Support NeoGAF

[phxxBullet]

Dayum.
Awesome.

But I should really stop clicking on every topic which obviously shows strange or scary animals.

 

[wildfire]

This guy's face is amazingly Pavlovian.

 

[Dongs Macabre]

To each his own



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.

The caterpillar's trait that happens to make it more like a snake is passed on because it is more likely to survive to reproduce. It doesn't have to know what a snake looks like, because as long as a caterpillar with even more of a resemblance to a snake comes along, birds will be less likely to it it, and so on.

 

[Maninthemirror]

The caterpillar's trait that happens to make it more like a snake is passed on because it is more likely to survive to reproduce. It doesn't have to know what a snake looks like, because as long as a caterpillar with even more of a resemblance to a snake comes along, birds will be less likely to it it, and so on.

Thats a bold assumption, how does the chain reaction know to look like something which exists and which is a predator without a visual confirmation. Are you saying the visual perception of a predatoris passed on without any visual bearing and created through supposition?

 

[sixteen-bit]

whoa that's trippy

 

[Dongs Macabre]

Thats a bold assumption, how does the chain reaction know to look like something which exists and which is a predator without a visual confirmation. Are you saying the visual perception of a predatoris passed on without any visual bearing and created through supposition?

The caterpillar doesn't need to know what the snake looks like. The bird or whatever predator it has is the one that recognizes the features of a snake and avoids it.

 

[Toxi]

Hey Maninthemirror, here are several different rainforest caterpillar species. You might notice a common trend.

 

[Good Job Bob]

Thats a bold assumption, how does the chain reaction know to look like something which exists and which is a predator without a visual confirmation. Are you saying the visual perception of a predatoris passed on without any visual bearing and created through supposition?

It's a not a bold assumption, how would genes possibly know what a snake looks like? They don't know or think anything at all, they simply happen to be passed on or not depending on the reproductive success of the organisms they are in.

 

[happypup]

Thats a bold assumption, how does the chain reaction know to look like something which exists and which is a predator without a visual confirmation. Are you saying the visual perception of a predatoris passed on without any visual bearing and created through supposition?

I posted about this earlier, but if all of the wonderful arguments here can't convince you, this is from Carl Sagan about Heike crabs. What might help is that we humans were the selectors. For the caterpillar their predators were the selectors.

 

[Jak140]

To each his own



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.

The predisposition to avoid snakes, a combination of instinctual and learned behavior is carried by the predator of the caterpillar, because the ones who do not are more likely to be eaten by snakes and not pass on their genes. The predators who are best at avoiding snakes and distinguishing their prey (the caterpillar) from real snakes are the ones who survive and pass on their genes (and learned behavior) to their offspring. In turn the caterpillars who, through genetic mutation appear more and more snakelike, are less likely to be eaten and therefore pass on their genes to the next generation.

 

[Imm0rt4l]

evolution is amazing

 

[Raonak]

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.

No-one controls evolution, mutation, or changing of genes. Random mutations happen all the fucking time, sometimes, the mutations are a disadvantage, in which case, the individual with the mutation would be less likely to survive and pass it's mutated genes to the next generation.
But if this random mutatation isn't a detriment, or even, is an advantage, then it's likely to pass onto the next generation. This non-detrimental mutation, throughout the years, spreads through the population.

Nature is doing the selecting, but not in a conscious way. Leave a population of animals in a specific environment for thousands of years, and they'll adapt to their surroundings through the generations, whether it be better camoflarge, protection, behavioural changes, more specialised bodies, etc.

 

[kehs]

Hey Maninthemirror, here are several different rainforest caterpillar species. You might notice a common trend.

I can't wait to ride these trains.

 

[mcfrank]

Maninthemirror doesn't get it at all, but in some ways I can relate. I grew up in a very religious household and went to a school that taught creationism. While I had broken free and was an atheist by the time I got to college, I still had no idea how the fuck evolution worked. It took me a while to get out of the "creator" or "guiding hand" mindset to really understand that it is just random survival passing on its genes. He will get there.

