So. Evolution vs Camouflage

[doomdragon6]

So, I am one that believes in evolution and all that jazz that comes with it, and I have a pretty good understanding of how it works. Individuals of a species with certain traits are better suited for certain things, they are more likely to survive and reproduce, and this causes evolution after a very very long time. It's actually a fairly simple concept.

BUT, one thing always catches me. Creatures that evolve to look like, imitate, or disguise themselves as other creatures or things for the sole purpose of deceiving another creature.

There are plenty I've thought about before this, but what finally made me decide to post this was this Cracked article: http://www.cracked.com/article_1874...Science&wa_user3=article&wa_user4=recommended

Spiders that look like ants, spiders that look like ants with mandibles that look like a second ant, mussels with perfect fish-replica egg sacs, caterpillars that morph into fucking snakes, spiders that look like bird crap, etc.

There are plenty more I've encountered in the real world and read about elsewhere, and I just can't fathom it. It's easy to understand that a creature would evolve to be able to puff itself up or look bigger, but to perfectly emulate a snake head? With a tongue? Or to look like TWO ants but be a spider?

Some creatures can even look like it was an accident-- for example, I was out scuba-diving once and went to pick up a shell. It darted and swam away from me, because it was a flat fish, buried in the sand, that looked exactly like a seashell. I already thought that was impressive, but you can see where a fish could "happen" to evolve with those colors and that shape and it "happens" to live longer as a result, because it's hidden.

BUT IT'S NOT EMULATING A SNAKE. It doesn't retract its head into its body, bulging the sides of its specifically shaped neck with PERFECT snake decorations on it to make a perfectly-shaped snake head.

Basically, things that evolve in a way that seem to specifically deceive creatures in a certain way based off of "outside" sources, rather than just evolving to "blend in" which is an easily understandable trait evolution.

Discuss?

 

[LittleSin]

I know you mean this as a serious discussion but I had this conversation last night with my friends when Jet was with my inlaws.

We were high as kites.

Any ways, I think we came to the conclusion that the shitty animals that didn't look like dangerous things got killed or fucked up..and the ones the did were able to pass themselves on to the next generation and so so until you get the perfect replica.

Eugenics!!!

 

[fade]

That's pretty much the answer. It didn't happen in one generation either. The ones that looked more like a snake survived longer than the ones that didn't, and got it on more, etc.

 

[Mathias]

I know you mean this as a serious discussion but I had this conversation last night with my friends when Jet was with my inlaws.

We were high as kites.

Any ways, I think we came to the conclusion that the shitty animals that didn't look like dangerous things got killed or fucked up..and the ones the did were able to pass themselves on to the next generation and so so until you get the perfect replica.

Eugenics!!!

A winnar is you!

 

[Null]

And they're not perfect replicas, they're "good enough" replicas. The same goes for patterns that aren't mimicry of anything specific but create an off-putting shape just the same - like butterflies with giant eyespots on their wings that look kinda-sorta like an owl's face or something. But honestly, camouflage isn't against evolution, it's evidence FOR evolution more than anything else. For example, the famous example of the moths changing color to match their polluted environment - originally a light gray to match the bark of trees in their native habitat in England (around Newcastle I think), then the trees became blackened by the coal soot in the air polluting them. The light colored moths became easy to see, but the darker ones weren't as easy to see, so they reproduced, and in several generations (mind you, insect generations are exponentially shorter than other animal generations) the dark-colored moths that blended in better became the dominant variety. To this day, most of that species of moth are dark charcoal grey in color, with only a few rare lighter ones born - but the same species from an area just a few dozen miles away are the light color, because their environment doesn't have the coal-darkened trees.

 

[LittleSin]

I hate to do this but I really wanna know what point figmentPez disagreed on.

Also, just read what I posted last night. While the story is true (re: being high) I can't believe I posted it. Someone should take the computer from me when I have a fever and am on Nyquil

 

[figmentPez]

I hate to do this but I really wanna know what point figmentPez disagreed on.

The moths are an ambiguous piece of evidence. What I've read in the scientific press in recent years suggests that it might have been temperature change that spurred the change in coloration, or some other environmental factor, and not predation. Even if it was predation, it was not properly studied before that conclusion was declared to be true, as there were multiple incidents of questionable methods used in the original study of the moths.

That is not to say that such evolution does not occur, merely that the peppered moths are not a great example to use. I dislike bad science, especially when other scientists try and retcon it into being good science all along. The right conclusion for the wrong reasons does not justify those wrong reasons.

 

[MindDetective]

as there were multiple incidents of questionable methods used in the original study of the moths.

Actually, this is somewhat untrue in itself. A lot of anti-evolutionary rhetoric suggests that some of the research is faulty because the researchers falsified data (or something, it isn't really clear what the accusations are...they seem to vary in sophistication) by sticking moths onto trees and other surfaces. The thing is, the original research did that intentionally, generally explained how and why they did it, and in doing it, demonstrated that moths that matched their background were less likely to be eaten than ones that stood out. This allowed them to conclude that it was entirely plausible for moths to evolve camouflage in this manner. That said, there were flaws in the research, but nothing that shattered the basic concept behind evolutionary adaptations of camouflage.

Here's a quick run-down on this very topic that lays out nicely what's good and bad about the original research and why it shouldn't simply be discounted for having some methodological flaws: http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/Moths/moths.html
Added at: 17:47
You know, wikipedia handles it even better, I think: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution#Predation_experiments

 

[figmentPez]

The right conclusion for the wrong reasons does not justify those wrong reasons.

 

[MindDetective]

That's what I'm saying, they weren't entirely wrong reasons. It wasn't the whole story, but you didn't say "incomplete reasons", you said "wrong reasons".

 

[LittleSin]

I'm failing to see the wrong reasons Pez is referring too. Scientific method has come a long way since then...but the logic in this seems sound.

 

[figmentPez]

I'm failing to see the wrong reasons Pez is referring too. Scientific method has come a long way since then...but the logic in this seems sound.

EDIT: Screw it, I don't want to argue about this. Camoflage really does improve when more visible creatures get picked off by predators, and the more hidden patterned creatures pass on those genes to their offspring. Weather or not the peppered moth is a textbook worthy example doesn't change that one way or another.

 

[makare]

I am going to call the disagree button the the Pez button.

 

[Calleja]

Yeah... the other day I was talking about this with someone that used that as a point "against" evolution. Lots of people tend to think evolution is "clever", with all that "ooh, isn't mother nature SMART for doing that?" when the fact of the matter is that mutations are random, there many many more that are actually detrimental and just never get passed on. It's the few really lucky ones that give a bit of an advantage that start making a difference big enough to cause speciation. Over a long, long, long long time. Like really long.

And this might be sort of another subject entirely, but I also think part of the problem is that people underestimate just how long a time something like "a million years" is. "Million" is a word we throw around all day, but it's really a big fucking number, you're probably not even going to live one million hours.

 

[Frank]

Y'all are fuckin' stupid if y'all believe that evolution horse puckey. Just all tricked by the jew run science media.