The golden mole, a small mammal (though not a "true mole") native to southern Africa, is the world's only known iridescent mammal: its coat is made of peculiar hairs that show a blue or green iridescence. This quality isn't unknown to animals; many fish, birds, and insects are iridescent, so why not mammals? But the golden mole can't attract a mate with its shiny coat: it lives underground, and is completely blind.
A recent study conducted by Matthew Shawkey at the University of Akron in Ohio found, through examination of hairs of four species of golden mole through an electron microscope, that the mole's hairs are not constructed at all as expected. Instead of the typical narrowing point shape, golden mole hairs are flattened, like paddles. And the individual scales on the hairs alternate light and dark, just like the scales of an iridescent butterfly's wings.
There's no conclusion as to exactly why an animal whose eyes are so non-functional that they're covered with skin and fur would bother with fantastically eye-appealing fur. Other iridescent animals typically use the unusual properties of iridescence--iridescent animals appear to change colors when the angle from which they are viewed changes--for camouflage or attraction of mates, both of which are clearly the wrong explanation for these moles' coloration.
Shawkey suggests that they are in fact an evolutionary accident--that the structure of the hairs makes it easier for the moles to "swim" through the sand in their native habitat, that it makes the hairs hardier and more repellant to water. So the shininess would by a byproduct of other useful traits.
Why does it even have eyes if they are covered with skin and hair? I don't see why it wouldn't just not have eyes to begin with.
This is a cool article though
Eye don't knonw why it does not have I's eather. The use of I's is varied and maybe consider their use and your own I's. Perhaps it's not about how you or I use our eyes, but in the way how he uses his eyes.
Science sees no further than what it can sense.
Religion sees beyond the senses.
Seriously guys? Evolution, common ancestry? These mean nothing to you?
Lol, the Canadian got it right--that mammal is IN THE PROCESS of losing his eyes entirely, and evolution has been OCCASSIONALLY known to be gradual...
Being the insecure excuse making by the Darwinists to defend their precious religion.
It is the same reason why men has nipple... like it or not, useful or not, everybody gets a couple. LOLz.
evolution is a theory, so is religious stories of creation. neither is proven fact.
some believe what they read in books thousands of years old as the sole version of the history of life on earth. i dont have to pick a religion, they all share that. "my diety XXXX created the universe XXXyears ago via XXXX method. i'm right because its my religion". there are thousands of creation stories from various religions. on the other hand, the evolutionists come along and say they want you to prove it. well u cant. u can try but it won't hold up to their scientific methods. it never does.
as for the opposing side, the evolutionists, they look at the world in the exact opposite view. they don't believe blindly. they ask for verification. they see fossils that resemble animals today and say one came from the other. they find more that are unique and have no animals that look like it around and they put in a chart with its believed age. they find more, slightly different but older or younger. they place it in a time line near the other samples. if enough samples were found its believed u could make a flipbook of one animal changing into another, macroevolution via microevolution. but because it happens over millions of years its unobservable and to some unproveable. the flipbook isnt complete, entire chapters are missing, infact only a very small part has been found. there's actually very little evidence of this as the creationists will point out. actually they'll say no proof at all normally til they're asked to explain the fossil record.
these are the 2 main groups of ppl that argue this but there is a third. people the fall in the middle. people that try to reconcile what the believe with what they can see and explain. intelligent designers believe their deity used evolution over billions of years to create life as we know it today. creation stories are simply that, stories. much like a parent tells a child that babies come from storks or cabbage patches. you look through the stories to find the meaning. what many creationists believe as literal fact and non-believing evolutionists see as fiction, they will see symbolism.
to them, the world is god's version of the sims and according to some theories they may be closer to the truth. the universe may just be a hologram.
evolution is a theory that can be seen in the present only. Anything about the past can only be understood by first making unprovable (though possibly disprovable) assumptions about the universe (aka, through a religion).
Trying to use it to explain origins of all life is not science any more. The repeatability of the scientific method can only be applied to data gathering. Inferrences made about the past based upon data recorded in the present are only as good as the assumptions made to interpret that data. So, talking about evoltion as an explaination for origins is not science anymore because it is a question about the past, full of unknowns, and assumptions filling in for those unknowns.
The irridescence of this animal is hard to explain in the darwinian religion because no functional use is seen for it and it is unknown why such genes would be selected for if one of the critters just happened to mutate this way.
Once upon a time, long long ago, when the aliens visited planet Earth and were toying around with the DNA of humans, they saw the poor little moles rubbing their eyes and felt sorry for them, so they they covered them up to keep the dirt out.
Perhaps some ancient society of 100,000 or more years ago that has completely disappeared, did some DNA changes to the poor little mole for the same reasons as the aliens above.
