Secrets of worm grunting support Darwin's instincts after 127 years

The secret of worm grunting, a mysterious technique used by fishermen to tempt worms to the surface, has been unearthed.
Worm grunting is popular in the United States - they even hold grunting festivals - and involves driving a wooden stake into the ground and rubbing it repeatedly with a length of steel.
To most people such behaviour might be regarded as, at best, eccentric but to fishermen it is a tried and tested means of providing enough bait to keep them going for hours.
A biologist intrigued by the practice has now established that the apparently suicidal behaviour of the worms in coming to the surface, where they are easy prey, is driven by a desperate desire to escape their deadliest of enemies - moles.
Moles are such voratious eaters of earthworms that the invertebrates would rather risk being caught by a bird or dried up by the sun than come within range of one.
Dr Ken Catania, of Vanderbilt University in the US, found that the vibrations created in the soil by rubbing steel on the stake mimicked those made by moles digging through the soil.
Fishermen had happily made use of the practice, known variously as worm grunting, tickling, snoring or charming depending on where it is done, but didn’t know why it worked.
His conclusion, reached after a series of experiments in the Apalachicola National Forest, in Florida, confirmed a remark made by Charles Darwin in his 1881 book The Formation of Vegetable Mould.
“It has often been said that if the ground is beaten or otherwise made to tremble, worms believe that they are pursued by a mole and leave their burrows,” he wrote.
Dr Catania, reported his findings in the online journal PLoS ONE, after carrying out a series of experiments in Apalachicola National Forest in Florida where eastern American moles, Scalopus aquaticus linnaeus, are plentiful.
He said: “Eastern moles don’t come to the surface when they are foraging, so fleeing to the surface provides the worms both immediate safety and the most efficient means for getting away from them.
“The moles are quite noisy. Often you can hear the sounds of a mole digging in the wild from a few feet away.”
The finding supports observation of gulls and wood turtles which have suggested the animals knew that by slapping their feet on the ground they would bring worms within reach.
He found, with the help of veteran worm grunters Gary and Audrey Revell, that hundreds of earthworms came to the surface within 12 metres of the stake.
“This makes it possible for an experienced worm grunter to collect thousands of worms in a day,” he added.

Comments

[Brien Comerford]

Invasive and destructive humans should leave worms alone. They emanate from the same Creator that created us.

[Andy]

brien you are mad.
using your logic carrots should be left in the ground. i suppose worm farms are the height of evil intent.

[nathan]

Brien, is this the same creator that apparently gave us (humans) dominion over the inhabitants of the world, who encouraged animal sacrifice to himself; indeed, whose son fed 5000 people with some fish? I think you may be second-guessing your 'creator'...

[peter c]

worm grunters of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your marbles

[John Fisher]

Crikey -- do you not realise that seagulls have been doing this since the beginning of time, in order to feed on worms ? Watch them patting the ground in gardens, parks or any grassed area. We dim humans only manage to copy them !

[Brien Comerford]

Before the fall of man all creatures lived in peaceful coexistence and there was no bloodshed or killing. After man disobeyed God he fell from grace and the rest of creation was subjucted to man's corruption. In the Judeo-Christian Eden worms were not killed. John Wesley and the Prophet Isaiah concur.

[Permaculture Man]

As an ex worm farmer I can testify to the efficacy of this technique.....

[ArmyOfAardvarks]

Brien, exactly which Bible are you getting your info from?

[chethan]

A really nice article....

[T]

Hi Brien,

Mark 7:14-19
14. Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, "Listen to me, everyone, and understand this.
15. Nothing outside a man can make him 'unclean' by going into him. Rather, it is what comes out of a man that makes him 'unclean.' "
17. After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable.
18. "Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'?
19. For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.")
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mar%207&version=31

Colossians 2:16
16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day.

1 Timothy 4
Instructions to Timothy
1 The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons.
2 Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron.
3 They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth.
4 For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving,
5 because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.
6 If you point these things out to the brothers, you will be a good minister of Christ Jesus, brought up in the truths of the faith and of the good teaching that you have followed.
7 Have nothing to do with godless myths and old wives' tales; rather, train yourself to be godly.
8 For physical training is of some value, but godliness has value for all things, holding promise for both the present life and the life to come.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=61&chapter=4&version=31&context=chapter

God bless you,
T

[Charles]

Anyone who lives by the seaside will have seen seagulls paddling the ground rhythmically and then scooping up the conned earthworms that come to the surface to escape the "pursuing" moles.

