Do grasshoppers communicate?
Short-horned grasshoppers have "auditory organs," or ears, located on the first abdominal segment, which is basically the chest. A comb-like structure on the inside of the hind leg is rubbed by a wing ridge to produce a "chirping" sound. Long-horned grasshoppers have ears in the knee-joints of their front legs. They also have a comb-and-ridge mechanism but the sound is produced by rubbing the forewings against each other. Some species also use vibrations and touch to find each other. The males tap on leaves of a particularly tasty plant and a female will tap back.
Grasshoppers have complicated visual and acoustic languages. Each species produces its own unique sound. They use their hindlegs and wings to flash visual messages as well as to produce sounds. They also "talk" by rubbing their legs against the tegmina (sides of the abdomen) and by "crepitation," which is snapping their hindwings while flying. Grasshoppers have large compound eyes that are helpful in reading these complicated messages. It is undocumented whether the young grasshoppers' lack of wings affects their ability to communicate. Species that do not sing use pheromones to attract mates.
http://www.ehow.com/about_6374920_do-grasshoppers-communicate_.html
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI think it's really cool, and I hope engineers can harness this capability to expand existing techniques/technologies!
What do you think? Did the remarkable hearing of the katydid come about by evolution? Or was it designed?
Ehh, why can't evolution be apart of God's design? I never really understood why people are so upset about it...Adam and Eve could just be a metaphor...
Originally posted by Proper KnobCorrect, but that isn't seen by just looking at a lifeform, you don't
Correct. But the core tenet of evolution is that all life has a common ancestor, which is something you don't accept.
see common ancestors that is a belief if you accept that tenet of
evolution. For all you know they could just be creatures that look alike,
we see many of them running around today. Even if fossils you see are
millions of years apart in time, it does not mean one came from another.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayIt's irrelevant. I don't see how you can believe the world is a few thousand years old and claim to believe in evolution. It's utter nonsense.
Correct, but that isn't seen by just looking at a lifeform, you don't
see common ancestors that is a belief if you accept that tenet of
evolution. For all you know they could just be creatures that look alike,
we see many of them running around today. Even if fossils you see are
millions of years apart in time, it does not mean one came from another.
Kelly
Originally posted by Proper KnobThe question was can you tell design from evolution by just looking at
It's irrelevant. I don't see how you can believe the world is a few thousand years old and claim to believe in evolution. It's utter nonsense.
a lifeform, that has nothing to do with how I view anything. No matter
what I believe for or against evolution or creation does not change the
answer to that question.
Kelly
Originally posted by Proper KnobI see nothing technically wrong with accepting that things evolve without accepting common ancestry . There is a difference between 'evolution' as in the fact that life forms change over time and 'The Theory of Evolution' which covers all the mechanisms of how those life forms change plus the specific history of Earths life forms (common ancestry included).
It's irrelevant. I don't see how you can believe the world is a few thousand years old and claim to believe in evolution. It's utter nonsense.
Originally posted by menace71Well, some supporters of the Evilution Theory would say that there is no design in nature at all. They say it is just an appearance of design because they admit that real design only comes from an intelligent being like us.
I don't think the argument is whether everything was designed it is just a matter of who or what we assign the designing too 😉
Manny
The Instructor
Originally posted by twhiteheadTechnically, you are correct.
I see nothing technically wrong with accepting that things evolve without accepting common ancestry . There is a difference between 'evolution' as in the fact that life forms change over time and 'The Theory of Evolution' which covers all the mechanisms of how those life forms change plus the specific history of Earths life forms (common ancestry included).
Originally posted by RJHindshere is how to make a dinosaur Ronald,
Well, some supporters of the Evilution Theory would say that there is no design in nature at all. They say it is just an appearance of design because they admit that real design only comes from an intelligent being like us.
The Instructor
