Support NeoGAF

[SolVanderlyn]

I'm imagining a council of ancient cateripillars deciding which animal to mimic in order to better live long enough to turn into a moth and they where originally going to turn into a raptor but since the snake survived the meteor they decided the snake was superior and they held it to a vote. The snake one 3 -6 so all caterpillars spent the next hundred thousand years studying them.

This sounds like something somebody really high would say.

 

[Maninthemirror]

Guided... by the predators. This specific case isn't that much different than humans breeding various specialized breeds of dogs that look wildly different from each other: in both cases there is a strong external factor filtering which characteristics get passed on.

How do the predators influence one specific creature. I can understand caterpillars having changes from within such as behavior or actions over the course of generations which is as a result of repeated threats but physical changes are not forced by the caterpillar itself from within, its forced on the caterpillar from an exterior source which is the big question. What exterior source changed the caterpillar physical form to become this. And not only this but in an uncanny way like a predator. You are not saying that the caterpillars willed themselves to look like the snake are you ?

 

[Dongs Macabre]

How do the predators influence one specific creature. I can understand caterpillars having changes from within such as behavior or actions over the course of generations which is as a result of repeated threats but physical changes are not forced by the caterpillar itself from within, its forced on the caterpillar from an exterior source which is the big question. What exterior source changed the caterpillar physical form to become this. And not only this but in an uncanny way like a predator. You are not saying that the caterpillars willed themselves to look like the snake are you ?

Caterpillars that look more like snakes are more likely to avoid being eaten and reproduce. The next generations look more and more like snakes.

 

[Maninthemirror]

Caterpillars that look more like snakes are more likely to avoid being eaten and reproduce. The next generations look more and more like snakes.

I know which makes it amazing

 

[Dongs Macabre]

I know which makes it amazing

I'm a bit confused about what you meant with your previous post. Are you saying that there must be an outside force that causes the changes in the caterpillar's appearance?

 

[Maninthemirror]

I'm a bit confused about what you meant with your previous post. Are you saying that there must be an outside force that causes the changes in the caterpillar's appearance?

I am saying we know the evolution is taking place and has taken place for this particular caterpillar. The question is how the physicality of the caterpillar change to exactly match its predator. It cannot be compelled from within caterpillars that they see their prey and will themselves and their future generations to look like them to hide themselves. The only way it can happen is if nature allows it, but how does nature identify without having any conscience of who is a predator and what it looks like and who is not that the caterpillar takes the exact form of its predator in its look to hide itself

 

[Dongs Macabre]

I am saying we know the evolution is taking place and has taken place for this particular caterpillar. The question is how the physicality of the caterpillar change to exactly match its predator. It cannot be compelled from within caterpillars that they see their prey and will themselves and their future generations to look like them to hide themselves. The only way it can happen is if nature allows it, but how does nature identify without having any conscience of who is a predator and what it looks like and who is not that the caterpillar takes the exact form of its predator in its look to hide itself

I don't think the snake is the caterpillar's predator. I think it's just mimicking another animal (the snake) that could pose a threat to its predators, so the predators leave it alone.

 

[strata8]

I am saying we know the evolution is taking place and has taken place for this particular caterpillar. The question is how the physicality of the caterpillar change to exactly match its predator. It cannot be compelled from within caterpillars that they see their prey and will themselves and their future generations to look like them to hide themselves. The only way it can happen is if nature allows it, but how does nature identify without having any conscience of who is a predator and what it looks like and who is not that the caterpillar takes the exact form of its predator in its look to hide itself

It's just natural selection. You could reason that any caterpillar that looked even slightly similar to a snake would have a higher chance of survival.

For example, maybe a mutation resulted in a lighter belly. Then, later on, another mutation caused a body segment to swell slightly. Or a black dot to appear on each side.

It's hard to visualise because it's extremely incremental. Stuff like this happens over millions and millions of generations.


Try playing around with this. It's an evolution simulator using cars:
http://boxcar2d.com/

Specifically, click 'Choose Terrain' and use Sisyphus. Over time, a low-slung, high-torque, front-heavy design will emerge in order to get higher and higher up the slope. And this is only one line of descendants over less than 100 generations.