[Charles]

Sorry, John Fisher - I should have scrolled down!
You commented on the fascinating paddling habits of seagulls first!

[Arundel]

I believe tha Brien Comerford is expousing the Jehova's Witness type idea wherein all creatures were herbivores (sabre-toothed tigers, tyranosaurus rex, baboons, bear, wolves, ants etc) until the expulsion of Adam and Eve from Eden, whereupon some of them started eating each other - becuase of the arrival of evil.
I think these people are also of the idea that they all (sabre-toothed tigers, tyranosaurus rex, baboons, bear, wolves, ants etc), all inhabited the same time-space as well without any evolution.
I believe the phrase is "go figure".

[Terri McCain]

Where are you people coming from and who in the world is this Brein person.
There is not one word of argumentative information in this article pointing to anyone claiming anything that has to do with Creation or Evolution.
He simply quoted this Darwin fellows oberservations about worms.
I didn't know that this information was such a mystery as to call for a full out investigation by a top university!
We call it pecking them out of the ground where I live or maybe blading them.
I don't think it has much to do with moles though.. they just can't stand the sound and the vibrations that go through the ground.
By pecking on an iron rod or an old lawn mower blade works best ( hence blading) at a slow and steady whang whang whang..with an ordinary hammer, they will start to come up all around the blade or rod.
It is kind of like a human being inside a room with a constant drip drip drip of water in the sink.. it will drive you to distraction and you will either fix it or leave the area!

[Idris, Llandudno]

This is typical evolutionist logic that assumes evolution is a fact, then builds an argument on it and then proves evolution is a a fact. It isn't. The argument presupposes that there is no high intelligence in the complex design of warms and moles and other interdependent animals and plants. Warms might have a design to escape moles or other digging predators to occasionally feed other predators. With the same logical presupposition and sequence one can constantly prove existence of Creator. Harun Yahya often displays such Darwinist logical invalidities in his books.

[zaphraud]

Wow. I've reached another conclusion:

Any time the name "Darwin" is mentioned, you can be sure that the bible-thumping creationist nutters will crawl out from whatever rocks they live under just like worms fleeing a burrowing mole.

How many more decades is the human race going to have to put up with this ignorance?

We may not know for sure that any given theory of evolution is a fact, but we DO know for sure that the creation myths presented by ALL of the worlds popular religions regarding are BLATANTLY WRONG.

[adong211]

evolution IS creation

[colin c]

why go on about seagulls? thrushes and blackbirds, (same family) do it with their beaks and are very successful too.

[Axman]

Split a lamp cord and tape one end to avoid a short circuit. Tape the other end to a steel rod. Drive the rod into the ground. Plug the lamp cord into the wall outlet. Then watch the worms migrate to the surface. Unplug the cord, pick up the worms and go fishin!

[John Roberson]

Darwinism has been disproven by athiests. You really need to keep up with new scientific discoveries. Todays microbiologists know that with the complexity of life it is impossible for life to have formed and evolved here. They are now looking towards other answers to explain life on Earth. The leading theory is life traveled here on an meteor. Which begs the follow up question where did that life come from? And if it can't be formed here then how could it be formed where it came from?

[Bill Smith]

There is not the slightest support, never mind proof, for Evolution in this article. Not even a mention. Nice try, Headline writer.

[Mike]

John Roberson, you've confused Darwinism (evolution) with abiogenesis (the origin of life itself).

Evolution has most certainly *not* been disproven. In fact, it's the most widely proven theory in the history of science. We have far more direct evidence for evolution than we do for the theory of gravity.

[John Roberson]

Mike:

There are two different types of evolution. Micro evolution and macro evolution.

Micro evolution is the evolving within a species (i.e. adjustments to climate etc.).

Macro evolution is the changing of a species (i.e. a fish to a bird etc.).

Micro evolution is scientific fact and is well known. Macro evolution is a preposterous theory that has no scientific evidence to support.

[JimmyDaGeek]

Evolution has never been proven in the usual scientific sense, except in the minds of its proponents. Evolution is still a theory, but it can be considered a model that fits all the known facts. No one has run any independent experiments to show that organisms can evolve from one type to another.

