctly, engineers are most likely to believe in God, but I would think that all scientific disciplines are represented. Here are just a few.

      To paraphrase the Simpsons: a physcian, a physicist and a different kind of mathematician.

      And that's not even getting into the inherent problems in assuming that "God" means one particular type of god - in this case clearly the Juedo-Christian one. There's a whole world of pain there that I tend to sum up as: "when you guys who believe in supernatural beings - especially the ones who believe in the same one - can agree on what is correct then you can come talk to me about it."

      It's the biologists that really matter here because it's their in their field expertise and they overwhelmingly reject ID as being fundamentally nonsensical to modern biological science.

      Spending much time on Slashdot will disabuse you of that notion

      It will?

      "Stupid" people can show up in surprising places, like the mirror. Everyone should check there, from time to time.

      Stupidity is relative: I don't expect Mt Knuth to be able to competently advise me on home insulation just because of his clear skill in computer science. He might have a go assuming that because he's intelligent in one problem domain that he must automatically be so in all others. This is a common trap and what I was alluding to before: mathematicians and physicists - who generally deal a lot with mathematics - tend to pontificate on all kinds of other subjects because they assume because they've mastered their field and they see others as only being derivative that they must have amazing insights that others cannot see. They're being stupid - a bit like when an actor is asked for his political opinion and ends up doing a Jeremy Irons and saying something laughable about fathers marrying their sons.

      Also they may end up coming up with Copernican solutions to keep their chosen cherished axiom in place when the modelling of the world would be a lot simpler if they just abandonded it. Coperincus wasn't an idiot - if anything it's because he was so clever in coming up with epicyclical descriptions of the motions of the heavens that his model of the solar system took longer to abandon than it should have.

      So one has to put this in the box where it belongs: pub talk. Interesting maybe, thought provoking sure but not much cop when it comes to the pursuit of knowledge with the scientific method.

    58. Re:Ah, yes! by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      Pfft. There are plenty of guys fucking many women, regularly, who live with their parents.

      Just check out the dating sites sometime. "Needs to have a place of his own and not live with his mom" is not that uncommon.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    59. Re:Ah, yes! by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      That is a bit ironic, isn't it?

      It's the disciples of disciplines which must have their "facts" refuted or proven - usually many times - before they are accepted as fact.

      Philosophical biology, on the other hand, is largely hypothetical and closer to human sciences (like economics) than it is physics...

      I wonder why that is.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    60. Re:Ah, yes! by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      Creationists never fold their cards, no matter how many times their claims are refuted.

      Hello, microevolution?

      In contrast, you've got irritating irregularities in taught evolutionary science which just refuse to die (eg. Lucy) and pesky irregularities in the fossil record which contradict common/popular evolutionary dogma, and are thus ignored or explained away...

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    61. Re:Ah, yes! by cold+fjord · · Score: 1
      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    62. Re:Ah, yes! by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      It isn't an idiot designer, as cephalopods have their eyes the right way around. The designer clearly can do it correctly, but chose not to do it with vertebrates. Furthermore, when looking at the way the world works, it becomes clear that the designer is evil, mad or both. All in all, Cthulhu is the best guess at a designer, given the evidence.

      Guess again?

      Is the Backwards Human Retina Evidence of Poor Design?

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    63. Re:Ah, yes! by hawkinspeter · · Score: 2

      Yes, yes it is correct.

      The problem with the retina requiring lots of blood flow to protect from overheating is caused by the cells being back to front. The light sensitive layer is directly next to the pigment layer which is the layer that generates the heat, so if you wire them the right way around, you don't get the overheating problems and thus don't need the fast flowing blood to cool them down.

      Honestly, look at the design of squid eyes and compare them to human eyes and it's quite obvious which is the better design.

      --
      You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
    64. Re:Ah, yes! by cusco · · Score: 1

      Wonderful post, but you just ruined my Disney vacation plans!

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    65. Re:Ah, yes! by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I don't think it is based on the paper below, and the previous citation.

      Light propagation explains our inverted retina

      In summary, the retina has developed its inverted shape to improve the directionality of intercepted light beams, to enhance vision acuity, increase immunity to scatter and clutter, concentrate more light into the cones, and overcome chromatic aberration. We are now assessing the effect of ocular aberrations on acuity to explore what happens when the beam hitting the retina is more spread and its phase is more random.

      SPIE is an international society advancing an interdisciplinary approach to the science and application of light.

      Previous: Is the Backwards Human Retina Evidence of Poor Design?

      Also, note:

      Introduction to: Cephalopod Vision

      There are differences between vertebrate eyes and those of cephalopods. Perhaps the most surprising difference given the amazing ability of cephalopods to change color is that most cephalopods are completely color blind (Hanlon and Messenger 1996). How do we know? We can train octopuses to pick black objects over white objects, white objects over black objects, light grey objects over dark grey objects and vice versa but we can not train them to differentiate between colorful objects that look the same in grayscale (Hanlon and Messenger 1996). Also, most cephalopods only have one visual pigment. We have three.

      If we had eyes like nearly all squids, we would be color blind. Does Dawkins think that is superior?

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    66. Re:Ah, yes! by cusco · · Score: 1

      lost in the smooth gradient of gradual change

      Carl Sagan had a very nice animation in his 'Cosmos' series (I think it was in episode 4) of that progression from single-celled creature to humans, and I used it to explain the process to my niece. It was rather like watching a light bulb turn on when she got it, really quite delightful.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    67. Re:Ah, yes! by JoshuaZ · · Score: 1

      you've got irritating irregularities in taught evolutionary science which just refuse to die (eg. Lucy) and pesky irregularities in the fossil record which contradict common/popular evolutionary dogma, and are thus ignored or explained away...

      And what pray tell is wrong with Lucy? Incidentally, I'm not sure what you mean by explained away, but I'm hoping that it isn't just "scientists noticed this thing and explained it".

    68. Re:Ah, yes! by hawkinspeter · · Score: 1

      That SPIE page does describe how the retina can avoid some of the problems of having the cells the wrong way round, but again, the only need for having a waveguide in front of the photoreceptors is because they are back-to-front.

      I imagine that squids don't have a huge requirement for colour down in the ocean depths as they'd need to have a light source for colour to be of much use. You might as well ask why humans/primates don't have tetrachromatic vision like most birds do.

      The big problem with ID is the complete lack of predictive power that it has. Is there any experiment you could conceive of that would differentiate between evolution and Incompetent Design?

