Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[Dan From Smithville]

It wasn't very "veiled". Even I spotted it.

I'm losing interest in this thread. There is nothing from the opposing view except logical fallacies and games. There really isn't even an opposing view. It just meaningless stuff that seems made up. And rambling nothing.

I've concluded it is a waste of time to try and engage some people.

I still think I might make a thread discussing natural selection or consciousness. Those would be interesting to discuss and any off topic nonsense and empty claims presented as fact can be weeded out.

 

[John53]

I'm losing interest in this thread. There is nothing from the opposing view except logical fallacies and games. There really isn't even an opposing view. It just meaningless stuff that seems made up. And rambling nothing.

I've concluded it is a waste of time to try and engage some people.

I still think I might make a thread discussing natural selection or consciousness. Those would be interesting to discuss and any off topic nonsense and empty claims presented as fact can be weeded out.

I have questions I can't figure out how to ask. I'm fascinated by camouflage in animals and although I'm firmly in the evolution corner it's hard to imagine the circumstances that were needed for something like Citrus Swallowtail caterpillars that looks like bird droppings.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I have questions I can't figure out how to ask. I'm fascinated by camouflage in animals and although I'm firmly in the evolution corner it's hard to imagine the circumstances that were needed for something like Citrus Swallowtail caterpillars that looks like bird droppings.

Predation can be very strong selection. A mutation that leads to even a small change in the prey species might provide a fitness advantage significant enough to increase the frequency of the mutation in the population. Further mutations might lead to behavioral changes or enhance the effect of the camouflage. It is like an endless competition of tug of war between prey populations and predators with that environment selecting for the traits that have the greatest fitness benefit.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I have questions I can't figure out how to ask. I'm fascinated by camouflage in animals and although I'm firmly in the evolution corner it's hard to imagine the circumstances that were needed for something like Citrus Swallowtail caterpillars that looks like bird droppings.

I know that is pretty general without any specific details, but lacking familiarity with the history the traits development, and such traits and species having little or no physical historical record, it is difficult to come up with specifics. I would think that research into comparative genetics between related species, examination of co-evolution, even among unrelated groups, comparative morphological analysis with closely related species might at least generate questions to ask. It would be an interesting study to discover how this trait evolved.

 

[John53]

I know that is pretty general without any specific details, but lacking familiarity with the history the traits development, and such traits and species having little or no physical historical record, it is difficult to come up with specifics. I would think that research into comparative genetics between related species, examination of co-evolution, even among unrelated groups, comparative morphological analysis with closely related species might at least generate questions to ask. It would be an interesting study to discover how this trait evolved.

I've been reading a little online but can't find a lot of info, it seems that not a lot if even known on how camouflage works on (against?) the predators.

It seems other species have gone the bird poop strategy route.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I have questions I can't figure out how to ask. I'm fascinated by camouflage in animals and although I'm firmly in the evolution corner it's hard to imagine the circumstances that were needed for something like Citrus Swallowtail caterpillars that looks like bird droppings.

If the genes that express the trait could be found in various populations, they could be used to determine relationships between species. One could potentially see different steps in the trait evolution revealed in related species.

 

[John53]

If the genes that express the trait could be found in various populations, they could be used to determine relationships between species. One could potentially see different steps in the trait evolution revealed in related species.

Just found this beetle. Interesting bug and interesting back story.

Newly discovered Australian beetle almost mistaken for bird poo

An Australian researcher spotted the white furry bug by chance while camping within rainforest.

www.bbc.com

 

[John53]

This one is even more amazing than looking like poop...

Nature Blows My Mind! Caterpillar Mimics Snake Behavior to Scare Predators (Video)

We've heard of insects camouflaging themselves as leaves, but this brave little caterpillar acts like a snake to survive.

www.treehugger.com

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I've been reading a little online but can't find a lot of info, it seems that not a lot if even known on how camouflage works on (against?) the predators.

It seems other species have gone the bird poop strategy route.

I have run across several species that are camouflaged to look like droppings. There are other species where juveniles will cover themselves with debris to look like a bit of inedible detritus.

All a change would have to do is a small initial increase in predator avoidance and it could spread in a genome. The industrial melanism that occurred in the peppered moth happened over a period of a few decades (not suddenly). And it is one of the most famous cases of the observation of evolutionary processes.

 

[John53]

I have run across several species that are camouflaged to look like droppings. There are other species where juveniles will cover themselves with debris to look like a bit of inedible detritus.

All a change would have to do is a small initial increase in predator avoidance and it could spread in a genome. The industrial melanism that occurred in the peppered moth happened over a period of a few decades (not suddenly). And it is one of the most famous cases of the observation of evolutionary processes.

My understanding of the Peppered Moth (I could be very wrong) is that there already existed a dark and light morph, The dark morph became the most likely to survive in the industrial era. So more of a change in which part of an existing population has an advantage.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Just found this beetle. Interesting bug and interesting back story.

Newly discovered Australian beetle almost mistaken for bird poo

An Australian researcher spotted the white furry bug by chance while camping within rainforest.

www.bbc.com

Really interesting. Mimicking a fungal infection would be an effective means to avoid predation.

Hairs (setae) are very useful structures that have evolved for various functions in invertebrates, including insects. Thermoregulation and water regulation, mimicry, defense and tactile sensation are some useful functions to these animals in the environment.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

My understanding of the Peppered Moth (I could be very wrong) is that there already existed a dark and light morph, The dark morph became the most likely to survive in the industrial era. So more of a change in which part of an existing population has an advantage.