By making statistical assumptions about chromosome copying errors and random mutations, scientists seek to prove evolution using DNA.

Look at dogs. Although some breeds are so different from one another that they can't cross-breed anymore, they are still dogs, not wolves, and not cats.

[Gary]

Mike,

You said that it is the "most widley proven" theory...

If it was proven, it wouldn't be a theory.

[John Roberson]

Explain to me why there are no interspecies in the fossil record. Where are they?

[Matt]

This was not an argument on evolution, the reference to Darwin was that "Darwin's instincts were right". If you actually read the whole article you will find they are merely referencing an hypothesis made by Darwin, "It has often been said that if the ground is beaten or otherwise made to tremble, worms believe that they are pursued by a mole and leave their burrows.”

Whether God or evolution led worms to this behavior is a whole other matter. While Darwin likely would have explained this behavior as a result of evolution, the article in no way claims that this discovery offers proof of evolution.

[Matt]

Darwin's Origin of Species is nearing 150 years old. So, if you are looking for concrete proof of macro-evolution, you probably only have a few more million years to wait. Evolution occurs on a scale of "deep time". One human lifetime is only a blink compared to the time it takes to observe large scale changes.

The other problem of course is that the process of speciation is so gradual as to be nearly unobservable (not to mention we still do not have concrete rules for determining what constitutes a "species"). Extinction, on the other hand, is quite observable.

[Pat C.]

Hurray for Darwin!!! Worms flee to the surface to escape moles. This proves we all evolved from a rock 2.6 billion years ago.

[Dave from Nashville (Go 'Dores!)]

I have moles in my backyard. Is there any theory or model or Bible verse to help me bring THEM to the surface?

Also, why is it necessary to point out that Vanderbilt is in the US? Everybody KNOWS that!

Go 'Dores!

[James]

Gary said:

"Mike,

You said that it is the "most widley [sic]proven" theory...

If it was proven, it wouldn't be a theory."

Actually, Mike, you need to reevalute your understanding of "proof" and "theory" in scientific matters. It's too complicated to explain in this short space, but I would recommend reading Thomas S. Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." To boil it down, there are only theories, and nothing is proven conclusively, but rather its predictions are borne out by the evidence to some degree of accuracy. The book will explain this better than I can.

[crow]

In response to this post:
John Roberson | 20 Oct 2008 17:22:54
Here is just one link proving your statement wrong.
Living the Scientific Life (Scientist, Interrupted): ‘Fishapod’ Fossil Provides More Clues for the Evolution of Terrestriality.

http://scienceblogs.com/grrlscientist/2008/10/fishapod_fossil_provides_more.php

[John Roberson]

Sorry Everybody I had to leave the office for a little bit but have no fear I am back to teach you now.

First of all, my name is not Mike. Mike is the gentelmans name to whom the comment of mine was addressed to. But none the less (James and Gary) Before something is proven it starts out as a theory. That is what I am reffering to. By my statement that the theory has been proven it should be simply obvious that it ceases to be a theory at that point. Sorry I did not know I needed to explain that simplicity.

Second, I know this article is not an argument on evolution. But if you take the time to read the comments previous to my first one you would see that it is an argument in the comments section. If the comments in this section were talking about how to bake a cake would you say "This article is not about baking cakes?"

Third, Why do I have to wait a few more million years? If there has ever been "MacroEvolution" on this planet it should be in our fossil record. We can dig up all kinds of skeletal remains of creatures from millions and millions of years ago through out all the periods (i.e. Cenozoic,mesozoic,paleozoic etc.) so why aren't there any inbetween forms of evolution? Such as a bird-fish, or ape-man. There isn't one. And every time the media comes out and says that there is one they later repudiate in a one line article in the back of the newspaper that it was in fact false.

[John Roberson]

To Crow:

Too late, I have known about that one for quite some time. I have studied it from both sides. It is not proof at this point whether it is an inbetween species or an extinct species. There are some scientists that look for any reason to say that something does prove evolution. But as with everything you need to listen to both sides so you can sift the good stuff from the crap.

[Herbert F]

Are they sure it's moles the worms are afraid of? I always assumed that the seagulls were simulating rain. Worms need to breathe and can drown underground if flooded.