      --
      You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
    69. Re:Ah, yes! by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      Creationism isn't the same thing as saying that the world was created in seven days and people used to ride dinosaurs to work. SOME people believe that crap, but by default, creationism or ID, or whatever you want to call it, is simply the belief that a Creator created Creation. There is a lot more to that concept than simple minded people believing that means that God has everything on little strings and that humans never evolved from apes.

      I guess the point is that some simple minded creationists considered certain ideas to be threatening to their world view, when in reality, it doesn't threaten their world view at all. It's strange that people who believe in a an omnipotent creator can't believe that an omnipotent creator can do things in a manner in that is subtle enough that they don't understand it. It's like saying that just because I can't understand how to smash atoms, that atoms cannot be smashed.

      That said, unfortunately, those who are justifiably frustrated with people who are trying to deny good science are also missing the point. Creationism isn't science. A Creator who created natural laws and even logic itself is not constrained by either. Natural laws and even causality are only our perception of the universe based on what we can make sense of.

      Point being, scientists can be creationists and still be very good scientists. You could learn everything you need to learn about the universe and still believe in a deity. It's not a matter of if there is a deity, it is a matter of what you do as a result of that belief that affects science. If going to church and listening to some preacher and the heading to the lab is how you do it, there's no conflict as long as you proceed scientifically. And there is no bar to doing so if you are a believer unless you are simple minded.

    70. Re:Ah, yes! by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      Are we "badly" designed? By what measure? We were designed with eyes that allow us to build implements that allow us to extend our own capabilities. By that measure, we are significantly better designed and more adaptable than some animal who merely has really good eyesight. With the telescopes our eyes allow us to build, I can see things billions of light years away.

    71. Re:Ah, yes! by cusco · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, look at bower birds and birds of paradise for neutral traits that have taken over the entire species.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    72. Re:Ah, yes! by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      A tidy minded engineer is one that is not intelligent enough to know how to make the best advantage of the attenuation and distortion that this setup provides.

      In other words, how does this prove anything except that he doesn't like the design?

    73. Re:Ah, yes! by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      They're only contradicting each other if the possible purposes are limited to those you are limiting yourself to considering.

    74. Re:Ah, yes! by JoshuaZ · · Score: 1

      If we had eyes like nearly all squids, we would be color blind. Does Dawkins think that is superior?

      This is deeply confused. No one is arguing that the squid has better eyes for all purposes. The point is a very specific set of issues the human eye has that the squid eye does not.

    75. Re:Ah, yes! by cusco · · Score: 1

      A big reason not to put out rat poison is that dogs may eat dead/dying rats (especially my wife's dog). A neighbor spent several thousand dollars saving the life of her dachshund when it ate a poisoned rat.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    76. Re:Ah, yes! by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Your conception of the structure of the human retina is completely wrong. You claim receptors for different colors are on different layers, like a Foveon camera sensor. That is not true. The human retina is more like a Bayer sensor (except that it's a somewhat random pattern), with rods, red cones, green cones, and blue cones all on the same layer.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    77. Re:Ah, yes! by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Are we "badly" designed? By what measure?

      By the measure that different structures would have advantages without introducing any disadvantages.

      The eyes have already been discussed above. The too-narrow pelvis of human females that results in painful, and sometimes fatal, childbirth. An ad-hoc immune system. Allergies. Baldness. Teeth made of materials that easily decay. Arteries near the surface of the neck vulnerable to fatal slashes. A common tube for food and air, so that choking on food is possible. Common orifices for urination and insemination, leading to multiple problems of both mental and physical health. Defective cellular maintenance that results in aging.

      That's ten flaws that I thought of as fast as I could type them. There are many, many other things that could be much better, that would give humans longer, safer, more comfortable, more pleasant, more productive lives.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    78. Re:Ah, yes! by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Then compare a vertebrate and cephalopod eye where the vertebrate is all-rod. The inversion of the eye is irrelevant to the rod/cone mix. I'm not sure why you would equate them, unless it's a rhetorical trick to deflect from fact, or the discussion of which orientation is "best".

    79. Re:Ah, yes! by LunaticTippy · · Score: 1

      "Less evolved" is complicated. What do you measure? Physical complexity of the specimen? length of known family tree? Number of genes? Number of generations? Plus, everything is furiously exchanging DNA all the time with bacteria and viruses.

      I suspect bacteria or fungi are highly evolved if you count number of generations. They evolve more in a day than long lived creatures do in years, although you couldn't possibly separate their genes.

      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
    80. Re:Ah, yes! by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Microevolution is natural selection without evolution.

    81. Re:Ah, yes! by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Or maybe I should say natural selection without mutation.

    82. Re:Ah, yes! by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      The idea of species exists to differentiate between current living creatures. It wasn't until long after species were being labeled where the idea was being pushed on previous creatures.

    83. Re: Ah, yes! by sFurbo · · Score: 1

      A lot of that article is just embarrassing. Arguing that a blind spot is not problematic because we cope is like arguing that vision isn't important because blind people can cope. Arguing that the first later is transparent is stupid, given how easy it is to make the blood vessels, or even white blood cells, visible. As for the rest, the efficiency arguments, why aren't there any comparisons to cephalopods? We have an example of the other design, so efficiency should be easy to demonstrate.

      That this kind of arguments is presented is the best indication of just how much creationists are grasping at straws.

    84. Re:Ah, yes! by hawkinspeter · · Score: 1

      The reason that "frontside" sensors are built that way round is due to limitations in the manufacturing method. The BIS sensors are a way to get the sensors pointing the right way round - basically by shaving off the silicon wafer that supports the sensors. Eyes don't have the same manufacturing limitations, so it makes more sense to build them in the correct orientation. Unless, of course, an accident of evolution has put the majority of retinas the wrong way round i.e. not intelligently designed.

      --
      You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
    85. Re:Ah, yes! by gottabeme · · Score: 1

      "I disagree with them, therefore they are mentally ill."

      --
      "Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."
    86. Re:Ah, yes! by sqrt(2) · · Score: 1

      I believe it was episode three, but quite possibly four. I myself recently introduced my cousin to evolution an natural selection. The sense of wonder is amazing; I get to relive the fantastic sense of awe I felt when I first was exposed to these ideas. My lesson plan was a synthesis of Sagan and Dawkins. I used the method of Sacrates, asking him to explain to me why trees are so tall. By asking questions I got him to describe to me why trees pointlessly compete with each other to loft their leaves higher and higher so they can be no better off than if they all agreed somehow to be an arbitrary lower height. Most people already accept heredity, so it's not much of a step to get them to understand evolution by natural selection.