 

[happypup]

Maninthemirror doesn't get it at all, but in some ways I can relate. I grew up in a very religious household and went to a school that taught creationism. While I had broken free and was an atheist by the time I got to college, I still had no idea how the fuck evolution worked. It took me a while to get out of the "creator" or "guiding hand" mindset to really understand that it is just random survival passing on its genes. He will get there.

It certainly doesn't help that tautological phrases are often used to simplify the true nature of evolution. And random survival is genetic drift, which in part guides evolution. Nonrandom selection guides the rest.

 

[Maninthemirror]

I posted about this earlier, but if all of the wonderful arguments here can't convince you, this is from Carl Sagan about Heike crabs. What might help is that we humans were the selectors. For the caterpillar their predators were the selectors.

No one is arguing forced intervention from external stimuli , the discussion is how the caterpillar looks exactly like a snake. The explanation given by Sagan is pretty explanatory, the crabs which looked like samurai were thrown back into sea while the others were consumed and thus thru human consumption, the untouched samurai crabs remained, that is a different discussion on a caterpillar which doesn't have a snake like mark on it but it actually looks like a snake and swipes at you, which is nowhere near what 'marked samurai' crabs are there. No one would argue that the external stimuli would work with the caterpillars , the Crux is how the physical view of the caterpillar itself wound up looking exactly like a snake and sniping at you exactly like a a snake. Looking exactly like something and having the sniping trait is entirely different than a crab which has markings which somewhat resemble a samurai and thus all others are eaten. It would have some connection if the crab started acting like samurai but that is another topic

The predisposition to avoid snakes, a combination of instinctual and learned behavior is carried by the predator of the caterpillar, because the ones who do not are more likely to be eaten by snakes and not pass on their genes. The predators who are best at avoiding snakes and distinguishing their prey (the caterpillar) from real snakes are the ones who survive and pass on their genes (and learned behavior) to their offspring. In turn the caterpillars who, through genetic mutation appear more and more snakelike, are less likely to be eaten and therefore pass on their genes to the next generation.

The predators eat the caterpillar which look less like snakes and leave alone the caterpillar which look more like snakes, we both agree on that part that it would result in the less snake like caterpillars to have the same survival as before while the caterpillar with the snake face has a higher than normal survival than the average caterpillar because caterpillars existed before this snake like evolved caterpillar and they will still exist while the snake like caterpillar will have a higher survival rate which would contribute to a higher number eventually . Thats fine and we agree on that point. The point i make is how did the exact look of the snake came about in the first place as well as its sniping action mimicking a snake unless nature is not blind or the visual perception of the snake kept passing down which included actions of the snake learnt. That is the argument, not who eats what more.

No-one controls evolution, mutation, or changing of genes. Random mutations happen all the fucking time, sometimes, the mutations are a disadvantage, in which case, the individual with the mutation would be less likely to survive and pass it's mutated genes to the next generation.
But if this random mutatation isn't a detriment, or even, is an advantage, then it's likely to pass onto the next generation. This non-detrimental mutation, throughout the years, spreads through the population.

Nature is doing the selecting, but not in a conscious way. Leave a population of animals in a specific environment for thousands of years, and they'll adapt to their surroundings through the generations, whether it be better camoflarge, protection, behavioural changes, more specialised bodies, etc.

To be perfectly clear do you not think that for something as free range as nature that for producing a mutation which has an advantage , a thousand more mutations which have a disadvantage would occur through nature?

Take for example a mice which would evolve into a hedgehog like creature if nature is free ranging and nothing controls it, then wouldn't the mutations first have a thousand mutations on the mice and then one with the hedgehog trait ? Isn't it a bit too convenient for nature not to show us the thousand other mutations which failed and only show is the mutation which is designed to succeed. Its very similar to the Thomas edison bulb example. He tried 100s of bulbs before the one which succeeded to be what society required but the 100s of bulbs yet still did take place before the right one came along , Thomas edison was forcing the bulb to work yet he failed 100s of times so if something like nature which is free ranging why would you expect it not to contribute to 1000s of mutation failures before the right one which is good for the mice survival occurs . Get my point ?