[Ednausean]

I remember driving two long nails in the ground at night and connecting wires to both spikes and then connected to a street lamp in a park Gollee! Hundreds of 'night crawlers' came up use as crab bait. That was around 1940 and I can't remember who taught me that trick

[Ednausean]

I remember driving two long nails in the ground at night and connecting wires to both spikes and then connected to a street lamp in a park Gollee! Hundreds of 'night crawlers' came up use as crab bait. That was around 1940 and I can't remember who taught me that trick

[Ednausean]

I remember driving two long nails in the ground at night and connecting wires to both spikes and then connected to a street lamp in a park Gollee! Hundreds of 'night crawlers' came up use as crab bait. That was around 1940 and I can't remember who taught me that trick

[Simon]

Can we, at least, have a link to the paper, please?
There is nothing in this "article" to indicate how they determined that moles were the predator involved or that the technique improved survival. (Here in Japan we have a snake (Achalinus spinalis) that chases earthworms underground!)
How about underground recordings to compare the sounds of real moles and the synthetic ones? Or did they interview the worms?

"GREEN CENTRAL
Intelligent, informed insights you can trust"

Haha! The greenest thing around is the author. Or maybe he's getting stale. I don't think I'll be visiting THIS blog again, thank you.

[drawlr]

This is about the most moronic thing I have ever read. When a stick is inserted into the ground and rubbed or struck, or metal electrified rods are inserted into the ground and the electricity applied, the worms come up because the vibrations are uncomfortable to the worms. They come to the surface to escape the vibrations. That's all. Pure and simple. It has nothing to do with evolution. I hope no tax dollars were wasted on that bogus study.

[LF]

This is the worst titled piece I have seen in a long time.

Charles Darwin repeating something he had heard is not 'charles darwin's instincts'.

I looked at the title and assumed that we had discovered some new thing about worms having to do with evolution, ...then I find out it has nothing to do with evolution but instead has been common knowledge for hundreds of years....

The title falsely makes it seem like Darwin had some brilliant flash of insight and foretold something that wouldn't be discovered or verified for the next hundred years, but that isn't the case at all.

[Jane]

touchy about that Darwin name...

DRAWLR-- article doesn't say it's because of evolution-- says it's because of moles. Though the rest of your post begs me to ask the question that someone asked of the paper below-- did you interview the worms?

And, for the folks that really want to know about what's actually in the paper-- can't you go look it up without harassing the author to give you a link?

[Jeroen]

....you should go and write more ghost stories...
DARWIN IS A HOAX !!!
RELIGION IS A HOAX!!!
GLOBAL WARMING IS A HOAX!!!
DEMOCRATIE IS A HOAX!!!
REALITY IS A HOAX!!!

WAKE UP FOLKS...we've created this reality, so we SURE CAN CHANGE IT!!!

DONT BE A SHEEP AND BELIEVE DARWINS THEORY, ITS NONSENS !!!!!!

[Jeroen]

...o yeah, i forgot.....FIRE THIS MAN!

[Wormadmirer]

I never knew worms were so clever. Tucked away in their miniscule brains is the ability to know what a mole is. I wonder what other animals they recognise.

[KR]

In answer to many of the comments here, my theory is that all of the evidence about evolution was created by God during the manufacture of the planet. This means evolution is, itself, a creation of God and by questioning this you imperil your immortal soul.
So shut up and get a life!

[FJ]

John Robertson:

Did you not see today's story about the DinoBird?

Also, just because we haven't found a fossil, doesn't mean it didn't exist. Fossillized remains account for a tiny proportion of all living creatures that have ever existed.

[Greg]

This blog made a wonderful read and highlighted, for me, the general ignorance and misinformation which clutters modern life.

My one observation is that you are all talking about a null hypothesis - an idea which is presented to be tested scientifically. A hypothesis cannot be proven only disproven. When the hypothesis cannot be disproven it remains testable and, after many tests, may forms an acceptable THEORY about how something may work.

The wonderful thing about science is that it is alive and can accept new ideas into the work. So please, can we get back to proper science and accept that the original writer, no matter what you may think, has laid out something for you all to disprove if you so wish; not just to rubbish indiscriminately.