      --
      If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
    87. Re:Ah, yes! by volmtech · · Score: 1

      Only a fool would say he believes in something that can't be proved and then try to prove it! If I could prove it there would be no need for faith. But saying someone who believes in ID is unqualified to work in physics make you no better than priest burning heretics. If he can prove his work it doesn't matter what he believes.

    88. Re:Ah, yes! by webmistressrachel · · Score: 2

      You will get Insightful mods, because it's a good point,and I'll get Flamebait mods because every subsequent mod who sees my comment will see your modded-up comment, and your UID, and mod it up without reading it.

      THIS comment, however, will probably get "Informative" mods, but only from those who check the links! ;-)

      --
      This tagline was transcoded to result in at least one smirk. If you experience failure to smirk, please consult your Gen
    89. Re:Ah, yes! by tom17 · · Score: 1

      And now we both look silly cos neither of us got modded lol.

    90. Re:Ah, yes! by WhiteDragon · · Score: 1

      Though I do think it would be more interesting if we could perceive polarized light naturally like locusts (which they need to avoid flying into water).

      Some people can: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haidinger's_brush

      --
      Did you mount a military-grade, variable-focus MASER on an unlicensed artificial intelligence?
    91. Re:Ah, yes! by webmistressrachel · · Score: 1

      Actually, I was right on every count! You even got modded up, too! One of my friends probably saw it and amused him / her self with their mod points. Either that, or I was right.

      --
      This tagline was transcoded to result in at least one smirk. If you experience failure to smirk, please consult your Gen
    92. Re:Ah, yes! by gottabeme · · Score: 1

      Ah, "Overrated," a powerful argument, indeed!

      --
      "Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."
  3. Easy fix to this problem by volkerdi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Use high fructose corn syrup in the roach motels instead of glucose. I'm surprised they don't do this already, since they use it in everything else.

    1. Re:Easy fix to this problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Cockroaches have taste and need quality stuff. High fructose corn syrup is only for lower species.

    2. Re:Easy fix to this problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      .... and just leave poison out --- let the diabetes, liver disease, and obesity kill the roaches instead ...

    3. Re:Easy fix to this problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That's why cockroaches only go after the Coca-Cola I get from Mexico, and not the locally made corn water.

    4. Re:Easy fix to this problem by Solandri · · Score: 5, Informative

      Most high fructose corn syrup is 42%-53% glucose.

      Yes I know this contradicts the conventional wisdom that HFCS is bad, while sucrose (which your body breaks down into 50% fructose / 50% glucose) is good. But the people pushing that agenda aren't really the types who took chemistry in school. It's just called "high fructose" because it has a larger fraction of fructose than regular syrup, which is mostly glucose.

    5. Re:Easy fix to this problem by Msdose · · Score: 1

      Some brands use one, some the other. The use of a single one wipes out those susceptible to it and the others become the entire population. The authors reasoning about this seems to be incorrect.

    6. Re:Easy fix to this problem by 24-bit+Voxel · · Score: 2

      It's that other 47-58% that's the problem.
      I wonder if these guys took chemistry in school.

    7. Re:Easy fix to this problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      too bad that study was flawed, but don't let that get in the way of your crusade.

      http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/booster_shots/2010/03/high-fructose-corn-syrup-hfcs-sugar-princeton-study.html

    8. Re:Easy fix to this problem by pauljlucas · · Score: 1

      Yes I know this contradicts the conventional wisdom that HFCS is bad, while sucrose (which your body breaks down into 50% fructose / 50% glucose) is good.

      The reality, however, is that while, yes, HFCS is bad, sucrose is equally bad.

      --
      If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
    9. Re:Easy fix to this problem by chihowa · · Score: 1

      Yes I know this contradicts the conventional wisdom that HFCS is bad, while sucrose (which your body breaks down into 50% fructose / 50% glucose) is good.

      Well, your body breaks it all down to CO2 and H2O in the end, so it all must be absolutely identical in every way. Surely the entire process of metabolism and regulation can be dismissed out of hand.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
  4. Roach Motel - Free Wifi by srobert · · Score: 5, Funny

    I noticed the roaches weren't going for it, so I added a sign to it: "Free Continental Breakfast, Free Wifi".

    1. Re:Roach Motel - Free Wifi by naroom · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Once wifi has been around for 30+ years, we may start to see pests like roaches and mosquitoes becoming attracted to it. A wifi signal is a good indicator of delicious things nearby.

    2. Re:Roach Motel - Free Wifi by plopez · · Score: 1

      You don't think they would be dumb enough to use wifi, do you?

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    3. Re:Roach Motel - Free Wifi by sqrt(2) · · Score: 1

      I'd have to doubt that. Well, not by detecting radio waves. Radio is just our term for a band of the light spectrum, so it's as old as the universe. No living thing on Earth has evolved to make use of that part of the spectrum like has been done for "visible" light, UV, and infrared. It's probably beyond the reach of natural selection, the same way no animal ever evolved something like a wheel despite being enormously more efficient for travel. The intermediary steps are too difficult and wouldn't confer benefit. There's too much "infrastructure" that, while it would pay off in the final product, wouldn't be useful along the way. Evolution has no foresight or agency and can't aim for a distant goal even if that goal would theoretically be incredibly advantageous to some descendant.

      --
      If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
    4. Re:Roach Motel - Free Wifi by nabsltd · · Score: 1

      No living thing on Earth has evolved to make use of that part of the spectrum like has been done for "visible" light, UV, and infrared.

      Birds are sensitive to magnetism, and other species have shown some ability to sense similar things (like electric power lines).

      With literally billions (at least) of species on the planet, saying "no living thing has whatever" has been found to be generally incorrect.

    5. Re:Roach Motel - Free Wifi by PPH · · Score: 1

      Don't look now, but they are here.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    6. Re:Roach Motel - Free Wifi by sqrt(2) · · Score: 1

      There's a big difference between detecting the rough direction of magnetic North and being able to discern the source of radio waves, and an even bigger difference from being able to pick out specific frequencies against a noisy background. There are also some very good reasons from physics and chemistry why a "biological radio" would be impossible to evolve naturally. In short, radio is too low energy to be biologically useful.