 

[Deleted member 20920]

I am saying we know the evolution is taking place and has taken place for this particular caterpillar. The question is how the physicality of the caterpillar change to exactly match its predator. It cannot be compelled from within caterpillars that they see their prey and will themselves and their future generations to look like them to hide themselves. The only way it can happen is if nature allows it, but how does nature identify without having any conscience of who is a predator and what it looks like and who is not that the caterpillar takes the exact form of its predator in its look to hide itself

These four posts explains the why rather well

The caterpillar doesn't "know" anything. Evolution works by happenstance. What would have happened is that some caterpillar initially had a mutation that looked unusual and other animals didn't eat it, either out of coincidence or because they were wary due to the caterpillar's appearance. Over time, the caterpillars who looked more and more frightening kept surviving because they kept not getting eaten. Natural selection developed a caterpillar that had an appearance that completely frightened away predators. There may have been many caterpillars that had unusual appearances that were eaten, but the ones with mutations that frightened away predators were the ones that survived, and eventually that became refined naturally based around whatever would scare away predators the most - in this case, a snake.

It didn't know. Thousands of caterpillars through thousands of generations with thousands of various markings live and die. Markings that aided the caterpillar survival get passed on to the next generation. Many animals fear snakes and caterpillars with the most snake like markings did best in this lineage. Rinse and repeat and the snake like appearance gets refined through natural selection. Other caterpillars develop scary eye spots, or look like bird droppings, or just blend in really well. There are millions of effective survival paths. This is just one of millions that happens to work.

It's not visible at all, rather, the butterflies might not even select for it even if it was. The evolution is much more simple than that. Those who's colouration/shape looked more similar to snakes survived more often to reproduce than those that didn't, so over time the traits of "looking like a snake" where passed on and refined as they lead to higher levels of survival.

It's not a matter of the mates seeking it out, but more of a matter of the ones with the traits being there to mate more often.

Evolution is blind. There is no deliberate choice being made. You have a population, an interbreeding gene pool that results in various traits developing. The resulting offspring live or die. Some are unhealthy and die, some are unlucky and die.

Natural selection consists of everything that impacts a population: what do the predators attack or avoid, what diseases are present, what is the climate like, what foods are available. All of these factors act as a sieve and the creatures with the collections of traits that give them the best chances of survival refine what genes dominate in the next generation's breeding population.

No caterpillar has to look like a snake to survive. But if it has some markings that scare off a predator, then it lives. If the breeding population's most successful survivors all have vaguely snake like markings those traits get passed on. the best snake mimics survive even better than the more vague snake mimics. The snake mimicry is refined with each generation until it's near dead on because it works the best. It will continue to work well for these caterpillars unless a snake eating specialist shows up in their environment. Then they're screwed.

Evolution is like a game of poker. There are multiple winning hands your genes can deal you. Whether you win or lose is dependent on what hands your competition are dealt.

 

[Maninthemirror]

These four posts explains the why rather well

If thousands and millions of instances of different caterpillars came and only the one with the snake look survived as a process of natural selection, wouldnt some with the subtle variation compared to this still be there? assuming thousands or hundreds or even millions of iterations took place it is a statistical improbability that the previous iteration which were somewhat similar to this have not survived and only this one survived only as a result. The question again becomes that say there were hundreds of iterations or even 10s of iterations before it, what is the statistical probability that the lone survivor of this natural selection, the past iterations of which we haven't even seen ends up looking entirely like a predator which other animals hide from or stay away from due to its looks. Its not only a bit like a snake. it has developed into looking EXACTLY like the predator.

I think mutations do occur but I don't think its alone with only natural selection for the evolutionary process or in other words it doesn't explain fully the evolutionary process. Take the polar bear for example. Why are the polar bears white. why not different iterations of blue or green, and if there were, is there any left historically? The ice being a perfect preservant has no trace of any yellow or black polar bears. If going by the mutations only driving evolutionary process, we would have small polar bears, bigger polar bears, medium sized polar bears but no variant fossils in that region exist in the ice.