[Eos Pengwern]

The original article can be found here:
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0003472

It seems like a competent piece of work but it's hard to see what real significance it has. If it weren't for the invocation of the magic word "Darwin" then it seems unlikely that it would gain any attention, certainly not in the popular press. Even Darwin's role is rather peripheral in this, as he does not seem to have thought up the mole idea himself (far less posited it as a test of his more famous hypothesis) but endorsed some folklore which presumably was widely believed at the time.

If this article teaches us anything at all, it seems to be that Darwinists are so desperate to shore up the reputation of their tarnished idol that they'll invoke just about anything with the most peripheral connection with him.

[Toni]

"Worms need to breathe and can drown underground if flooded."

Not red wrigglers. (Santa Barbara,CA)

[Paul Joseph]

> If it was proven, it wouldn't be a theory.

Completely and utterly wrong. You have no understanding the concept of a scientific theory at all. It is not a wild guess. It is an explanation that accounts for what is known and it can NEVER be "proven" because it always remains open to falsification and to a more comprehensive explanation. That is the scientific method.

"Theory" also accounts for planes flying.

The theory of evolution is about as well established scientifically as the theory of gravitation.Too bad your ignorance and prejudice blind you to objective reality.

Darwin studied earthworms for 20 years and wrote a book about them. He was also an expert on barnacles. However, Darwin was not a man who relied upon "instinct" but on the power of observation. The title is careless.

But one this certain, just mention Darwin and the biblical literalists will emerge like night-crawlers (that's worms in English). And all they are is latterday worms-eye-view flat earthers who'd have loved to burn Galileo at the stake if they'd had a chance.

Very probably all life is related. Get over it.

[Paul Joseph]

> If it was proven, it wouldn't be a theory.

Completely and utterly wrong. You have no understanding the concept of a scientific theory at all. It is not a wild guess. It is an explanation that accounts for what is known and it can NEVER be "proven" because it always remains open to falsification and to a more comprehensive explanation. That is the scientific method.

"Theory" also accounts for planes flying.

The theory of evolution is about as well established scientifically as the theory of gravitation.Too bad your ignorance and prejudice blind you to objective reality.

Darwin studied earthworms for 20 years and wrote a book about them. He was also an expert on barnacles. However, Darwin was not a man who relied upon "instinct" but on the power of observation. The title is careless.

But one this certain, just mention Darwin and the biblical literalists will emerge like night-crawlers (that's worms in English). And all they are is latterday worms-eye-view flat earthers who'd have loved to burn Galileo at the stake if they'd had a chance.

Very probably all life is related. Get over it.

[El gato]

Ah, how they try to convince themselves there is no Creator! The extremely complex universe is the result of an explosion? You really have to be completely stupid to believe that. When the atheists die and met God they will be so sorry! It's the lake of fire and everlasting torment for them. They will have plenty of time to think about their denials...if they are able to think with all the screaming going on.

[Rick A Hyatt]

Talking about Worm Calling...
"Obama is just Chump Change"

[John Bayldon]

Am amazed that there are so many daft goddists about in England. In my 60 + years have never met one of them outside of America where, after theor ancestors were persuaded to leave Europe, such types bred like earthworms, in a Darwinian evolutionary example of an environment favouring the survival of the daft or vicious.
I have an hypothesis (as of about Ten minutes ago) that the worms surface because their system tells them it is safe to do so -safer than staying underground and nothing to do with moles:
The vibrations indicate rain or hail falling- this in turn means fewer predators- birds etc about-and likelyhood of ground flooding. Therefore worm survival= get up higher. A reasonable survival strategy, regardless that a very tiny percentage of worms will be taken by cunning predators.:Also the (billions of) worms doing this will help provide vertical channels into the subsoil which should help drain the rain water away from the surface more quickly and also enable plants and tree roots to better access- draw up the water which is part of the worm's job description- ('function' to the scientist) (God's purpose to the goddist)
I doubt that moles have much to do with this behaviour since the moles evolved much later than did the worms.
One experiment- to help confound all these hypotheses- mine included, would be to scuba dive and do the same experiment on the sea. or lake bed. Would their water dwelling worm cousins, surface just as their land lubber relatives do? Somehow I guess they might. What hypothesis then re the earthworm behaviour? Pres' : The land dwelling adaptation of an ancient pre-land dwelling trait.
I respectfully suggest to those of a godding disposition, that they interest themselves in sea creatures-fossils and modern fish, where many so called 'missing links' are no longer missing, but clearly 'linked'.