      Oh and there's an exception about my wheel analogy. Bacteria really did evolve a freely rotating axis used for propulsion. However the physics of the microscopic world is different from what we experience at our scale that our intuitions of what is possible and how matter behaves aren't applicable. The analogy holds as long as we restrict ourselves to larger organisms. No freely rotating axis has ever evolved in a macroscopic animal--the intermediary forms wouldn't work.

      --
      If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
    7. Re:Roach Motel - Free Wifi by Anarchduke · · Score: 1
      --
      who prays for Satan? Who in 18 centuries has had the humanity to pray for the 1 sinner that needed it most? ~Mark Twain
    8. Re:Roach Motel - Free Wifi by sqrt(2) · · Score: 1

      Rolling your whole body or coiling up for protection isn't the same thing as having a freely rotating wheel for transportation. There's never been an animal like the mulefa.

      --
      If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
    9. Re:Roach Motel - Free Wifi by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 1

      Size matters. Pretty much all animal cells (except eggs) are about the same size. Most light-detection systems in animals are arrays of single cells, each detecting a frequency. To detect 2.4ghz radio (wavelength 12.5 cm) you optimally need a 6.25cm long detector. That's larger than any single cell can easily support, and an array of cells to detect it would be unlike any previously evolved light sensor.

      Which isn't to say it's impossible, just that you need really big cockroaches. Madagascar hissing cockroaches might fit...

      --
      Not a sentence!
    10. Re:Roach Motel - Free Wifi by phozz+bare · · Score: 1

      Flowers By Irene, man. Have you learned nothing?

    11. Re:Roach Motel - Free Wifi by fisted · · Score: 1

      > Radio is just our term for a band of the light spectrum
      Actually, light is just our term for a band of the radio spectrum...

    12. Re:Roach Motel - Free Wifi by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      In short, radio is too low energy to be biologically useful.

      Our senses, so far as we have been able to tell, are based on quantum affects. We've found quantum bases for smell and vision so far that I know of. Are our senses useless?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    13. Re:Roach Motel - Free Wifi by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Here's another interesting point...

      Our eyes are not particularly good in the dark, and yet at maximal dark adaptation, a single photon can trigger a response on the optic nerve. All it takes is that a photon cross and interact with a rod cell.

      That's a pretty low energy event for us to detect... so based on that alone I toss out the "too low energy to be useful" aspect.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    14. Re:Roach Motel - Free Wifi by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      You forget rod cells.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    15. Re:Roach Motel - Free Wifi by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      One photon of a 1 MHz radio wave is about 500 million times weaker than one photon of visible light.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    16. Re:Roach Motel - Free Wifi by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      "With enough time, a million monkeys typing randomly at keyboards will surely type the Linux kernel source code."

      Well, if you believe in evolution, that's pretty much how it happened.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  5. Using cockroaches by FishTankX · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Well it's simple enough to just redesign the roach motel so it baits them with wheat or something, i'd imagine. But part of me wonders if we would be better off just building a mega roach hotel chocked full of actual food in a neighborhood and instead of killing the roaches with glue, just relocating them into the forest when the roach hotel reaches capacity, or using them as feed for fish or something.

    1. Re:Using cockroaches by femtobyte · · Score: 4, Informative

      This approach might not work out so well with r-strategy breeders --- you'll fill the house up for sure with happy little roaches, but they won't be leaving the neighbors' homes to get there (just exponentially exploding their population to catch up with the expanded resources). Setting up "guard rows" of tasty pesticide-free crops to lure pests away from agricultural fields works to the extent that said pests are highly mobile and individually "exploring" a wide enough area to "find" the guard rows in preference to the main crops. However, roaches tend to locate and nest in one area (with only "excess population" expanding out into new territory) --- some very lucky bugs will find the new house (and start breeding to fill it), but the roaches behind your kitchen cabinets will stay behind to raise their kids behind your kitchen cabinets.

  6. solution possibly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    blend a mix of starches and sugars. if they avoid all simple and complex carbs, they reduce pop. if they do not, they go in and eat poison.

    1. Re:solution possibly by c0lo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      blend a mix of starches and sugars. if they avoid all simple and complex carbs, they reduce pop. if they do not, they go in and eat poison.

      Ummm... they may start enjoying cellulose, the way termites do.

      Better use their mating pheromones for this (yes, I know: may be also a moving target)

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
  7. Well, yeah... by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

    Who's going to go to a hotel full of roaches?

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  8. Is it evolution, or survival of the fittest? by HTMLSpinnr · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Seriously, did the roaches actually evolve and pass it to their young, or did the specific roaches which HAD the sugar aversion trait simply avoid being poisoned and passed along said aversion to their offspring?

    I'm kinda thinking it's the latter.

    --
    $ man woman *
    -bash: /usr/bin/man: Argument list too long
    1. Re:Is it evolution, or survival of the fittest? by Black+Parrot · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Seriously, did the roaches actually evolve and pass it to their young, or did the specific roaches which HAD the sugar aversion trait simply avoid being poisoned and passed along said aversion to their offspring?

      I'm kinda thinking it's the latter.

      I'm kinda thinking that's evolution.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    2. Re:Is it evolution, or survival of the fittest? by camperdave · · Score: 4, Informative

      did the specific roaches which HAD the sugar aversion trait simply avoid being poisoned and passed along said aversion to their offspring?

      But that *is* evolution. Gen N had a mix of glucose aversion and non. All the non died and were selected out, so Gen N+1 have the glucose aversion.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    3. Re:Is it evolution, or survival of the fittest? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And what exactly is the difference?
      The way evolution through natural selection works, the roach that happens to have genetical aversion to sugar will not be poisoned and therefore will have offsprings, who will also avoid being poisoned, and so the roach with this trait will dominate the environment.

      Oh, and survival of the fittest is evolution. Whoever gets to reproduce, prevails in the long run. if it's the fittest that gets to reproduce, their genome will prevail.

    4. Re:Is it evolution, or survival of the fittest? by cyn1c77 · · Score: 1

      Seriously, did the roaches actually evolve and pass it to their young, or did the specific roaches which HAD the sugar aversion trait simply avoid being poisoned and passed along said aversion to their offspring?

      I'm kinda thinking it's the latter.

      You're right, it's the latter. But for someone who doesn't understand biology (evolution), the latter is the same as the former!

    5. Re:Is it evolution, or survival of the fittest? by archer,+the · · Score: 1

      I would have thought the evolution step would be the one when the cockroaches went from all glucophiliacs or all glucophobics to having a mix of the two. That might even have occurred before there were cockroaches for all I know. The roach motels were more of a gene-ocide, killing the glucophiliacs. I suspect I should read the article to find out.