Evolution does exist but if you go by subtle mutations theory accompanied by natural selection, every creation would have millions of variations and one of them would survive BUT we would have historical proof of not just a few variations but each created species having thousands of variations if you go by mutation theory and natural selection alone, but we don't we have very very few and very slow variations of the same species which some of which are still arrived and just named as a different version like Cats, which is extraordinary because nature is as it is said blind. it does not know how something should survive it lets the creatures surival take its own course of survival. We would have 100s and 1000s of different creations being created and born at a rapid pace and dying at a rapid pace if mutation of only natural selection as it is explained is used at its faced value.

if you let nature take complete control, it does not have control. It will make 1000s of variations and a few would survive, but the crux of the equation is, that for the same species and for it be natural selection, where are the 1000s of variations beyond the current form. This is why I think people say guided evolution because for someone to say guided evolution but nature has complete control is an oxymoron because nature itself wouldnt be able to control the variants in the beginning, if it would control it we would have 1000s of variants that the initial nature mutation takes place

 

[The Silver]

So how does the striking thing get passed down?

 

[Keio]

I'd suggest reading up on some Stephen Jay Gould to get to grips on how evolution works.

Again multiple forms don't exist because change is (probably) saltationist e.g. happens in a "short" timeframe of tens to hundred of thousands of years due to adaptation to change in ecosystem or climate. Our fossil record is limited.

Multiple forms evolve into different species, of course, as evidenced in Darwin's studies of island bird populations.

Regarding this case, it's not too much of a stretch to imagine a mutation causing a twitch reaction to approaching predators, which then honed to be close to a snake strike which is what the predator would have evolved to flee from.

 

[Dongs Macabre]

If thousands and millions of instances of different caterpillars came and only the one with the snake look survived as a process of natural selection, wouldnt some with the subtle variation compared to this still be there? assuming thousands or hundreds or even millions of iterations took place it is a statistical improbability that the previous iteration which were somewhat similar to this have not survived and only this one survived only as a result. The question again becomes that say there were hundreds of iterations or even 10s of iterations before it, what is the statistical probability that the lone survivor of this natural selection, the past iterations of which we haven't even seen ends up looking entirely like a predator which other animals hide from or stay away from due to its looks. Its not only a bit like a snake. it has developed into looking EXACTLY like the predator.

I think mutations do occur but I don't think its alone with only natural selection for the evolutionary process or in other words it doesn't explain fully the evolutionary process. Take the polar bear for example. Why are the polar bears white. why not different iterations of blue or green, and if there were, is there any left historically? The ice being a perfect preservant has no trace of any yellow or black polar bears. If going by the mutations only driving evolutionary process, we would have small polar bears, bigger polar bears, medium sized polar bears but no variant fossils in that region exist in the ice.

Evolution does exist but if you go by subtle mutations theory accompanied by natural selection, every creation would have millions of variations and one of them would survive BUT we would have historical proof of not just a few variations but each created species having thousands of variations if you go by mutation theory and natural selection alone, but we don't we have very very few and very slow variations of the same species which some of which are still arrived and just named as a different version like Cats, which is extraordinary because nature is as it is said blind. it does not know how something should survive it lets the creatures surival take its own course of survival. We would have 100s and 1000s of different creations being created and born at a rapid pace and dying at a rapid pace if mutation of only natural selection as it is explained is used at its faced value.

if you let nature take complete control, it does not have control. It will make 1000s of variations and a few would survive, but the crux of the equation is, that for the same species and for it be natural selection, where are the 1000s of variations beyond the current form. This is why I think people say guided evolution because for someone to say guided evolution but nature has complete control is an oxymoron because nature itself wouldnt be able to control the variants in the beginning, if it would control it we would have 1000s of variants that the initial nature mutation takes place

Well, let's say for example, there's a caterpillar with a mutation that makes it looked slightly more like a snake. It is less likely to be eaten by a bird or whatever, thus increasing its chances of breeding. A lot of the other caterpillars without this mutation die. The caterpillar breeds and passes on its genes, which in turn gives you more caterpillars that have this trait, and so on. Eventually, the entire population of caterpillars will have this trait, with more mutations happening all the time, which could lead to another caterpillar with even more of a resemblance to a snake. This takes a very long time to happen. You do see some variation in different populations of an animal and some species that diverged from the same ancestors, but you don't see stuff like blue or green polar bears because their ancestors never survived, or the gene got wiped out after breeding amongst other members of its species, since slightly lighter fur is probably more beneficial than fur that's tinted blue or green (I dunno if blue or green tinted fur is even possible, but it's just a hypothetical situation).

Reading a book explaining evolution is probably a good idea, though.

 

[LiK]

So awesome.

