Thanks for being the first to address that. Thank you.
Okay, so you think it should be worded... turning an old hypothesis based on existing (or should that be... previous) evidence on its head.
There is a problem there, I think.
"an idea based on existing evidence", which is shown to be inaccurate, based on thorough research, is an idea that is accepted as true, without verification, or proof:
I think it's important to point that out, don't you?
You see, there are some scientist who think that their ideas should be accepted, even if the results are inconclusive, or other competing ideas are valid.
This can be seen from what I posted
here, and the video
here.
Notice the words..."[scientists] have too much hubris... too full of [themselves]... believe stories too much" "talked about getting Nobel prizes" "uncritical of glaring problems"
These are men we are dealing with here. Not gods.
They are prone to all the fallible qualities of other men... even greedy religious leaders who are after your money... and politicians.... and merchants...
Do you think the phrases "accepted without proof", and "accepted without evidence", mean the same thing?
I must have read a different article.
I read...
These colourful markings were assumed to be a warning to predators against eating the beetles, which are able to secrete poisonous chemicals in self-defence. However, this idea was based on earlier studies, which focused on using museum collections of beetle specimens for their analyses. While this method affords researchers a large number of samples, the discolouration of deceased specimens made accurate colour analysis of the beetles impossible. Furthermore, such methodology also fails to take into account the colouration of each beetle's natural environment.
That says, 1) the results could not be accurate based on the focus only on museum collected beetles - limiting the scope of the research.
The conditions of an experiment can change the results drastically, as seen from the fact that 2) the previous methodology failed
to take into account the colouration of each beetle's natural environment.
Which would lead to assuming that the conditions are just right to reach a conclusion that is accurate... when that is not the case.
Sort of like assuming that gradualism is true because the rate of activity is steady, or decreasing rates of certain chemicals is steady, or speculating that the early earth had just the right conditions for spontaneous generation to have happened, or that reptiles evolved to mammals... and on and on.
Thus, reaching wrong conclusions, based on assumptions, speculations, and wrong interpretations.
Oh. Further work has to be done on this.... Swell.
Jewel beetle’s bright colored shell serves as camouflage from predators
Artist and naturalist Abbott Handerson Thayer became known as the "father of camouflage" with the publication in 1909 of a book on coloration in animals. He was particularly fascinated by the phenomenon of iridescence: many species exhibit bright, metallic jewel tones that shift hues depending on viewing angle. While iridescence is often viewed as a means of sexual selection - think the magnificent peacock, shimmering his feathers to attract a willing peahen - Thayer suggested that in some species, it was also an effective means of camouflage.
Thayer endured a fair bit of mockery for his ideas, most notably from Theodore Roosevelt, a big game hunter who thought Thayer had grossly overstated his case. Indeed, there has been very little empirical support for Thayer's hypothesis in the ensuing century. But researchers from the University of Bristol have now uncovered the first solid evidence for this in the jewel beetle, according to a new paper in Current Biology.
"The idea of 'iridescence as camouflage' is over 100 years old, but our study is the first to show that these early ignored or rejected ideas that 'changeable or metallic colors are among the strongest factors in animals' concealment' have traction,"
- Kjernsmo.
Shinny Shells for Camouflage - Not Display
Tan and her team spent 17 months photographing live beetles in 32 locations across four Australian states. She then compared each beetle’s coloration to the color of the leaf it was found on. Taking into account the evolutionary relationship between the different beetle species, Tan discovered that different species of beetles had color patterns similar to those of their host plants.
This suggests that the colorations have a camouflaging effect, rather than serving a predator-deterring (aposematic) function. This camouflage effect was particularly pronounced in beetles which fed on multiple types of plants, as they had to blend into many different environments.
What I don't find, those who are eager to accept a beloved "theory", or hypothesis saying, is... "what seems to be suggested by the results, are far from clear, and is not enough to verify or conclude our idea... further work needs to be done on this front."
What more would you as a scientist think needs to be done to confirm Dr. Tan, and her team's findings?
So what does assumption mean in science?