[John Bayldon]

Having scanned the text of the relevant research article- Grateful thanks Eos Pengwern (above)
and without further detailed study, I withdraw my previous: 'Rain only' and 'not related to moles' hypothesis/ response.
A good paper and I feel, an area worth further investigation/ study.
Thanks also Lewis Smith, for bringing this to our attention- it is likely that our entire survival as a species- possibly a terminably conceited speicies- may depend on such humble, unseen toilers as these.

[JohnnyB]

Surely any worm that comes into contact with a mole will be eaten. Therefore the worm will not be able to pass on any learning to the next generation of worms (if indeed it could). So how will any worm know that a mole is dangerous until it is too late? So why would a worm be afraid of a mole?

[SCOTT]

For JohnnyB: None of the worm's ancestors 'knew' to go to the surface, it's just that the 'dumb', random (but consistent) behavior meant those worms which didn't move just didn't have many children. Evolution isn't about knowing the right answer, it's about those who get it wrong not surviving.

[Michael]

A previous comment about this behaviour being more to do with birds than moles is correct.
It is just another example of self-appointed experts displaying their ignorance for all to see.
Anywhere in England where seagulls look ofr food on grassy areas will disprove the mole theory.
Seagulls can be observed rapidly tapping the ground waiting for the earthworm to surface in response,thus providing it with food.
This is a nice example of adaptation to the need to survive when one source(fish)of food is scarce,due to competition by humans over-exploiting it.
To the worms of course,it feels like heavy rain,which is not good for them,anymore than it is for us,hence the need to surface.

[AghastKansan]

I'm a Deist. However, it is remarkable to me that the so called creationists think that God is not intelligent enough to have devised evolution.

With that said, I have a question (from a recent time-travel novel about Peter Kropotkin): Can God make a stove heavier than He can lift?:

[Greg Holthaus]

AghastKansan wrote: "Can God make a stove heavier than He can lift?: "

AK,
George Carlin used to torture the nuns at his elementary school with this question (except his was about a stone, as opposed to a stove).

This question fascinates us because we are finite creatures who are trapped in time. We are great at measuring things, but we don’t handle infinity and eternity very well. For example, we’re always trying to measure the universe, based on how far we can see this week.

The answer to your question hinges on your definition of God. If He is infinite and eternal, then He can make a rock, or kitchen appliance, of infinite mass. He also is capable of appling an infinite amount of force in an effort to move that object. (The notion of “lifting’ it would presuppose that He created a second rock of infinite mass and that He sought to separate the two masses.)

Will He get the thing lifted? As God, He would have an eternity to do so,…… so you tell me? Can a force of infinite magnitude overcome another force of infinte magnitude? And would it happen in an instant or would it take an infinite amount of “time”?

The Carlin question is often used in an effort to tear down the idea of God, but, in my mind, it makes him even more impressive.

[Salvatore]

I think here there is little room for the clash between creationism and evolutionism...
I can just tell that when it rains, the worms are closer to the surface. Just dig a little bit and you'll find hundreds of them. When it is dry instead they are more in depth.
In my opinion (and I'm totally ignorant on the topic) this happens because when it rains their ideal humid habitat is closer to the surface. And, observing what happens in my garden, this is a feast for birds.
As far as worm grunting... well I'll never try it! I'm too afraid of worms... If you wanna give a try, you are the very welcome in my garden.

[Kezm@n]

Here in the Isle of Man we don't have moles,(never have)
yet bird such as sea gulls stamp their feet rapidly on the ground to raise worms from the soil. This is thought to deceive the worms into thinking it is raining, so come to the upper layers of soil.

[Lahoma VanZandt]

Oh goody! I just love to torture nuns!!!

[KEVIN in NOHO]

What I have not seen commented on is the leap that if Darwin is right about moles and earthworms, then his theory of evolution must also be right. And that is a leap not even God could make.

The worms are just unhappy that their indifferent and peaceful lives are disturbed by a strange noise whilst trying to relax with a copy of Wormie Oliver's latest mud based recipe book.