 

[DragonGirl]

How do the predators influence one specific creature. I can understand caterpillars having changes from within such as behavior or actions over the course of generations which is as a result of repeated threats but physical changes are not forced by the caterpillar itself from within, its forced on the caterpillar from an exterior source which is the big question. What exterior source changed the caterpillar physical form to become this. And not only this but in an uncanny way like a predator. You are not saying that the caterpillars willed themselves to look like the snake are you ?

The predators in question would most likely be birds. Birds are commonly eaten by snakes. Caterpillars are already roughly snake like in a small way. Caterpillars that have spots that look like eyes might spook a bird. Caterpillars with markings and behaviors that say "snake" to a bird will be the least likely to end up eaten. There are more than one species of caterpillar that have snake like markings and behaviors. How convincing they are varies, but they only have to be "convincing enough" to the birds.

 

[happypup]

If thousands and millions of instances of different caterpillars came and only the one with the snake look survived as a process of natural selection, wouldnt some with the subtle variation compared to this still be there? assuming thousands or hundreds or even millions of iterations took place it is a statistical improbability that the previous iteration which were somewhat similar to this have not survived and only this one survived only as a result. The question again becomes that say there were hundreds of iterations or even 10s of iterations before it, what is the statistical probability that the lone survivor of this natural selection, the past iterations of which we haven't even seen ends up looking entirely like a predator which other animals hide from or stay away from due to its looks. Its not only a bit like a snake. it has developed into looking EXACTLY like the predator.

I think mutations do occur but I don't think its alone with only natural selection for the evolutionary process or in other words it doesn't explain fully the evolutionary process. Take the polar bear for example. Why are the polar bears white. why not different iterations of blue or green, and if there were, is there any left historically? The ice being a perfect preservant has no trace of any yellow or black polar bears. If going by the mutations only driving evolutionary process, we would have small polar bears, bigger polar bears, medium sized polar bears but no variant fossils in that region exist in the ice.

Evolution does exist but if you go by subtle mutations theory accompanied by natural selection, every creation would have millions of variations and one of them would survive BUT we would have historical proof of not just a few variations but each created species having thousands of variations if you go by mutation theory and natural selection alone, but we don't we have very very few and very slow variations of the same species which some of which are still arrived and just named as a different version like Cats, which is extraordinary because nature is as it is said blind. it does not know how something should survive it lets the creatures surival take its own course of survival. We would have 100s and 1000s of different creations being created and born at a rapid pace and dying at a rapid pace if mutation of only natural selection as it is explained is used at its faced value.

if you let nature take complete control, it does not have control. It will make 1000s of variations and a few would survive, but the crux of the equation is, that for the same species and for it be natural selection, where are the 1000s of variations beyond the current form. This is why I think people say guided evolution because for someone to say guided evolution but nature has complete control is an oxymoron because nature itself wouldnt be able to control the variants in the beginning, if it would control it we would have 1000s of variants that the initial nature mutation takes place

Many variations form, and then die off all the time (most last almost no time at all). You say that nature doesn't have control, yet these tenets hold true. Resources are finite. Organisms must compete with each other for those resources. An environment has a limit on the biomass it can sustain. There are only a relatively few roles an organism can play within it's environment. An organisms major role in it's evolution is to provide the raw ingredients, the mutations. Whether those mutations are beneficial or detrimental, whether they survive or die off, is a result of the constraints enforced by limited resources in an environment. why are there no blue haired polar bears? because the competition that drives evolution was far too intense to allow them. Why are there snake headed caterpillars? because competition drove evolution in that direction.

 

[Maninthemirror]

Many variations form, and then die off all the time (most last almost no time at all). You say that nature doesn't have control, yet these tenets hold true. Resources are finite. Organisms must compete with each other for those resources. An environment has a limit on the biomass it can sustain. There are only a relatively few roles an organism can play within it's environment. An organisms major role in it's evolution is to provide the raw ingredients, the mutations. Whether those mutations are beneficial or detrimental, whether they survive or die off, is a result of the constraints enforced by limited resources in an environment. why are there no blue haired polar bears? because the competition that drives evolution was far too intense to allow them. Why are there snake headed caterpillars? because competition drove evolution in that direction.