Maninthemirror doesn't get it at all, but in some ways I can relate. I grew up in a very religious household and went to a school that taught creationism. While I had broken free and was an atheist by the time I got to college, I still had no idea how the fuck evolution worked. It took me a while to get out of the "creator" or "guiding hand" mindset to really understand that it is just random survival passing on its genes. He will get there.

Creationist theory is entirely different than guided evolution. Creationists dont think anything can evolve while evolution exists in the guided evolution theory. Can't understand why a different theory cannot be accepted as a theory itself and discussed. Its not like i am rejecting evolution, the only difference is the control portion of nature which is different and who controls the nature which is different. Pure evolution stops at nature, guided evolution goes one level above nature, thats all, no one should be offended a difference exists while acknowledging evolution itself

 

[Toxi]

Take for example a mice which would evolve into a hedgehog like creature if nature is free ranging and nothing controls it, then wouldn't the mutations first have a thousand mutations on the mice and then one with the hedgehog trait ? Isn't it a bit too convenient for nature not to show us the thousand other mutations which failed and only show is the mutation which is designed to succeed. Its very similar to the Thomas edison bulb example. He tried 100s of bulbs before the one which succeeded to be what society required but the 100s of bulbs yet still did take place before the right one came along , Thomas edison was forcing the bulb to work yet he failed 100s of times so if something like nature which is free ranging why would you expect it not to contribute to 1000s of mutation failures before the right one which is good for the mice survival occurs . Get my point ?

Nature does show us the mutations that failed.

It's not pretty.

Not all examples are that dramatic, but traits that lower survivability are often weeded out fast and do not propagate.

 

[happypup]

No one is arguing forced intervention from external stimuli , the discussion is how the caterpillar looks exactly like a snake. The explanation given by Sagan is pretty explanatory, the crabs which looked like samurai were thrown back into sea while the others were consumed and thus thru human consumption, the untouched samurai crabs remained, that is a different discussion on a caterpillar which doesn't have a snake like mark on it but it actually looks like a snake and swipes at you, which is nowhere near what 'marked samurai' crabs are there. No one would argue that the external stimuli would work with the caterpillars , the Crux is how the physical view of the caterpillar itself wound up looking exactly like a snake and sniping at you exactly like a a snake. Looking exactly like something and having the sniping trait is entirely different than a crab which has markings which somewhat resemble a samurai and thus all others are eaten. It would have some connection if the crab started acting like samurai but that is another topic



The predators eat the caterpillar which look less like snakes and leave alone the caterpillar which look more like snakes, we both agree on that part that it would result in the less snake like caterpillars to have the same survival as before while the caterpillar with the snake face has a higher than normal survival than the average caterpillar because caterpillars existed before this snake like evolved caterpillar and they will still exist while the snake like caterpillar will have a higher survival rate which would contribute to a higher number eventually . Thats fine and we agree on that point. The point i make is how did the exact look of the snake came about in the first place as well as its sniping action mimicking a snake unless nature is not blind or the visual perception of the snake kept passing down which included actions of the snake learnt. That is the argument, not who eats what more.



To be perfectly clear do you not think that for something as free range as nature that for producing a mutation which has an advantage , a thousand more mutations which have a disadvantage would occur through nature?

Take for example a mice which would evolve into a hedgehog like creature if nature is free ranging and nothing controls it, then wouldn't the mutations first have a thousand mutations on the mice and then one with the hedgehog trait ? Isn't it a bit too convenient for nature not to show us the thousand other mutations which failed and only show is the mutation which is designed to succeed. Its very similar to the Thomas edison bulb example. He tried 100s of bulbs before the one which succeeded to be what society required but the 100s of bulbs yet still did take place before the right one came along , Thomas edison was forcing the bulb to work yet he failed 100s of times so if something like nature which is free ranging why would you expect it not to contribute to 1000s of mutation failures before the right one which is good for the mice survival occurs . Get my point ?