    6. Re:Is it evolution, or survival of the fittest? by DutchUncle · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Darwin called it "natural selection". "Evolution", like the OP "developed an aversion", suggests something active happened - these bugs changed - rather than something passive - these bugs are the only ones left (because the other ones ate the poison).

    7. Re: Is it evolution, or survival of the fittest? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It actually has been demonstrated in nature several times... one particular one has happened within the last 50 years in a moth populations camoflauge colors... every single moth ended up a different color that they never were previously except due to a random mutation that became extremely useful when their habitat changed.

    8. Re:Is it evolution, or survival of the fittest? by camperdave · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Darwin called it "natural selection". "Evolution", like the OP "developed an aversion", suggests something active happened - these bugs changed - rather than something passive - these bugs are the only ones left (because the other ones ate the poison).

      Poor wording, or poor understanding of the wording. The individual bugs didn't develop an aversion; the population as a whole became more glucose averse over time compared to previous generations. Evolution doesn't happen to a single generation, or a single individual. It is the result of passing on genetic traits to offspring. The species evolves, not the individuals. Granted, from time to time a mutation may arise and contribute to the gene pool, but that's only a statistical anomaly in the process of evolution. The big mover is selection - be it natural, or artificial.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    9. Re:Is it evolution, or survival of the fittest? by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 2

      It'd be a hell of a lot easier to teach evolution if idiot writers stopped using Lamarckian phrases like "developed an aversion ... and passed that trait on to their young" when describing natural selection.

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
    10. Re:Is it evolution, or survival of the fittest? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And what exactly is the difference? The way evolution through natural selection works, the roach that happens to have genetical aversion to sugar will not be poisoned and therefore will have offsprings, who will also avoid being poisoned, and so the roach with this trait will dominate the environment.

      Oh, and survival of the fittest is evolution. Whoever gets to reproduce, prevails in the long run. if it's the fittest that gets to reproduce, their genome will prevail.

      None of that explains how a single-celled microorganism eventually becomes a man. Natural selection needs a variety of choices from which to make a selection.

      DNA is just a way of encoding information. How does highly ordered and structured information arise out of less ordered and structured information, or out of no information at all if we are going back to the primordial soup idea? It would be reverse entropy.

      How does the theory of evolution explain the reverse entropy when everything else we can observe is moving to a more disordered state? What is this reverse entropic force and from what physics does it originate and why don't we see it with anything else? My car does not become less worn out over time. My car is an ordered structured collection of parts. In order to make my car the factory had to ultimatley produce more disorder elsewhere. More disorder than the order represented by my car. This is basic physics. How do biological life and biochemical processes break this law of physics and why don't evolutionists feel a strong need to explain that? If you want an alternative to religion it helps if you are not yourself creating a religion dressed in rational language. Which is what you have if this doesn't have a solid answer.

      This is the part where I have never seen a real answer. I have seen lots of invective and obfuscation when this is brought up but never a serious answer showing that the question was understood. The hardcore evolutionists seem far too sensitive and offended by this question to recognize its legitimacy and provide a good answer to it. It is only reasonable for me to wonder if they have one. Meanwhile I am comfortable admitting that much of this life thing is mysterious.

    11. Re:Is it evolution, or survival of the fittest? by LordLucless · · Score: 5, Informative

      Darwin actually called it evolution through the mechanism of natural selection. Evolution is the observation; natural selection is the mechanism whereby certain genes get "selected" for over the generations. The origin of the diversity of the genes is not covered by either term.

      Those glucose-aversion genes had to come from somewhere. They may have come from mutation, or crossed from another species, or whatever. Whether they lay "dormant" (that is to say, unselected for) in the genome for centuries, or years before the environmental change that caused them to become beneficial is irrelevant.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    12. Re: Is it evolution, or survival of the fittest? by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2

      That's NOT evolution. Evolution is descent with _modification_, specifically through random mutation. Otherwise it's just population selection of existing genes. Which has never been demonstrated.

      How ignorant can you be? Once you admit selection by fitness you've given away the farm, because mutations are a well established fact. IIRC the rate is so high that you probably have several variations that neither of your parents had.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    13. Re: Is it evolution, or survival of the fittest? by Smauler · · Score: 3, Informative

      Ever notice how African-American males are often muscular, large boned with large lips, and African-American females tend to have wide hips (thought to be better for childbearing)? This was due to forced mating under American slavery, where (unfortunately) slaves were force-bred to reinforce traits desirable for both hard manual labor and for producing more slaves. Compare an "African-American" to recent immigrants from Africa. Note post-slavery immigrants by and large lack those traits.

      You know... most western Africans share those traits too. It's not because of slavery. I'd like to see any study showing significant differences between african americans and the population they came from (which cannot be explained by interbreeding with white & indigenous people).

    14. Re:Is it evolution, or survival of the fittest? by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2

      How does the theory of evolution explain the reverse entropy when everything else we can observe is moving to a more disordered state?

      You should learn what the laws of thermodynamics actually say before you invoke them in an argument.

      Do you consider a solar system more ordered or less ordered than the cloud it collapsed from?

      And when that solar system's sun forms concentric layers of elements sorted by mass, is that more ordered or less ordered?

      Does thermodynamics prevent a fertilized egg from growing into an intelligent, sentient being?

      Do you ever check up on what you read in creationists tracts?

      This is the part where I have never seen a real answer.

      What would you consider a "real" answer to factually false claim about what physics says, supported by irrelevant arguments?

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    15. Re: Is it evolution, or survival of the fittest? by jawtheshark · · Score: 1

      red-skinned Native Americans/First Nation people are from the same family

      There is no such thing as a red-skinned human. (Fitzpatrick scale, Von Luschan's chromatic scale)

      --
      Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
    16. Re: Is it evolution, or survival of the fittest? by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      Where do you think the differing genes in the population come from?

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    17. Re:Is it evolution, or survival of the fittest? by larry+bagina · · Score: 1

      Darwin didn't use the word "evolution" because that name was associated with a different theory at the time. (Life was like a russian nesting doll, with all the children, grandchildren, etc already pre-fabricated).