[Bob Charles]

As kids, we used to stamp on the ground with our feet or hands, and worms used to come up to the surface. Our theory was that the worms would think it was raining heavily and didn't want to drown. Whatever, it seems very unlikely that our primitive stamping sounds just like a mole too. Sounds like dodgy research to me.

[Richard]

Erm...KEVIN in NOHO...

Where does the article even MENTION Darwin's (in many thousands of other studies supported) evolution theory?

I fear this 'leap' may have taken place in your own (possibly fervently religious?) mind.

[ruskee]

It's hilarious how mere mention of the name 'Darwin' brings forth the religiose neurotics scrambling to spew their sickness. When oh when will they ever see reason? The theory of evolution, as imminently rational as it is, isn't even alluded to in the artice!!

[milos]

Thank you Scott for explaining to Johnny B how evolution works. We clearly need to have better teaching in schools: little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

[peter]

seems to be some misunderstanding by a few posting here. so a simply explanation of How to disprove scientific theory?

I offer a theory that i am god. now if you turn around and say, no your wrong, my wife is god. You are not disproving my original theory that 'i am god'.
The only way you can disprove my theory, is to give evidence why i'm not god. shooting me in the head might prove your point, but offering evidence that your wife is god doesn't disprove my theory, as we could both be god.

IMO, Creationists should adopt evolution as gods tool in creating infinite forms of life, they would get a great deal more respect from these with a bit of education and maybe even expand there followers..

[BUBBA]

PETER, that is not how scientific theory works. You claim that you are god. Now, YOU have to prove that. We don't have to disprove it.

[daniel carhart]

brien

If there is a god then who is his mum?
where is his father, to see what he's done!
Is he like our's who art in heaven
who seems to be missing 24/7

[witness seed awakening]

almost every domestic plant and animal on this planet are no older genetically than about 13 thousand years ago. explore other scientists such as Lloyd Pye or Edmund Marriage to start your vision quest.

we are much, much older than that, a race with amnesia.

place your faith in yourself and love your fellow man, don't give it up your vital energy to any theories, religious or secular!

nghdhs

duhgfouehfio;huado;wehyfu;ioergyho;ailfuvjo;uirw'fpguwituiotuerpgjvkjvd;fjk;vjd;glk[ogfjrkcvjvhjbvkljvsfl;jkegojibhhj;gjudfjo;fuierpghjilgjuv;gerhjgjr;gj;dfobgjdf;ogjdf;ogifo;gjkf;gvjf;gjvf;gjf;gjdgjklgj;jgas;vj;fjkw[fojeigl;hjiobhlvkfhgfkhweafp'ishsflhgfjqepqwowejprt'hnerghilfh;oifjsdfgbnjnvvj,xdfg,ds.vhdasgieqgibigfhevkshfhvfnvxbb,z,,hgudgtouepqwhavvnqexjipuxhegcfgurtggdhjsuksiorld,dytfjjerwf!!

why do i find this article more interesting than the Michelle Obama article...

[john Cullen]

Why is it that despite millions of people praying to god every day, random chance shares out the good and the bad equally between the prayers and the non-prayers?
Answer; Because god provides the same function as crossing your fingers or carrying a rabbit's foot.
John C

[Jack]

I do not know of anything that is contained in the Universe that is not observably going from order to disorder. Mr Darwin who did a great work of classification and observing adaptation, skipped over this immutable law in this Universe. Perhaps there is another Universe where Entropy is not the law, but we certainly have not experienced it yet.
Even more Mr. Darwin would be happily shocked to see what his fellow scientist saw decades later through more sophisticated microscopes. He was a thoughtful man and would have thrown in the towel on evolution had he been forced to muse over the origins of DNA. The idea of information that tells an earthworm to flee is in that genetic information which is wonderfully complex. And what about the genetic information that makes us able to marvel over all this great science.

[PAkers]

Thank you Ruskee. I was starting to think it was me not reading between the lines or something. I started to question my reading comprehension until i came across your comment.

[Wormguy]

For the most complete information regarding worms go to www.wormbooks.com

[Steve]

I chase off moles here by watering granulated garlic (buy it for horses) down their holes. Or maybe worms flee garlic, and moles thus hunt elsewhere? Or neither genus likes the water? Darwin would look for his good friend Occam, but Sky Gods feature nowhere.

