Living proof of change in species or evolution : An underwater breathing cricket

a reply to: Raggedyman

As nobody seems to be offering you anything to change your mind.
You might dismiss this too.
I think i know what your answer will be. But...
The human appendix.
1 Thought to be a vestigial organ which used to play a part in digestion. No longer needed.
2 It does perform a function. We just don't know what.
scienceline.ucsb.edu...
There is another point not mentioned.
3 This organ is not an evolutionary relic from our past. But, it has formed and developed and is still developing to serve it's function in our evolutionary future.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Proof ? You have been shown countless pieces of proof but you dismiss is all.
Ignorance is your bed fellow.

a reply to: blackcrowe

Maybe a little more investigation on the appendix might help change your mind, howabouts searching what the appendix actually does
Vestigial, seriously that's so pre 1970s

Research go research

You know the arm is vestigial as well, if you lose it, you can still live, not necessary really is it

Anyway there is a thread on vestigial so, plenty of references, head that way, you are way off topic here

a reply to: TheKnightofDoom

I havnt seen any proof the cricket has gills, please point me in the right direction
Please, a cricket with gills, I am excited

And yes I am ignorant, will be till I see the evidence, care to help

originally posted by: blackcrowe
a reply to: Raggedyman

Maybe the flags it's got are for bringing an interesting subject to the table.
I too have a hard time with the gills. The way crickets breathe normally would take massive changes to convert itself to a gill filter breathing insect. Not tiny changes.
Or. These tiny changes have all made up the gill conversion. And, it is now time to try it out.
I want to see more about it.
I find it very interesting.
That's why i flagged it.
Respect. Ya know.

No qualms no complaints I am very interested, it would be amazing
Though I think it's a blatant lie and until I see the evidence

You know really, this cricket with gills would change my whole world view, but I will wait till I get confirmation before I star and flag

I want to see more about it as well, respect

a reply to: Raggedyman

Thanks for your answer.
I don't know if this was what you meant for me to research.
www.news-medical.net...
If not. Please link what your opinion is.
Also. The arm is a limb. An appendage. Not an organ. So that point is irrelevant to me.

a reply to: blackcrowe

Yep, that's the theory, it's been the theory for quite some time as well

I appreciate your honesty in the matter, most people wouldn't research it and then link the site

a reply to: Raggedyman

And when i first asked the question. I thought you would say 2.
I offered the third option for that link.
Given the same question. Although i'm pro evolution. My answer would be 2. Until it had been proven that this was indeed a dormant organ. And, not needed. Or, it does perform a function.
As you say yourself though. It is a theory that has been around some time. But, It is a theory. Albeit a sensible one.
Your avatar is a frog. I would say this amphibian is full of evolutionary questions.
A couple of points for you to consider.
They are a form of the transition from water to land.
Spawn bearers. Neither bearing live young or eggs. But, a transition stage in between.
Gender changing. www.independent.co.uk...
There are fish that exhibit gender change too. Very useful if the male/female ratio is unbalanced. Although it seems to be threatening the cane toad as linked. In its own environment, this might not be as much of an issue.

a reply to: blackcrowe

Good theory, just might be possible, I will wait for evidence before I get onboard.

a reply to: Raggedyman

I do agree about evidence being required.
Whatever you believe in.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: blackcrowe

Good theory, just might be possible, I will wait for evidence before I get onboard.

Now THAT is hilarious. You won't accept any evidence of anything, but whatever helps you sleep at night. I'll keep learning about cool things while you keep denying it all.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: blackcrowe

Good theory, just might be possible, I will wait for evidence before I get onboard.

Now THAT is hilarious. You won't accept any evidence of anything, but whatever helps you sleep at night. I'll keep learning about cool things while you keep denying it all.

Easy fix barcs, just show me the evidence of the gills
Then you can be the winner

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: blackcrowe

Good theory, just might be possible, I will wait for evidence before I get onboard.

Now THAT is hilarious. You won't accept any evidence of anything, but whatever helps you sleep at night. I'll keep learning about cool things while you keep denying it all.

Easy fix barcs, just show me the evidence of the gills
Then you can be the winner

So you are telling me that if one of us shows you evidence that this cricket can breath underwater that you will accept evolution?

a reply to: Barcs

Its more that he seems fixated on it having to be gills which are the way the insect breaths Rather than the actual mechanism.

I have not even read about the cricket...
But I'm sure he's like spiders and other insects which have learned to use an air bubble to go underwater...

a reply to: 5StarOracle

Apparently. They drown easily.
How Crickets Breathe :Guide to Breeding Feeder Crickets

a reply to: Barcs

No, absolutely not

Though it would be foundation stone in changing my opinion
No one piece of evidence this small will change my mind just like that
Sorry

lisapike.weebly.com...

and no Noinden, I am fixated on the thread and title and these statements in particular as well as the evidence outside of a few seconds of video. Evidence I cant find anywhere

originally posted by: nOraKat
they found a species of cricket that has evolved to breathe and live underwater. ... except that this one developed something similar to gills to be able to breathe underwater.

I thought this would make a perfect example for those people who do not believe in evolution or a drastic change in a species; the same people who may find it hard to believe that dolphin and whales evolved descended from mammals that used to walk on land.

Evidence?

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Though it would be foundation stone in changing my opinion
No one piece of evidence this small will change my mind just like that

Okay, if I am understanding you properly, you consider an adaptation to breathe underwater to be a big enough change to constitute as evolution, whereas things like smoother slimier skin, webbing on limbs, better vision under water, or bigger mouths are minor. Am I getting that right?

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Though it would be foundation stone in changing my opinion
No one piece of evidence this small will change my mind just like that

Okay, if I am understanding you properly, you consider an adaptation to breathe underwater to be a big enough change to constitute as evolution, whereas things like smoother slimier skin, webbing on limbs, better vision under water, or bigger mouths are minor. Am I getting that right?

Just work on Macro Micro from a fundamentalist bent

Kinda like a skin colour change, a beak on a bird shape change, you dont need to ask me

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Just work on Macro Micro from a fundamentalist bent

Okay, I got nothing for this.