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    18. Re: Is it evolution, or survival of the fittest? by mbeckman · · Score: 1

      If you're speaking of the Peppered moth experiment, that involved two existing variations of the same organism, a white-colored phenotype and a black-colored phenotype. In the Peppered moth species, a single gene controls the body color of the peppered moth. The dark phenotype is a dominant allele, which means that a moth possessing at least one such allele will have a dark body. Each individual will have alleles - one from each of its parents. To have a light body, the moth must have both alleles for light body color.

      This was not a mutation. There was no change in the genotype. It's simply selective breeding from the existing gene pool.

      I'm open to verifiable examples of beneficial random mutations that have been passed on to offspring. There are lot's of "just so" stories, but no reproducible results. If descent with modification through random mutation and survival of the "fittest" really takes place, there should be millions of examples readily observable,.

    19. Re: Is it evolution, or survival of the fittest? by mbeckman · · Score: 1

      Mutations are indeed a well established fact, but researchers have yet to show evidence of a truly beneficial mutation. Yes, there are mutations with beneficial outcomes in restricted environments. That's because mutations are context dependent, meaning the observer and the environment determines the definition of "beneficial".

      The term "survival of the fittest" doesn't define "benefitial", since it is a tautology (Which individuals are the fittest? Why, the ones that survive!) An oft tauted example is antibiotic resistance in bacteria. In an environment where antibiotics are present, mutations in the bacterial DNA that alter the target of the antibiotic allow the bacteria to survive (the bacteria are faced with a “live or die” situation). But those mutations alter a protein or system that is in every case important for the normal functioning of the bacteria in the near future.

      For example, a mutation may destroy the ability to process essential nutrients. The popular catch-phrase among researchers in all these bacterial antibiotic experiments is "...and then it died.". The benefit of any given mutation is not an independent, measurable quantity, and no current research considers the total affect of the mutation on the life of future generations. The general result has been that future generations are short-lived.

    20. Re: Is it evolution, or survival of the fittest? by mbeckman · · Score: 1

      The differing genes in every population selection experiment demonstrating the process of natural selection in adapting a species to its environment have been universally already present in the genome. The famous Peppered moth experiment, for example, did not involve mutations at all, but simply selective breeding using a natural (as opposed to an intentional) selecting agent. Provide an example of a random mutation that created a beneficial mutation that resulted in objectively improved future survivability. You can't, because there are none.

    21. Re:Is it evolution, or survival of the fittest? by knorthern+knight · · Score: 1

      That *IS* the correct definition of evolution. "Intelligent Design" posits that someone is directing evolution. That is not necessary. What happens is...
      * there are always minor mutations happening in every living species
      * the mutations may be good/bad/neutral when it comes to survival.
      * the better mutations survive, and get passed on. Over many generations this can lead to speciation.

      Summary... mutations occur because "shit happens" during cell division, not because of some guiding hand.

      --

      I'm not repeating myself
      I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
    22. Re:Is it evolution, or survival of the fittest? by tom17 · · Score: 1

      I saw this yesterday and it seems like a very feasible process.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg

      Watch it, take it in and then, please, comment on how anything in that video would not be possible. I know we have not recreated it in experiment yet, but as with most discovered processes, we had not recreated them before we recreated them. It may or may not be the process that happened, but you have to consider that it is a feasible possibility based in the realms of reality. If you think otherwise, please explain why.

    23. Re: Is it evolution, or survival of the fittest? by cusco · · Score: 1

      The current prevalence of hip dysplasia in dogs is directly attributable to the AKC's "breed standards", which among other things demand lowered hindquarters in a number of breeds. I will never forgive the AKC for the things they have done to formerly healthy varieties of dogs with their insistence on 'racial purity', born of the Victorian eugenics mindset existing when the group was founded. Never, ever buy an AKC dog.

      You apparently don't know very many Native Americans from more than your local region. Tinglit don't resemble Chippewa don't resemble Navaho who don't resemble Quiche Maya who don't resemble Jivaro who don't resemble Huari who don't resemble Ayamara who don't resemble Guarani. There is no "race" of Native Americans/First Nation people.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    24. Re:Is it evolution, or survival of the fittest? by cusco · · Score: 1

      Oh, good grief, the "Second Law" foolishness again. Look up in the sky. See that big glowing thing? (Well, if you're here in Seattle, see that bright patch of cloud?) That's the source of your "reverse entropy", it's a source of energy that allows less-ordered systems to accumulate surplus energy and store it as a more-ordered system. There's your "real answer".

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    25. Re:Is it evolution, or survival of the fittest? by DutchUncle · · Score: 1

      But again, I would suggest that even "passing on genetic traits to offspring" suggests an ACTIVE role in the process, rather than "the genetic traits that didn't meet the current environment died off with the individuals who had them". My very point is that the wording is poor - I think I understand it just fine, and can differentiate between active and passive verbs.

  9. Incorrect! by The+Wild+Norseman · · Score: 1

    Zese scientists are not correct! I shtill love ein bisschen of zis gluclose, especially mit a teensy drop of der schnaps after vork.

    Ze real trut is zat my vife und I yust vant to lose a little veight.

    --
    "A government is a body of people usually -- notably -- ungoverned." -Shepherd Book
    1. Re:Incorrect! by fisted · · Score: 1

      haha - i'd mod you up if slashdot weren't all like "You cannot moderate a thread that you've commented in".

  10. Individual versus genetics by Dan+East · · Score: 1

    Researchers soon realized that some roaches had developed an aversion to glucose

    How does a roach develop an aversion to glucose? Did they eat just a little - not enough for the poison to kill them - and thus learn from the resulting sickness that they shouldn't eat it again? If so how did they pass this knowledge onto their offspring?

    Or did strains of cockroaches that already had an aversion to glucose become more prolific since they weren't killed by the roach traps?

    --
    Better known as 318230.
    1. Re:Individual versus genetics by Sperbels · · Score: 1

      I think he was referring to the way the sentence was phrased. Saying the roaches developed an aversion to glucose implies that individual roaches liked glucose, then stopped liking it for some reason. When what happened is the roaches that liked it, all died, and the ones that didn't like it survived and reproduced.

    2. Re:Individual versus genetics by icebraining · · Score: 1

      The roaches as a species did, even though no single individual developed an aversion.

    3. Re:Individual versus genetics by Artemis3 · · Score: 1

      I believe it works like this:

      There is a random mutation due to "background" (natural) radiation, at some point there is one with the aversion, who lives longer and breeds more (passing that characteristic to their offspring) than the others who kept dieing from the poison.

      Without the poison, the glucose group would breed more instead and probably starve to extintion the others, or kept them a minority.