You understand correctly. It is an excellent example of the environment changing and selecting the dark morph that previously existed in very low frequency in the environment lending to its high degree of visibility on the natural, unaltered bark of trees. Birds could see the dark moths very well on the light background of the natural color of the bark. Darken that bark with soot and the lighter morph becomes an easy target, while the dark morph becomes camouflaged. Gradually, under the changed environment, the population shifts favoring the dark morph. Under that selection being dark provides a strong fitness advantage.

 

[John53]

You understand correctly. It is an excellent example of the environment changing and selecting the dark morph that previously existed in very low frequency in the environment lending to its high degree of visibility on the natural, unaltered bark of trees. Birds could see the dark moths very well on the light background of the natural color of the bark. Darken that bark with soot and the lighter morph becomes an easy target, while the dark morph becomes camouflaged. Gradually, under the changed environment, the population shifts favoring the dark morph. Under that selection being, dark provides a strong fitness advantage.

I wish I could type more as this is an interesting conversation to me but my hands are worse than normal today. Typing one handed sucks.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

My understanding of the Peppered Moth (I could be very wrong) is that there already existed a dark and light morph, The dark morph became the most likely to survive in the industrial era. So more of a change in which part of an existing population has an advantage.

It is one of the nicest demonstrations of natural selection while illustrating the fitness of a trait.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I wish I could type more as this is an interesting conversation to me but my hands are worse than normal today. Typing one handed sucks.

I understand. I hope they get to feeling better. We can pick it up any time. You've given me something to look into.

I need to get to bed anyway. I'll keep you in my prayers.

Thanks for the very interesting discussion. More of them should be like this.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So which word do you aver I used incorrectly, "mate", or "selection".

Read the actual posts I linked and see if you can figure it out.
I see no reason to repeat myself again and again and again.

When you're busy proving Christians are wrong about everything are you careful to use only terms from the Bible exactly as Christians use them?!!!

Yes, actually.

I have no beliefs in science and even if I did I am not constrained to use every word exactly like everyone else. Did I never mention that science doesn't exist through convention and that all ideas and all understanding of science is individual?

Another thing for the list that you are wrong about.

Do you read my posts at all or just look for "bad" terminology?

Your posts make no sense, in part because you use terminology incorrectly.

I don't understand why people can't seem to understand such a simple concept as all their assumptions being wrong. If all Darwin's assumptions were wrong does his terminology still matter?

Claiming "all assumptions" to be wrong, doesn't make them wrong.
In fact, many of the things you claim are "assumptions" aren't even assumptions.

Why won't believers in science answer questions or respond on point and always break off into one semantical argument or another like the meaning of "metaphysics"?

Because it's hard to respond to nonsense.

There is no such thing as Fitness and still I have good Fitness with my clothes

I present exhibit 3245623 that you don't understand what "fitness" means in evolutionary biology.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Scientists themselves do not agree with all the terminology relating to exact understanding of word usage. It's interesting, but language as we now know it is imperfect. Oh, and same thing for those purporting to be Christian. One word means one thing to someone while that same word infers something else.

I can guarantee you that if you ask 10 evolutionary biologists to define the word "fit" in evolutionary context, you'll get 10 pretty much identical answers.
And I can also guarantee you that none of them will match @cladking 's warped definition.

 

[John53]

When you're busy proving Christians are wrong about everything are you careful to use only terms from the Bible exactly as Christians use them?!!!

Yes, actually.

Otherwise the conversation would be pointless

 

[cladking]

I see no reason to repeat myself again and again and again.

You can't "repeat" what you've never done.

Are you suggesting that since I wasn't aware that mate selection is now part of survival of the fittest in which I do not believe that my usage of the word "mate selection" is wrong? I can only suggest you look up the words "mate" and "selection'. When you do try to remember that "mate selection" isn't really a force in every species. There is no evidence for instance that a yew tree can exclude any male. I did mention other such examples.

Your posts have devolved into semantical arguments.

I can guarantee you that if you ask 10 evolutionary biologists to define the word "fit" in evolutionary context, you'll get 10 pretty much identical answers.
And I can also guarantee you that none of them will match @cladking 's warped definition.

This is one single word and you want to leverage your belief in the referent for this word into proof I and everyone who disagrees with you is wrong about everything.

Semantics can never define reality. Reality can't even be modeled in words and you want to use them and word games to create the reality you believe exists. Good luck with that. I don't believe in this reality you are trying to create. I don't believe it exists anywhere. I don't believe you can understand even the double slit experiment without understanding consciousness so I certainly don't believe you can understand change in species without understanding the nature of consciousness.

Reality is impossibly complex so trying to model it with experiment is exceedingly difficult. Our science is a powerful tool but it's not yet up to the job. Deal with it.

 

[cladking]

Claiming "all assumptions" to be wrong, doesn't make them wrong.
In fact, many of the things you claim are "assumptions" aren't even assumptions.

I've gone through most of them to show with facts, evidence, logic, and experiment that they are wrong. Obviously I can't show things like the existence of free will or that everyone always makes sense but I consider such things to be axiomatic. A single sentence can support these things anyway.

I can type a number larger than 8 in this very paragraph; 9.

I not only made sense but exhibited free will. What a feat! Whodda thunk it!

The world is a little different if you take the obvious as being axiomatic. All of a sudden a lot of assumptions start looking like old wives tales.

We've been making these assumptions since the tower of babel despite experiment that shows them to be wrong.