But dont you find it curious that how the blind nature can drive caterpillars to chose a snake over conceptually everything AND have the ability to mimic the strike? How does a deaf and blind nature do that ? That is the question. For natural selection and mutations to work in the blind, the variations when asked to survive would be what something blind would do and that is chaotic, I think personally i think this could be answered for some people (not all) by guided evolution where the invisible hand guides the course of its creators in a way that they find extraordinary ways to survive which includes a change in their chromosomes, DNA and internal cellular structure because it requires an extraordinary amount to luck for this to happen by chance or natural selection alone and honestly through the millions of years of evolution and all the drastic changes the world has thru in that time it is even more amazing we as species survived because at every step nature would have destroyed what we came as a cellular organism from over the course of the millions of years

One author said

' For each chance step that evolution will take in the right direction, it will have to blunder into millions upon millions of steps in the wrong direction. But by that time, alas, entropy would have left nothing of the universe to evolve into anything, nor of the blind creator itself. '

Edwin Cocklin, an esteemed biologist from Princeton said

''The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the Unabridged Dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop.' '

 

[titiklabingapat]

The caterpillars, again, didn't choose anything. These were simply the ones that survived long enough to pass on their genes.

The strike is most likely an instinctual reaction and can be easily passed on by genes. It's probably similar to your fight or flight response that you feel whenever your life is in danger. It is all automatic, based on the stimulus.

One author said



Edwin Cocklin, an esteemed biologist from Princeton said

No matter how much luck you need for this very unlikely thing to happen, the only proof you need with this kind of argument is all around you. The fact that we exist should be proof enough. The universe has all the time it needs.

 

[Maninthemirror]

The caterpillars, again, didn't choose anything. These were simply the ones that survived long enough to pass on their genes.

The strike is most likely an instinctual reaction and can be easily passed on by genes. It's probably similar to your fight or flight response that you feel whenever your life is in danger. It is all automatic, based on the stimulus.

So how probable was it that if for example chicken in thousands of years evolve to look like a skunk and even raise its tail as if to spray on humans in order to survive

No matter how much luck you need for this very unlikely thing to happen, the only proof you need with this kind of argument is all around you. The fact that we exist should be proof enough. The universe has all the time it needs.

Statistical improbability is too high. The solar system aligning in perfect sequence to give earth the perfect area to be in with the perfect cool down and out of chaos cells form which eventually form what we are today and at the point we are , we are evolved enough to think who we are and where we are form. I find that extraordinary

 

[titiklabingapat]

So how probable was it that if for example chicken in thousands of years evolve to look like a skunk and even raise its tail as if to spray on humans in order to survive

The chicken and the skunk likely had a common ancestor if you go far enough in time, but no, a chicken in its current didn't evolve into a skunk. And it likely was more than thousands of years. Probably closer to at least 150M years.

 

[Maninthemirror]

The chicken and the skunk likely had a common ancestor if you go far enough in time, but no, a chicken in its current didn't evolve into a skunk. And it likely was more than thousands of years. Probably closer to at least 150M years.

You do know the statistical improbability for a chicken to evolve while we are still its predators and we can record each instance of evolution of a
Chicken will be in itself a recorded historical portion which seems to me being near impossible and the greatest luck for chicken in its history

 

[Log4Girlz]

Evolution is a joke. God clearly favors this species of caterpillar above all others.

 

[Rocket Punch]

God's creation truly is amazing

Spoiler

Wow. The level of ignorance is outstanding. How the hell can some peple not have the most basic understanding of the evolutionary principles? Ugh. HYPERFACEPALM.

 

[Log4Girlz]

God's creation truly is amazing

Spoiler

Wow. The level of ignorance is outstanding. How the hell can some peple not have the most basic understanding of the evolutionary principles? Ugh. HYPERFACEPALM.

Were you there? Honest question. I've never lied in my life.

 

[Maninthemirror]

Evolution is a joke. God clearly favors this species of caterpillar above all others.

Sarcasm aside evolution is essential as it is how we move forward into the future. This creature needed a camouflage for its survival and it got a perfect one through evolution

 

[happypup]

But dont you find it curious that how the blind nature can drive caterpillars to chose a snake over conceptually everything AND have the ability to mimic the strike? How does a deaf and blind nature do that ? That is the question. For natural selection and mutations to work in the blind, the variations when asked to survive would be what something blind would do and that is chaotic, I think personally i think this could be answered for some people (not all) by guided evolution where the invisible hand guides the course of its creators in a way that they find extraordinary ways to survive which includes a change in their chromosomes, DNA and internal cellular structure because it requires an extraordinary amount to luck for this to happen by chance or natural selection alone and honestly through the millions of years of evolution and all the drastic changes the world has thru in that time it is even more amazing we as species survived because at every step nature would have destroyed what we came as a cellular organism from over the course of the millions of years

I don't find it curious at all because I understand it. Nature is not random, nor is it chaotic. It is governed by rules. Rules create order not chaos. Understand the rules and the illusion of randomness and chaos disappear. The rules are simple, the pattern they create is anything but.