      --
      Artix
      Your Linux, your init.
  11. I for one welcome our new creepy crawly overlords. by WoodburyMan · · Score: 1

    I for one welcome our new creepy crawly overlords.

  12. It takes all the running you can do... by sqrt(2) · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...just to stay in the same place. Natural selection follows from basic principles of logic. It's so close to first principles that it always amazes me that we had to wait so long for Darwin to show up and slap humanity on the face with the simple truth of it. Living things exist because they inherited what it takes to exist from their ancestors. The ones that didn't have what it took to stay in existence...didn't. The world is full of things that exist. Protons, stars, iron, roaches, people. Natural selection acts on everything. The universe itself may even have been "selected" through some process of cosmogenesis where universes that don't have what it takes, physical laws and constant appropriate to produce stars, black holes, daughter universes, see their lineage die off. Hard to prove, probably impossible, but it is not even a new idea to think natural selection is too powerful and too basic to reality to be confined to biology.

    Unless you can eradicate an entire species quickly and completely, all you do is set up a selection pressure which favors mutant individuals who have what it takes to beat your attempts to eradicate them. The ones that don't have what it takes to counter your attack, roach motel or whatever it is, don't survive, and don't pass on their genes which failed to adequately equip them for survival and reproduction.

    Arthropod life cycles are very fast so it's not even surprising to see evolution like this happening in just a few decades. I'm surprised it hasn't happened sooner.

    --
    If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
    1. Re:It takes all the running you can do... by dryeo · · Score: 3, Informative

      Darwin stood on others shoulders, as do most all great thinkers and natural selection wasn't a new idea though Darwin did express it very well in his writings. One example is his grandfather Erasmus Darwin ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erasmus_Darwin ) who amongst other things wrote "the strongest and most active animal should propagate the species, which should thence become improved" in Zoonomia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoonomia ) and he based his ideas on earlier proto-evolutionists such as James Burnett, Lord Monboddo ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Burnett,_Lord_Monboddo ).

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    2. Re:It takes all the running you can do... by betterprimate · · Score: 1

      Living things exist because they inherited what it takes to exist from their ancestors. The ones that didn't have what it took to stay in existence...didn't.

      Case in point: /. neckbeards

    3. Re:It takes all the running you can do... by sqrt(2) · · Score: 2

      For billions of years not a single one of my ancestors failed to reach sexual maturity and then reproduce. That's axiomatic. That's why I'm here now.

      I almost feel like I'm letting them all down. What a combo breaker :(

      --
      If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
    4. Re:It takes all the running you can do... by martin-boundary · · Score: 1

      Natural selection follows from basic principles of logic. It's so close to first principles that it always amazes me that we had to wait so long for Darwin to show up and slap humanity on the face with the simple truth of it. Living things exist because they inherited what it takes to exist from their ancestors. The ones that didn't have what it took to stay in existence...didn't.

      Unfortunately not. For a long time, humanity had no idea that children inherited anything from their ancestors. Think about it, it's a lot simpler to suppose that different people merely represent certain archetypes: If there was a big factory that somehow produces humans, there might only be models A-Z, and every human being is one of these models. That would especially explain why children are similar to one of their parents - they're just the same model.

      To discover natural selection, you can't use logic alone. You have to have a concept that the blueprints of offspring are entirely carried by the parents. That's quite a radical idea, especially in a superstitious, religious world.

    5. Re:It takes all the running you can do... by betterprimate · · Score: 1

      I was aiming for a funny hygiene joke but I think I picked the wrong audience(s). You know, maybe there's a happy ending: /. neckbeard meets bearded lady.... with four nipples and a tailbone.

    6. Re:It takes all the running you can do... by hawkfish · · Score: 1

      The universe itself may even have been "selected" through some process of cosmogenesis where universes that don't have what it takes, physical laws and constant appropriate to produce stars, black holes, daughter universes, see their lineage die off.

      Lee Smolin now admits that this argument doesn't hold water, but that he just did it to come up with a hypothesis more testable than string theory...

      --
      You will not drink with us, but you would taste our steel? - Walter Matthau, The Pirates
  13. Re:They haven't yet evolved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Yes but their eggs have evolved to the point where when you crush a a bug full of eggs that the eggs dont get crushed and they attach to your shoe and then you spread the eggs as you walk. So good luck with that...

  14. Re:Selective breeding, not evolution by janimal · · Score: 5, Informative

    I just can't believe how many such comments I'm seeing here. Where are the nerds?!

    Selective breeding is based on positive feedback, where a human being selects the specimens with a desired trait and breeds them to get more of the same trait in the next generation. That's how you get house pets that do not stand a chance of survival in the wild.

    What happened with the cockroaches is the same process conducted by mother nature; only the surviving ones can breed.

    Now, here's the kicker for all of you high school dropouts. Both cases are essentially evolution according to the definition in wikipedia.

  15. "German Cockroach"... by G-Man · · Score: 2

    ...except in Germany, where it's known as the "French Cockroach".

  16. a better class of roach requires a better trap by Tumbleweed · · Score: 5, Funny

    If they've upped their standards and don't like motels, we'll have to increase our efforts, and create roach B&Bs.

    1. Re:a better class of roach requires a better trap by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      well it's rather obvious that the traps should lure them with something else than sweet stuff.

      just use breadcrumbs, oil etc..

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  17. Re:Evolution is bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    There are many copies.

  18. Pff by Greyfox · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If I were designing them, they'd thrive on the poison in the traps. Of course, if I were designing them, the cockroaches would be the focus of the experiment. I'd throw increasingly difficult challenges at them, culminating in some moderately clever primates. Once the cockroach Alpha arises, it would be saved for future study, and the rest of the experiment would be reset. That's the problem with an intelligent designer, isn't it? One tends to believe that they're the focus of the experiment. One tends to think that they will somehow qualify for special treatment. When, in fact, all that awaits you is euthanasia and a brain dissection. And that's if you're one of the lucky ones.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    1. Re:Pff by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Roach Motels don't use poison. The inside of the box is sticky. The bait lures them in, they touch the adhesive and can go no further.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  19. Best cockroach movie ever by future+assassin · · Score: 1
    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
  20. Kill all diabetic cockroaches!!! by Narcocide · · Score: 1

    So, basically they killed off all the ones that like sugar enough to die for it and they're calling it evolution?

  21. Roach Motel? by Trogre · · Score: 1

    For anyone else wondering, you want the second link on the Wikipedia disambiguation page.