You are again forgetting about competition for resources, the many failed experiments do exist, just look at our own species's unusual birth defects. These are rare, and non beneficial, so they do not spread through the population. Beneficial mutations propagate, non beneficial mutations do not.

 

[Maninthemirror]

Nature does show us the mutations that failed.

It's not pretty.

Not all examples are that dramatic, but traits that lower survivability are often weeded out fast and do not propagate.

That is like a human deformity. Is that really an examples of a thousand failures before one success if nature had free range ?

 

[Deleted member 20920]

Take for example a mice which would evolve into a hedgehog like creature if nature is free ranging and nothing controls it, then wouldn't the mutations first have a thousand mutations on the mice and then one with the hedgehog trait ? Isn't it a bit too convenient for nature not to show us the thousand other mutations which failed and only show is the mutation which is designed to succeed. Its very similar to the Thomas edison bulb example. He tried 100s of bulbs before the one which succeeded to be what society required but the 100s of bulbs yet still did take place before the right one came along , Thomas edison was forcing the bulb to work yet he failed 100s of times so if something like nature which is free ranging why would you expect it not to contribute to 1000s of mutation failures before the right one which is good for the mice survival occurs . Get my point ?

I think that a great starting point in understanding nature is to stop personifying Nature. It is not attempting to show anyone anything. It has no agency. No one is trying to do anything. There is no Thomas Edison (s) trying out anything because it is not an experiment.

There is also no merit in seeing things as success or failures. Thinking in such terms leads you towards finding some semblance of agency by an unknown entity.

We do not see certain mutations because these mutations might not have contributed to their survival or might even have been detrimental to survival (image a bright blue rodent in a desert with predators, surefire way of getting spotted and killed).

 

[happypup]

That is like a human deformity. Is that really an examples of a thousand failures before one success if nature had free range ?

yes that is exactly what it is, among mutations beneficial ones are rare, but they persist because they are beneficial. Non beneficial mutations are far more common, yet they do not persist because they do not provide an added benefit to the organisms competition for resources.

 

[Mumei]

No one is arguing forced intervention from external stimuli, the discussion is how the caterpillar looks exactly like a snake.

Creationist theory is entirely different than guided evolution. Creationists dont think anything can evolve while evolution exists in the guided evolution theory. Can't understand why a different theory cannot be accepted as a theory itself and discussed. Its not like i am rejecting evolution, the only difference is the control portion of nature which is different and who controls the nature which is different. Pure evolution stops at nature, guided evolution goes one level above nature, thats all, no one should be offended a difference exists while acknowledging evolution itself

... Yes, you are. You're describing theistic evolution.

I don't know why you are going through the motions of pretending that you aren't suggesting external stimuli; it's not like your religious beliefs aren't pretty well known on GAF, particularly with people who you are likely to see in a topic like this. But I do think it's more than a bit dishonest of you.

 

[Scrooged]

Creationist theory is entirely different than guided evolution. Creationists dont think anything can evolve while evolution exists in the guided evolution theory. Can't understand why a different theory cannot be accepted as a theory itself and discussed. Its not like i am rejecting evolution, the only difference is the control portion of nature which is different and who controls the nature which is different. Pure evolution stops at nature, guided evolution goes one level above nature, thats all, no one should be offended a difference exists while acknowledging evolution itself

One level above nature, as in supernatural? That is by definition unscientific. If it's outside of nature then there is nothing to physically test.

 

[MilkBeard]

Evolution. Shit blows my mind sometimes. A caterpillar disguised as a snake. Shit is cray

 

[Maninthemirror]

... Yes, you are. You're describing theistic evolution.