The caterpillar in question didn't choose to look like a snake, nor did nature choose to make it look like a snake. They simply followed the rules and the pattern emerged. In this case the rules are those that don't get eaten as a caterpillar live to breed. One possible solution to this rule is to fool the predator into thinking you aren't food, or even better that you fool the predator into thinking they are the prey. A mutation that is only slightly better than normal will inevitably become the new normal. What that initial mutation is sets the organism on the path towards improving whatever it was about that mutation that fooled the predator in the first place, in this case a very small number of birds were fooled into thinking it was a snake back when it had maybe only two small black marks on it's body. That the mutation existed, that the predators reacted more negatively to the mutations that made the caterpillar look more like a snake, is all it took to drive evolution towards a more and more snake like appearance. Driven by natural forces, by the rules of the game, a potential strategy, a better way to solve the being eaten dilemma, was set in motion and then refined over thousands upon thousands of generations.

 

[Log4Girlz]

Sarcasm aside evolution is essential as it is how we move forward into the future. This creature needed a camouflage for its survival and it got a perfect one through evolution

It didn't need anything. Happenstance has dictated its shape which happens to be more advantageous than previous forms. There are many other species of successful insects that do not have such effective camouflage yet get along fine. Other strengths were selected for by the process of death.

I mean, I get where you're coming from, but you are giving hints of greater determinism if you intended to or not.

 

[Mario]

But dont you find it curious that how the blind nature can drive caterpillars to chose a snake over conceptually everything AND have the ability to mimic the strike? How does a deaf and blind nature do that ? That is the question.

If a snake is the dominant predator to dominant predators of the caterpillar, then of course evolutionary traits that in any way mimic a snake are going to be selected for and could therefore gravitate towards a close facsimile over time.

It is also very likely that there are caterpillars in the same ecosystem that have gone down a very different evolutionary path, either being colored in a way that suggests danger/poison to predators or by mimicing dominant foliage such that the caterpillar is better camouflaged.

"Deaf and blind nature" isn't really deaf and blind if you actually look at the mechanisms underpinning it all. Evolution is an amazing process.

 

[Jak140]

Anyone still befuddled by this also keep in mind that there is evolutionary warfare going on between the catapillar and its predator. Initially, a just vaguely snake like appearance may have been enough to fool many of its predators, but over time the predators evolve the ability to better distinguish between a real snake and the prey (because the ones who are better at this are more likely to pass on their genes). This in turn results in catapillars with an even more snakelike appearance having better chances of survival and so on.

 

[Tesseract]

the chemical evolution of the whole universe is pretty damn freaky.

immense variety among da jiggling atoms. o universe, why you so pi

 

[?oe?oe]

I see the "I don't understand, therefore God" argument is still going strong.

 

[TacticalFox88]

I see the "I don't understand, therefore God" argument is still going strong.

That's essentially how religion was started.

 

[∀ Narayan]

I still have my binder full of those. These were awesome.


This shit was Pokemon before pokemon.

God damn. Winning poster name and post. I collected the shit out of these, too. That image brings back so many memories.

 

[Trent Strong]

Statistical improbability is too high. The solar system aligning in perfect sequence to give earth the perfect area to be in with the perfect cool down and out of chaos cells form which eventually form what we are today and at the point we are , we are evolved enough to think who we are and where we are form. I find that extraordinary

There are billions of planets orbiting billions of stars. Of those countless billions of planets, of course some are going to be close enough to their stars, but not too close, to support life.

 

[Maninthemirror]

Anyone still befuddled by this also keep in mind that there is evolutionary warfare going on between the catapillar and its predator. Initially, a just vaguely snake like appearance may have been enough to fool many of its predators, but over time the predators evolve the ability to better distinguish between a real snake and the prey (because the ones who are better at this are more likely to pass on their genes). This in turn results in catapillars with an even more snakelike appearance having better chances of survival and so on.