    --
    "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
  22. Well, understandably by houbou · · Score: 2

    The roaches are probably trying to get a better deal through Priceline! :)

  23. Similar observation with ants by catchblue22 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I have noticed over the past few years that ants in my area have "learned" to avoid consuming Raid borax laced syrup. I remember early on in my house that ants would feast on the stuff, sucking large drops dry in a matter of minutes. Now, the new ants crawl up to the syrup I have left, seem to probe it, and then run away quickly. Even if I applied the syrup to an established ant pathway, they go around the drops without consuming any of it. I don't know whether they are averse to eating the sugar, or whether they can somehow sense the borax in the syrup. There seems to be some evolution going on here.

    --
    This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
    1. Re:Similar observation with ants by blane.bramble · · Score: 1

      Maybe you killed off all the ants that like it, leaving only ants that don't like it.

    2. Re:Similar observation with ants by catchblue22 · · Score: 1

      Maybe you killed off all the ants that like it, leaving only ants that don't like it.

      Ummmm...yeah. That's called evolution.

      --
      This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
    3. Re:Similar observation with ants by PingSpike · · Score: 1

      IIRC all ants in a colony are essentially clones, which makes the situation even more strange.

    4. Re:Similar observation with ants by osvenskan · · Score: 2

      I have noticed over the past few years that ants in my area have "learned" to avoid consuming Raid borax laced syrup.

      Two suggestions. First, if you're mixing your own posion (Raid + borax + syrup) then you might have simply made the mix too strong.

      Second, there are sugar ants and fat ants. (I'm sure this is entomologically a gross oversimplification but I think it's fair when talking about invading household ants.) Sugar ants want sweet stuff, fat ants want fat. It might be that your invaders were sugar ants, but now they're fat ants. Try putting a little peanut butter in front of them to see how they react.

    5. Re:Similar observation with ants by tom17 · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure if that was meant to be a whoosh or just incredibly funny :)

    6. Re:Similar observation with ants by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      No, that's called selection pressure.

      Evolution is what happens over the long term when selection pressures are applied.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  24. This could be good by Coward+Anonymous · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Part of the roach's success stems from its omnivorous diet. Removing glucose from its diet is likely a considerable hit on its caloric intake. If the aversion to glucose can be maintained while developing aversions to other abundant and nutritious food stuffs, like meat protein, we could bio-engineer cockroaches to become specialized eaters.

    Specialized eaters are easier to control and eradicate. Furthermore, if they over specialize to the degree of Pandas and Koalas they may be bio-engineered out of existence. Personally, I wouldn't mind never seeing another cockroach again.

    1. Re:This could be good by the+biologist · · Score: 3, Funny

      Another aspect of the success of the German cockroach (mentioned in article) is that they're colonial animals. If the food source runs out, they will simply eat each other and keep breeding... resulting in a slowly shrinking colony. Eventually the colony will starve itself out of existence, but generally the humans living near by will have accidentally given them some food that isn't the colony... resulting in the colony rapidly growing again.

  25. Roach Motel dates from the 1970s by istartedi · · Score: 1

    I was pretty sure they were around in the 1970s and Wiki confirms that.

    I have fond memories of another boy (I swear) picking up a packed "motel" and showing it to the girls to freak them out. That was definitely in the 1970s when I was still in elementary school.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  26. No, just deny them a a new necessity by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

    B&Bs? So the roaches have turned into either WAPSs or Hipsters. Either way, I think we can wipe them out - just set out poisoned Starbucks coffee.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  27. Nicht Gut by dcw3 · · Score: 1

    "Only a few years after roach motels were introduced in the 1980s, they lost their allure for an increasing number of German cockroaches

    Don't they know Germans don't stay in motels? They needed a Roach Hostile.

    --
    Just another day in Paradise
  28. Re:Our new overlords by fisted · · Score: 1

    You're doing it wrong.

  29. We need robots... by i · · Score: 1

    ..that kills Cockroaches. Or just a "motel" that you put some food in an that crushes any CR that enter.

    --
    Mundus Vult Decipi
  30. Bacteria and humans are NOT equally evolved by dcavanaugh · · Score: 1

    The opportunity for genetic mutation is primarily in the process of reproduction. Humans take roughly 20 years to reproduce. Bacteria reproduce millions of times faster. This is why we it's an uphill battle to keep producing new antibiotics, but the police have nothing to fear from criminals who might evolve to be born with bullet-proof exoskeletons.

    Medical science can keep people alive that would otherwise be killed by various weaknesses, thus negating the evolutionary process in humans. The concept of letting the weakest people die is socially unacceptable, so we don't do it. I'm not in favor of doing that, but the human evolutionary process is pretty much limited to physical characteristics that attract the opposite sex. Even then, ugly people can always get plastic surgery.

  31. Re:They haven't yet evolved by InsectOverlord · · Score: 1
  32. Ants are not cockroaches. by denzacar · · Score: 1

    But more importantly, not all ants are cannibals. Cockroaches generally are.

    Because of that, borax has different effects on non-cannibalistic ants than on cannibalistic ants or cockroaches.

    See, borax does not kill ants or cockroaches instantly.
    Instead, they munch on it happily and later their chitinous carapace starts to break apart because of the effect of boric acid on the chitin.
    Then, when they die back in the nest, literally crushed by other roaches, their cannibalistic comrades eat them and the boric acid in the chitin starts its work on them.

    BUT, while it takes a tad longer for cockroaches to die from cracks in their carapaces, so they die inside the nest and become food, ants will die much sooner and outside the nest, never becoming food.
    AND they will still have whiff of both "Danger! Death!" pheromones AND borax on them when their comrades find them.

    Your ants didn't evolve - you trained them to fear the smell of borax.
    What you need to do is try using less borax.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  33. reality check by gzuckier · · Score: 1

    since when do roach motels use glucose? they use scent attractants, either food scents or pheromones. using taste as an attractant in a roach motel makes no sense at all. once the roach has his tongue or feet or whatever he tastes with stuck to the glue it hardly matters whether he's attracted or not. it's gotta be scent. I don't think any critters can smell glucose (or sucrose or fructose). similarly, how would a mutation to make glucose aversive help at all? the regular roach is standing there with his tongue or feet or whatever stuck thinking "yum, glucose, i'm happy", while his mutant buddy is stuck there going "not me, i'm never going to do this again"?
    and finally, why would anyone use glucose for this kind of thing, rather than cheaper sucrose?

    --
    Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.