I don't know why you are going through the motions of pretending that you aren't suggesting external stimuli; it's not like your religious beliefs aren't pretty well known on GAF, particularly with people who you are likely to see in a topic like this. But I do think it's more than a bit dishonest of you.

PM sent

 

[Delta Assault]

The thing that confuses me is... how come this caterpillar isn't more widespread and populous? You'd think that with a trait like that it'd dominate over all other caterpillar species and quickly become the most successful caterpillar species ever. Kinda like how monopolies control a market.

Yet instead it seems to be rather rare and I've certainly never seen it before this thread. Caterpillars I've seen have all been of the ordinary bland variety.

 

[kehs]

Looking exactly like something and having the sniping trait is entirely different than a crab which has markings which somewhat resemble a samurai and thus all others are eaten. It would have some connection if the crab started acting like samurai but that is another topic

This particular variation looks like a snake.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/08/0912122107.full.pdf

Fish, moths, other insects also have "eyes" that are a result of predators going "oh shit...not messing with the one looking right at me".

 

[Kimosabae]

I think that a great starting point in understanding nature is to stop personifying Nature.5

This.

I was going to respond, but at this point, it's clear that he's dead-set on attributing significant meaning to improbable events in nature. This causes him to hand wave any explanations to this particular one (snake-like appearance that deters predators), making the discussion a redundant and circuitous one.

It's a fundamental human socio-psychological flaw (attribution theory) which makes his stance reasonable - but ultimately irrational in terms of pure judgement.

This is a war of value systems and it won't be won on an internet discussion forum.

 

[Deleted member 20920]

One level above nature, as in supernatural? That is by definition unscientific. If it's outside of nature then there is nothing to physically test.

After we die we all become part of the collective supernatural council that votes on what Nature should do next. Because of the sheer number of souls from the dead, voting takes a long time. Hence evolution takes a while to happen. Occasionally the council does a wild card suggestion to dampen the boredom and we end up with caterpillars that look like snakes.

 

[happypup]

The thing that confuses me is... how come this caterpillar isn't more widespread and populous? You'd think that with a trait like that it'd dominate over all other caterpillar species and quickly become the most successful caterpillar species ever. Kinda like how monopolies control a market.

Yet instead it seems to be rather rare and I've certainly never seen it before this thread. Caterpillars I've seen have all been of the ordinary bland variety.

The key here is necessary expenditure of resources. There is a cost associated with bright or elaborate appearances purely through the extra expenditure of calories. When competition for resources is extremely high, and resources are abundant you get a huge variety of highly specialized forms. When resources are less abundant the benefit to elaborate appearances are not worth the extra resources expended on them.

Think of it as a cost benefit analysis. If the benefit is great and the cost is low it will be common. If the benefit is great but the cost is high it will be found only among the resource wealthy regions. If the benefit is low and the cost is low it will be more common in resource poor regions. If the benefit is low and the cost is high it will be exceedingly rare.

 

[Lesath]

The thing that confuses me is... how come this caterpillar isn't more widespread and populous? You'd think that with a trait like that it'd dominate over all other caterpillar species and quickly become the most successful caterpillar species ever. Kinda like how monopolies control a market.

Yet instead it seems to be rather rare and I've certainly never seen it before this thread. Caterpillars I've seen have all been of the ordinary bland variety.

As cool as this particular example is, other caterpillars utilize other strategies that are just as effective: camouflage, toxins, hairs, etc. One species even chills with ants for defense.

Also, mimicry is a double-edged sword. A hungry bird is not going to be as inhibited from trying its luck if the vast majority of its encounters are with caterpillars looking like snakes, for example.

 

[Dr. Malik]

Hey Maninthemirror, here are several different rainforest caterpillar species. You might notice a common trend.

Aww they look like baby snakes

 

[kinggroin]

It seems so crazy that evolution can produce something this refined and accurate to what a snake actually looks like.

Because it is crazy. I don't buy it.

