Have you ever noticed that sometimes if you look at an animal or plant’s markings, it looks like they’re trying to look like another animal or plant? Maybe they’re trying to look scarier or less appetizing? And maybe their appearance only works with a certain way of seeing/perspective relevant to the certain species they don’t want to get eaten/attacked by? What I mean is, maybe their appearance only works as camouflage because the species is handicapped by their way of seeing?
What if extinct species are written all over the markings of living ones? Species that don’t even show up in the fossil records?
Copilot doesn’t seem to have turned up any research relevant to this. If you know of any, please share in the comments.
Heritability. If a frog with a red diamond on its back is known to be toxic, then any other species of frog which mutates to have a similar impression of the original toxic frog will increase its survivability, therefore the lineage will proliferate.
If the original diamond-backed (poisonous) frog becomes extinct, the expression that it left (red diamonds are bad) will continue in the species which is bluffing.
Therefore, there is evidence of the previous species left as a remnant in the current species that indicates its origins.
Yes, we can look at this in the way you are describing, markings are evidence of not only camouflage, but also as an imprint of what worked best at the time.
The only problem with that is adaptation can either be an in-the-moment thing (like hiding behind a tree) appropriate to the situation, or it can be a gradual adaptation to resemble one’s environment in a way that promotes the ability to mate, eat, or defend/ensure one’s existence.
Even if most mutations weren’t deleterious, the appropriateness to the situation… how do I put this?…this is an even worse model than behaviorism, in other words. Behaviorism only works when there’s not a whole bunch of time between stimulus and response (to put it simply). How long does it take to develop the sort of camouflage/ornamentation that helps you survive/thrive in a situation?
Species like chameleons — now that makes sense. That’s in-the-moment — but if you developed that capacity right there in that moment, that would not be evolution as it is currently presented.
And if animals/plants keep the “imprints” of their environment long after it served its “evolutionary“ purpose… could there be a purpose that lasts longer (or isn’t about temporal longevity) than the “evolutionary” purpose?
Maybe a sort of beauty that is for its own sake, rather than mating, or eating, or defending? Maybe just a beautiful way to identify similarities and differences in the world, for relational purposes that are beyond evolutionary?
This gives manufacturing consent whole new meaning. I don’t think you can manufacture consent ex nihilo. That’s why the spirit returns to the God who gave it.
ooo I have another follow up question. What if the species that came first was the non-toxic species, and the toxic species is the one that’s bluffing (you’re toxic already…why do you need a red diamond as a warning label?… and why would it work for a non-toxic animal to copy you if it takes time to learn that red diamond means toxic?… or is it programmed into the other species AFTER THE FACT to associate red diamond with danger without having to learn it by experience? … that is a VERY long time to adapt without dying. …maybe red diamond was never a signal of danger, and we’re projecting? … or maybe there’s a programmer involved?)? How do you figure out which came first? And once you do… don’t you still have to deal with the fact that evolution is literally THEE longest con/bluff…? And a conspiracy theory at that. We’re talking whole species conning whole other species… and it has nothing to do with what is happening in the moment, because mutations are too late/early for the moments for which they are useful. Then there’s the question about what is the selection pressure of usefulness if nothing is even alive yet?
Evolution is a conspiracy theory? Then I’m in the wrong thread anyway, I don’t want to have such a discussion, it’s been had before a million times online.
The context/punchline you ripped that out of… which NO ONE has ever said before (correct me if I’m wrong), much less a million times:
(Disclaimer… The selection pressure thing has been said, but about stuff like the evolution of sexual reproduction… in my recent memory… which is not great… (Evolution of sexual reproduction - Wikipedia)
To eat, or…? Withdrawn, your honor.