[Mari]

Well, I don't see that Darwin is proven right about anything in this instance--from the comment as cited here he was merely remarking on what was then received wisdom--he didn't invent the idea or postulate as to the cause, did he? He just said, people say it's because worms think it's a mole.
I'm also a little bemused as to why we leap to the conclusion this response in worms is based on instinct. Is there any evidence at all that this is not learned behaviour? Too many assumptions by half here.

[Samuel Halter]

After this blog i shall never look at worms in the same way again.

[M. Kirby]

what a load of worm manure

[k Mansfield]

Publishing this article about a theory of Darwin's we have been able to test another hypothesis: that reasoning skills of more the pious are surely lacking, and that a reasonable action would be to improve education.

[Simon Levene]

OK, we've all had two days to work out what K Mansfield is talking about. Does anyone have any suggestions?

[Todd]

Here's an example of worm grunting from the New Scientist

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=roJjq2hHhvY

[Patrick Boren]

Is there a need to support Darwin's instincts? I thought that Darwinism was already a stated fact?

Interesting that Paul an apostle of Jesus Christ wrote to the church at Rome "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen."

Interesting that DNA is the invisible evidence of creative design. Where did all that intelligence come from? It would be like finding a book buried in the sand and claiming it arrived through the process of evolution.

I must confess though, you who believe Darwin's theory truly have a great amount of faith to stretch to these links to encourage your beliefs.

[Jim Norton]

@Patrick Boren
DNA didn't just appear one day.. that is the flaw in you're attempt at logic..
EVOLUTION is the key, not things just magically appearing and then going "hey how did that get here" it doesn't work like that..

"GOD" is as real as santa claus..

People are of course free to believe in whatever nonsense they want.

[Patrick Boren]

Jim, that is my point, DNA didn't just appear when we found it, it has always been there since the creation, when it did just appear out of nothing as God created it out of nothing. Interesting that the DNA is following the pattern of "after its kind" just like the account given in Genesis.

Ditto on people are free to believe whatever nonsense they choose, that goes for you too.

After all neither of us were there. I'll take my faith, over your faith, after all that is what it boils down to for all of us.

I truly hope however that you see my site and see some of the amazing prophesies that are unfolding in our day, because it is the prophetic nature of the bible that gives it credence that it is from a supernatural source. http://inluvwjesus.googlepages.com

[Cheetah]

And I thought that the point of the article was to illumin those of us who want fish bait. Seems the title was pretty good bait too.

The looney tunes who deny creation are about as correct as the looney tunes who presume they know exactly how God did it.

[Mike Heil]

Let me get this straight. The sound brings the worms to the surface as an evolutionary defense against predators.. But it brings them right into the hands or beaks of predators.

How is the evolution? It's backwards. Shouldn't the stupid worms that went to the surface have died off and that gene destroyed. How can the strongest survive if they get eaten.

Anything to prove ol' Charie wasn't a quack eh?

[Wise Man from the East]

For those wishing to prove God does not exist, it is as simple as doing just one thing:

...rebuild Babylon!

God said it will never be rebuilt. Do so, and you have proven your right to be an atheist.

(I just hope that you live to recognize His supremacy in your failed attempt...)

May God bless you all with a Joyful Christmas.

[Denis]

You really are a stirer Brien. I thought it was us who created God.

[A. Mole (Age 27 3/4)]

He heeee!
You're all wrong! When we hear that noise, we send the worms up first to see if it's safe!

[Hue]

Evidence for who?
It's high time people started to look at the evidence against:
darwinismrefutedDOTcom

[San Ying]

Worms do NOT think of moles when they hear the noise and feel the vibrations of the spike being hammered. They think it is an EARTHQUAKE and therefore try to get away by coming to the surface. QED.

[Jack]

These findings don't support Darwin's instincts persay, but rather support a theory he had heard. Now if it had been Columbo...

[paul]

Why does this page exist? Before I was a teenager (a couple of decades ago now) I used to waggle my mothers garden fork in the ground to make the worms appear. Me and all my wee fishing pals knew that the worms were trying to escape a potential mole attack.

This biologist chappy wants to take his projects to primary school for quick cheap answers.

I fully agree with Mr. Comerford. There are many non lethal (for the worm not the fish (which is not for sport rather a meal)) alternatives to using worms to catch your dinner.