Your explanation still does to explain how a somewhat snake looking like caterpillar ends up making itself or the blind nature making it more alike. That seems just too convenient

There are billions of planets orbiting billions of stars. Of those countless billions of planets, of course some are going to be close enough to their stars, but not too close, to support life.

And there might be millions of earth like places but what are the chances their gravity is as much as us which results in what the appearance and perhaps intelligence structures we have. Our mind conceiving this very existing of the fact is a brilliant example itself . We are really insignificant but we can perceive ourselves to be due to our study to planets

I see the "I don't understand, therefore God" argument is still going strong.

I think its more, what is behind nature's way it made thing , you would say nature itself and others would say something which made the concept and rules of nature. That's not saying they don't understand thats just saying some have a different understanding or theory

 

[Mario]

Your explanation still does to explain how a somewhat snake looking like caterpillar ends up making itself or the blind nature making it more alike. That seems just too convenient

That's kind of the point. Natural selection favors "convenience".

And there might be millions of earth like places but what are the chances their gravity is as much as us which results in what the appearance and perhaps intelligence structures we have. Our mind conceiving this very existing of the fact is a brilliant example itself . We are really insignificant but we can perceive ourselves to be due to our study to planets

You can read more about this here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

I think its more, what is behind nature's way it made thing , you would say nature itself and others would say something which made the concept and rules of nature. That's not saying they don't understand thats just saying some have a different understanding or theory

You should really just read more on evolution rather than running in circles on GAF http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

 

[Maninthemirror]

That's kind of the point. Natural selection favors "convenience".




You can read more about this here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle




You should really just read more on evolution rather than running in circles on GAF http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

I have read the evolution theory, I am presenting another one which is a bit different , the theory which dictates nature is too blind and too chaotic to control itself so an invisible force can be at play which results in what we say as the perfect synch of chemistry, chromosomes and DNA to achieve us as humans who then have the comprehensive and intellectual skills as a result of the perfect synch to even conceive of ourselves as to what we are and where we came from

In essence if nature was the ultimate factor with natural selection as its sub factor then evolution is legitimate for you. If something can factor in beyond nature which controls nature's chaos thats another theory

 

[Deleted member 20920]

I have read the evolution theory, I am presenting another one which is a bit different , the theory which dictates nature is too blind and too chaotic to control itself so an invisible force can be at play which results in what we say as the perfect synch of chemistry, chromosomes and DNA to achieve us as humans who then have the comprehensive and intellectual skills as a result of the perfect synch to even conceive of ourselves as to what we are and where we came from

You would just have problems convincing people who aren't already convinced about the existence of an invisible force (just say god (s) if you want to, presenting it as "an invisible force doesn't really change anything). Why must there be anything controlling anything?

 

[Messofanego]

One step closer to crocoduck

Wolfenstein The New Order references the crocoduck.

 

[LurkerPrime]

I have read the evolution theory, I am presenting another one which is a bit different , the theory which dictates nature is too blind and too chaotic to control itself so an invisible force can be at play which results in what we say as the perfect synch of chemistry, chromosomes and DNA to achieve us as humans who then have the comprehensive and intellectual skills as a result of the perfect synch to even conceive of ourselves as to what we are and where we came from

In essence if nature was the ultimate factor with natural selection as its sub factor then evolution is legitimate for you. If something can factor in beyond nature which controls nature's chaos thats another theory

If the force is invisible, how do you know it is there? And what is this force anyways? I don't understand...

 

[ReturnOfTheRAT]

What the hell are they putting in the water down there?

 

[kswiston]

The problem some people seem to have with evolution is that they view everything as perfect, and therefore can't see how unguided processes can lead to such a diversity of life.

A) Most organisms are far from perfect, since they were constrained by their evolutionary history. Natural selection can only work with what is already present. We may have evolved to stand upright, since our more upright ancestors had better survival rates for various reasons (probably tied into the fact that we were developing greater intelligence and therefore more sophisticated tool use at the time), but the fact that spines were evolved from fish and quadruped animals means our species has been cursed to spinal problems/back pain with increasing age for our entire history. Having a shared food and air intake is another example. Far from ideal, but a relic from the fact that all vertebrates originated from gilled ancestors.