Perhaps evolution did some it’s tweaking of DNA for the mole.
Perhaps all this is true and a few other unknowns as well.
Science sees no further than what it can sense.
Religion sees beyond the senses.
just because we don't know the reason doesn't mean there isn't one.
A scientific "theory" is actually the strongest type of scientific statement, even stronger than a scientific "law". A scientific theory is a set of principles that explain and predict phenomena. Scientists create scientific theories with the scientific method, when they are originally proposed as hypotheses and tested for accuracy through observations and experiments.
A "law", like the law of gravity, is a statement that explains what something does in science. A scientific law must always apply under the same conditions, and implies a causal relationship between its elements. The law must be confirmed and broadly agreed upon through the process of inductive reasoning.
So, you see, the Theory explains the observations in a very detailed and specific manner. The law just says "hey, this will happen." For example, scientists are sure how evolution works, but don't have a clue how gravity works (well, they've got a <i>clue</i>).
So, if you're going to pick a theory to disbelieve, I suggest you focus on something that scientists themselves scratch their heads over, like string theory.
By the way, God and evolution are not mutually exclusive. You just have to decide if you believe God is an engineer or a magician.
agreed, i go with god the artist myself.
Evolution as a means to describe small changes that have been actually observed is not in question.
Evolution as a means for origins is in question.
The first may qualify as a theory as the scientific method can be applied to it.
The second is all in the unrepeatable past. If you want to repeat it then I assume you have the records of all the important variables from somone who wrote down the original experiments from the past? And no, you can't just site values for those variables which are derived from other models with assumptions about the past....otherwise it's just turtles all the way down, and you are just pushing having a definite scientifically testable theory off on another theory you really can't test either.
Oh look more nutjobs.
nuttjobs....says the talking ape...lol good one
There are contemporary examples of evolution in progress. Drug-resistant bacteria for example. There are also some meta-examples, but I don't recall which animal it was observed subtly changing its genome to adapt to an environmental pressure, but it was reported here at Popsci.com.
Regarding the unrepeatable past: scientific method also recognizes the historic/fossil/geologic record. Of course, I suppose you doubt the ability of living organisms to sequester carbon in their bones, so arguing carbon dating, dinosaurs, and the fossil record with you will be useless. How convenient - any technology that disputes your belief is invalid. Why are you even reading the articles at Popsci.com? I suggest you spend more time reading the Enquirer or Weekly World News.
@ Mad hatter,
I like the name, good reference to a good book....though Sylvie and Bruno I think is a better Carroll work.
Now down to buisness.
I regrete to inform you that observations of the fossil/geologic record are not in dispute here. What is in dispute is what those observations mean. Models are used to explain those observations, however many assumptions go into those models (I foresaw this line of reasoning coming from people so I stated earlier "And no, you can't just site values for those variables which are derived from other models with assumptions about the past....otherwise it's just turtles all the way down, and you are just pushing having a definite scientifically testable theory off on another theory you really can't test either." but thanks anyway).
As to radio metric dating, this is a prime example of what I was talking about.
I'm sure you understand that the equations for radio metric dating have several variables. The ratio of parent to child isotopes at the beginning. The ration of parent to child isotopes at the finnish. The rate at which the parent isotopes decay (btw, apprently this isn't a constant as shown in a previous blog post on this site). And the time in between.
Now, we have 4 variables. Generally you want to know the time that has passed. So that will be what we solve for. Now what can we observe? The ratio at the time we observe. That covers 2 of the 4 variables. If we want to actually solve for the time passed we will need the other two. We don't have those, they have to be assumed.
You see that right? You need to assume that you know what the original ratio of parent to child isotopes were.... since we do not have any records of somones ovservations of that .... you want to tell me how that is known scientifically? Or will you just push it off on the next model with its own set of assumptions?
We also need the decay rate. That's often assumed to be constant, but as blogged about before on this site that can be effected by sun activity....and who knows what else.
Oh, and you also have to make the assumption that the fossiles are a closed system and there has been no addition or subtraction by other means to the isotopes.
Your dogma of radio metric dating assumes:
1. We know the beginning ratio of isotopes in question.
2. The decay rate has stayed the same and was not influenced.
3. The fossile is a closed system and there has been no addition or subtraction of the isotopes in question.
Yes, in fact, if you continue to dogmatically hold to the 'results' of the Darwinian religion (as opposed to science) I would assume that a discussion on these topics would be fruitless. Let's stick to science on a science page, and leave inferences about the past for another site (or at least be honest that we're not talking about science anymore).
Wow... I started a war (although it probably would have started without my comment). Just to clarify, I'm not a fanatic blindly following some doctrine, I just think that Darwinism is the best hypothesis to date.