Animals and insects have evolved to camouflage themselves to the point where they are at times almost totally undetectable by their predators. How can an organism do this though. How did the tree frog or a tree lizard that looks just like bark, evolve to look just like their surroundings?
One very simplified answer is that over countless generations the ones that looked more like the bark upon which the species lives were eaten less by predators. Thus, the ones that were harder to spot for predators were less likely to be eaten and had a survival advantage over the ones that didn’t.
Again, over countless generations, the greater survival and reproduction of the camoflagued species eventually won out over the non-camoflagued expression and the species are as we see them today.
This is only a possibility, I’m not claiming that it is necessarily the case.
cheers,
gemty
ahhhh ooohhh
Of course this, like all evolutionary explanations, assumes that such dynamics are the only forces at play. The truth is that there’s every chance of the slightly more camouflaged beast being eaten by the others of its kind who aren’t so well camouflaged precisely because it is different.
An algorithm that makes perfect sense on paper but no sense in the field…
Sure sure. As you can probably tell, I’m not in the least bit convinced this sort of description of affairs…
That’s why I said its a simplified answer.
care to elaborate?
I just answered the question, I didn’t say that evolution was correct, or even true.
cheers,
gemty
I know that you didn’t say that it was correct…
that’s like saying galilei’s law of movement is wrong because like, like… everybody knows heave cannonballs fall faster than lighter ones, right?? i mean they’re heavier so they have to… right? 
for example… how much do you think having a slightly different colour really influences an animal’s recognition by others of it’s kind?
don’t you think that other things are more important, like say… scent? shape? behaviour?
not to mention predators will very rarely attack other predators with the intention to kill it
what would more realisticly happen is a rejection of an individual from it’s group for having an odd scent or whatever
nevertheless, evolution remains an observed fact
here’s a nice article on experiments with bacteria, in case you should think that evolution is not a serious field of investigation
myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2003 … Lenski.pdf
SIATD, you said darwins evolution makes NO SENSE in the field?
you mean like its impossible for dna to randomly mutate to coincidentally cause skin that looks like bark? or do you mean that this skin is not necessarily related to the survivability of the animal that grew it? or do you mean that the intermediate steps that would be required in order to produce this mutation would be less sucessfull for survival and therefore the full characteristic would never develop?
theres “a” chance. i think the existence of the characteristic in todays camoflauged bugs means it wasnt very important.
dont kid yourself, its either darwinian evolution or its god/aliens. or its something that humans have not even begun to comprehend. and no matter which it is, every piece of evidence we find (which is much more than none) points right at darwinian. right SIATD?
or does none of that matter at all? and it could still just as likely be unicorns? cause i think its pretty clear that darwin is winning the truth race by a long shot. (im referring to our last dicussion about Truth)
No, I said that the algorithm that claims that a marginally stronger animal is more likely to survive works on paper (and in those cool evolutionary computer programs where you pair programs off against one another to produce a stronger program) but isn’t guaranteed (in any way) to work in the field.
No, this sort of thing is relatively easy to demonstrate…
It isn’t necessarily linked in the way that mathematics is based on necessary links…
No, I’m saying that there’s no overall guarantee that any given mutation will increase the creature’s chance of survival
I favour the latter…
Hardly…
That Darwin existed isn’t even verifiable scientifically…
lol
but if you had to guess, every single inductive piece of evidence you have ever accumulated on the subject suggests that the one that is more camoflauged will be eaten less and will therefore survive more if all else is equal (the only necessary difference between the two is the amount of food spent on the camoflauge itself).
oh right inductive = nothing. [nothing] suggests that the one that is more camoflauged will be eaten less. why dont you start a thread with the title: “you dont KNOW that you arent just a brain in a vat and this isnt the matrix”. isnt that what this boils down to?
I thought that you’d like that one
None of the information (evidence) that we’ve collected was collected under conditions where all else was equal therefore what you’ve said is totally speculative.
No
even - no, especially! - the greatest proponent of evolution won’t argue with that
in fact, most mutations are not beneficial
so what?
So nothing, I’m not the one advancing a theory to explain something…
Name one situation in the natural world where any observation can take place where all other things are equal.
It cannot, hence evolutionary theory is metaphysical, not physical (as most scientists would claim)…
boy oh boy… scientists are frauds! they claim they know things for certain and and and…
oh wait, maybe that’s not true…
science has insecurity built in every claim it makes
random variations in circumstances are inherent and even essential to science, which is exactly what makes it different from philosophy and religion
every experiment is accompanied by statistical analysis and each conclusion comes with propabilities within ranges
every scientist is familiar with the ‘count all cars that drive 60 km/hr’ experiment
come on guys… which one of you is really familiar with scientific method?
you’re looking at science from the outlook of philosophy alone, which distorts your perspective
Willem,
Certainty doesn’t bother me - no one has certainty. All we have is best guesses. My argument tend to focus on the fact that scientists complete misuse reasoning then claim to be more reasonable that religion (which remains to be seen).
A metaphysical method, an abstraction into language. It’s exactly the same as philosophy.
Probability is a metaphysical construct. Like it or not what you claim separates science from philosophy and religion is in fact what makes it identical to them.
You are looking at science on science’s terms. I’m looking at it on a series of different terms. As I’ve said before, all epistemologies are valid on their own terms and special on their own terms. Reason is a metaphor, science is metaphysics.
science formulates the best guess. based on what it observes. if science isn’t the most reasonable, it certainly is the most realistic
not, it’s a mathematical construct
i’ve never seen probabilistic considerations in philosophy or religion, nor have i seen any accurate calculations based on observed facts
care to explain?
Again, realism is a metaphor, science is metaphysical
Mathematics is metaphysical - do you understand the word ‘metaphysical’?
I’ll assume that this is because you’ve never read philosophy. Plenty of philosophers use probability.
Language is metaphysical, it is a supplement to experience. Phenomenology (which is needed PRIOR to science having any authority whatsoever) is reliant on some sort of language that manages to capture experience (specifically, presence) in a manner that retains its meaning through time. Of course this is a contradiction, language is always an exchange, it never retains meaning nor is it ever designed to do so.
everything is possible, but perception is all we have
where hume says nothing is meaningful, i can only shrug and look at what science has accomplished compared to what has been the practical use of philosophy above what anyone would describe as common sense
we don’t need absolute prodictability… we can’t have it and we probably wouldn’t want it either
but this doesn’t make science less valuable or meaningful in any way
correct me if i’m wrong, it seems to me that hume thinks that something has to be certain before it can be meaningful
i honestly can’t see why that should be the case
i have a notion of what metaphysics means, but please, be as kind as to extend my notion to full understanding ^^
mathematics is a tool for science, providing it with the ability to construct limited models of percieved reality
but it’s nothing more than a tool
interesting… i wonder what they use it for
yours 