B) Earth seems so perfectly suited to supporting life in every way, because life has spent 3.5 billion years evolving to suit Earth's conditions. If Earth's conditions were a bit different (say 0.8 gravity, or 10 degrees hotter on average), than its life would be a little different. Assuming that a planet has at least one area with Liquid water (meaning surface or subsurface temperatures over 0 Celsius for at least some of the planets cycle, and temperatures not exceeding 100 Celsius), life (at least the type we are familiar with) could probably evolve. Atmospheric composition, gravity, etc are not as important.

 

[kehs]

Evolution. How the fuck does it work?

All the caterpillars that developed the ability to look like tasty snicker bars were easily picked off.

 

[Live Free or Die]

You're implying that a group composed entirely of female animals will... breed?

 

[Log4Girlz]

I have read the evolution theory, I am presenting another one which is a bit different , the theory which dictates nature is too blind and too chaotic to control itself so an invisible force can be at play which results in what we say as the perfect synch of chemistry, chromosomes and DNA to achieve us as humans who then have the comprehensive and intellectual skills as a result of the perfect synch to even conceive of ourselves as to what we are and where we came from

That's a nonsense theory.

 

[mcz117chief]

I have read the evolution theory, I am presenting another one which is a bit different , the theory which dictates nature is too blind and too chaotic to control itself so an invisible force can be at play which results in what we say as the perfect synch of chemistry, chromosomes and DNA to achieve us as humans who then have the comprehensive and intellectual skills as a result of the perfect synch to even conceive of ourselves as to what we are and where we came from

In essence if nature was the ultimate factor with natural selection as its sub factor then evolution is legitimate for you. If something can factor in beyond nature which controls nature's chaos thats another theory

That is called the God's plan, mate

 

[TheGoddamn]

They look like this and there are binders for them.

What a blast from my science-loving past. I have to find these. I also had animal flashcards in a box.

 

[Jak140]

Your explanation still does to explain how a somewhat snake looking like caterpillar ends up making itself or the blind nature making it more alike. That seems just too convenient



And there might be millions of earth like places but what are the chances their gravity is as much as us which results in what the appearance and perhaps intelligence structures we have. Our mind conceiving this very existing of the fact is a brilliant example itself . We are really insignificant but we can perceive ourselves to be due to our study to planets

The caterpillar doesn't make itself more snakelike in appearance, the predators who don't eat it and thus allow the ones with an increasingly more snakelike appearance to survive are selecting for a snakelike appearance by unintentionally allowing the ones who have that trait to survive and reproduce. In turn the predators evolve the ability to better distinguish between real snakes and the caterpillar over time resulting in the selecting of caterpillars who have mutations which give them an increaingly more accurate snakelike appearance which makes them harder to distinguish from the real thing.

The reason everything appears perfect for our existence (sun, planet, gravity, etc) is because we could not have evolved to exist under different circumstances and thus exist to be able to question our existence.

There are plenty of things we don't understand about the universe and existence, but you are making too much hay out of the things that there are already logical explanations for.

 

[Maninthemirror]

That's a nonsense theory.

To each his own

The caterpillar doesn't make itself more snakelike in appearance, the predators who don't eat it and thus allow the ones with an increasingly more snakelike appearance to survive are selecting for a snakelike appearance by unintentionally allowing the ones who have that trait to survive and reproduce. In turn the predators evolve the ability to better distinguish between real snakes and the caterpillar over time resulting in the selecting of caterpillars who have mutations which give them an increaingly more accurate snakelike appearance which makes them harder to distinguish from the real thing.

So in the case of the predator and nature, who had the broad perspective and the eyes to remember what the predator looks like to more closer match its appearance as time goes by. You see a much valid argument in this case would actually be that it was not supposed to look like a snake it just so happens that it does but the coincidences looking at the image is astoundingly coincidental. On the other hand the theory is that among all the generations of
Caterpillar dying and each generation brought it closer to the look of the look of the snake or the predator but the question again is, who oversaw that while the predator or the caterpillar were dying and generation after generation forgetting what happened to the previous generation what the predator is, are you saying the image is passed on in the form of DNA to the next generation in the hope it is passed on ?

Just look at it from a broad perspective, generation upon generations of caterpillars dying, how would the next generation know what the previous generation saw, who changed the genetic makeup and chromosomes while generations were dying one after another, if that is nature how did nature know when nature is itslef blind. You see the dilema in this whole equation. The assumption and theory is that the visual perception of the predator is passed on generation by generation OR that nature is not blind.

 

[rokkerkory]

crazy evolution