One aspect of evolution that does not make sense.....

by EndofMysteries 153 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Apognophos

  Yes, I was going to suggest the same thing, that pet chameleons probably don't care about hiding so they don't expend the effort to change color.

  I can't answer your question about how camouflage developed, but it may help if you read the WP article on chromatophores from this point on. As you can see, the process that currently drives color changes is fully understood. As far as how it evolved, well, most or all camouflaging animals do this automatically. You'll notice that towards the end the article says, "To change colour the animal distorts the sacculus form or size by muscular contraction, changing its translucency , reflectivity, or opacity."

  The animals doesn't know it's doing this (though perhaps they are smart enough to learn how to control it consciously in the case of cephalopods like octopi, which are very intelligent). But initially, the muscular contraction was no doubt a reflex that developed through trial and error. When something flies near your face, you will instinctively close your eyes, and it's difficult to fight this reflex consciously if you want to keep them open. The reflex developed because it protected the eyes of an ancient ancestor species of ours, and indeed continues to be useful because reflexes can kick in faster than our conscious mind can recognize that something is getting close to our delicate eyes.

  Also, I want to note this sentence towards the end: "Chromatophores are also found in membranes of phototrophic bacteria". It notes that the colors are useful in absorbing sunlight for photosynthesis. Many times in evolution, a development can be repurposed for other uses, and this may be a partial answer of where the basic ability of cells to acquire or change color came from.
• 

  EndofMysteries

  Cofty - your condescending comments without an ability to answer the question imply that you do not know the answer and trying to divert that lack of knowledge to me. Why don't you read some 'basic' (elementary, grade school books, implying you are an idiot) yourself and then perhaps you can explain, defend, and answer the question instead of trying to close the argument by having me do the research that you yourself are unwilling to do.
• 

  EndofMysteries

  Thank you apognophos for your input. I like how you admitted you can not answer the question and brought up a close alternative to try to answer it. Unlike cofty unwilling to admit and trying to be condescending with telling me to read 'basic' books as if the answer that you yourself admit you don't know should be basic elementary knowledge that doesn't even warrant an answer haha. And perhaps the answer has yet to be discovered.

  I'm replying to your article in the next post.
• 

  Apognophos

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHlRQEIt2-Y

  Needless to say, though, a flounder is not smart enough to do this on purpose. He has a built-in cloaking device that kicks in as soon as he stops moving. How he knows what's under him is anyone's guess, since his eyes are on top of his body. It's amazing to behold visually, but it's not necessarily more complex than many other instincts that developed to protect animals. Humans have the instinctive drowning response. Baby giraffes have a "laydown" instinct when separated from their mothers, so they can remove their shadow and their colors can help them blend in. These are literally random behaviors that developed by accident which proved useful and were passed on to descendants of the lucky originators of the reflexes.
• 

  EndofMysteries

  apognophos, what about this example from the article you linked....." the big blue octopus , Octopus cyanea , hunts during the day, and can match itself to the colours and textures of its surroundings, both to avoid predators and to enable it to approach prey. It can perfectly resemble a rock or a coral it is hiding beside. When necessary, in order to scare away a potential predator, it can display markings which resemble eyes"

  I accept that some animals and species have camoflauge as a by product or response and they may have just survived because of it. It's different from those who like the chameleon and big blue octopus that can "match itself to it's surroundings, perfectly resemble a rock or coral it is hiding beside', etc.

  The only answer I can think from an athiest point of view might be that at some point an alien scientist genetically modified one to have that ability haha.
• 

  EndofMysteries

  Apognophos - I agree with your example for flounders and all relevant species like that example.

  Here is one from your article that does do it on purpose,

  Self-decoration [ edit ]

  Self-decorated sea urchin Further information: Decorator crab

  Self-decoration is employed by animals in different groups, including decorator crabs, which attach materials from their environment, as well as living organisms, to camouflage themselves. For example the Japanese hermit crab, Eupagurus constans, has the hydroid Hydractinia sodalis growing all over the shell that it lives in. Another hermit crab, Eupagurus cuanensis, has the aposematic orange spongeSuberites domuncula which is bitter-tasting and not eaten by fish. [20]

  Similarly, Sea urchins use their tube feet to pick up debris from the bottom and attach it to their upper surfaces. They use shells, rocks, algae and sometimes sea anemones. [21]

  But those behaviors in the above example could be an evolution, they learned to hide themselves. However what wouldn't make sense is if how those creatures above are hiding themselves, they suddenly developed the ability to change their bodies to appear that way vs putting those things on them. That's the question.
• 

  EndofMysteries

  I read the article you linked apognophos - thanks for that one, I had read similar but this part did stand out, " It has been demonstrated that the background adaptation process is vision-dependent (it appears the animal needs to be able to see the environment to adapt to it)"

  Atleast from the organisms point, it must require thought since they have to see the background first.
• 

  Viviane

  EOM, no one is backing out. You're just refusing to put any work in to learn anything, your laziness isn't being indulged anymore.
• 

  Apognophos

  Actually, I have to disagree with that viewpoint, Viviane. I think EOM's questions are pretty reasonable. I'm sure he knows not to expect a lot of expert biologists on this forum, but what's the harm in asking? We say that we're here to answer questions, but when someone asks something we don't know, do we try to help or say "Read a book, it's in there somewhere." I think some of you may be failing to give EOM's questions enough credit just because he sometimes doesn't use the precisely right word for a concept.

  I'll try to answer some of these questions in a second post...
• 

  cofty

  having me do the research that you yourself are unwilling to do

  Wow.

  I currently have 5 books on my "to read" list and "the evolutionary history of chameleons for beginners" isn't one of them. If it really interests you do your own research.

  I could tell you in detail about many fascinating examples of how complexity arose through step-by-step processes and I'm sure the ability of chameleons to control their chromatophores has a similar story.

  Many of your questions show that you don't have the absolute basics yet. Start there, you have a recommended reading list.