 

[Mario]

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

No, you aren't. You are not presenting a theory.

You are presenting an idea, one that doesn't even seem to meet the standard of being a testable hypothesis and is therefore fundamentally unscientific. It is in no way a "theory" in the context you are presenting it.

Trying to put your idea and the theory of evolution on an equal footing by using language implying they have the same weight demonstrates you either haven't understood enough of the theory of evolution and the support behind it or you are being disingenuous.

In either case, I suggest more reading, as you continue to ignore very straightforward explanation and guidance on the "problem" you outline. Here you go

Camouflage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camouflage

Mimicry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mimesis_(biology)

Evolution of camouflage (video)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLAckCVa6bY

 

[DragonGirl]

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




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

The statistical probability is not too high. In fact, it's guaranteed to happen. You're making the mistake of thinking a certain set of steps must be made to reach success and this simply isn't true. There are thousands of paths to success. The fact that here is where we ended up is irrelevant. We (and by we I mean "Life") are the puddle of water that fits the pothole. The pot hole was not statistically improbably shaped to perfectly fit the water.

 

[DragonGirl]

Thats a bold assumption, how does the chain reaction know to look like something which exists and which is a predator without a visual confirmation. Are you saying the visual perception of a predatoris passed on without any visual bearing and created through supposition?

I will repeat myself again............

Birds eat caterpillars. Rodents and other small animals do too. Birds and small animals are commonly eaten by snakes. Things eaten by snakes are afraid of snakes. Things that look like they might be snakes frighten off birds and other animals. A caterpillar that looks vaguely snake like has a better chance of scaring off birds etc, than a caterpillar that does not look snake like. The markings do not have to be designed to have this effect. Any pattern that looks vaguely eye like in roughly the right place could look like a snake's head. This would be your starting point for evolving a good snake mimic. The caterpillar does not know what a snake looks like. It does not need to know nor have the goal of looking like a snake. It simply has to live long enough to reproduce and dump its genes into the breeding pool. As for the snake like behavior, twitching, rearing up, "striking" are common behaviors in lots of caterpillars whether they look like snakes or not. Behaviors are as malleable by evolution as appearance. A twitchy caterpillar with a eye spots is a good starting point for a snake mimic to form.

Can we please put the phantom of Intelligent Design to bed here?

 

[happypup]

I will repeat myself again............

Birds eat caterpillars. Rodents and other small animals do too. Birds and small animals are commonly eaten by snakes. Things eaten by snakes are afraid of snakes. Things that look like they might be snakes frighten off birds and other animals. A caterpillar that looks vaguely snake like has a better chance of scaring off birds etc, than a caterpillar that does not look snake like. The markings do not have to be designed to have this effect. Any pattern that looks vaguely eye like in roughly the right place could look like a snake's head. This would be your starting point for evolving a good snake mimic. The caterpillar does not know what a snake looks like. It does not need to know nor have the goal of looking like a snake. It simply has to live long enough to reproduce and dump its genes into the breeding pool. As for the snake like behavior, twitching, rearing up, "striking" are common behaviors in lots of caterpillars whether they look like snakes or not. Behaviors are as malleable by evolution as appearance. A twitchy caterpillar with a eye spots is a good starting point for a snake mimic to form.

Can we please put the phantom of Intelligent Design to bed here?

It took hundreds of years to put the phantom of a flat Earth to bed. Hundreds of years to put a geocentric Universe to bed (this one keeps cropping up to this day). The track record of accepting science is chock full of examples of long term resistance. I would not be surprised if a hundred years from now on the future interwebs our cyborg offspring will be having this same debate.

 

[M3d10n]

Just look how quickly we got many variations of dogs with very different looks and behaviors when humans start acting as selective filters upon the species. Is it so hard to see how much more drastic changes could get if the process was refined for a much longer time period?

Also, can people not see how harmful the "an invisible intelligent force must be behind this" explanation is? It declares it's impossible to study and understand the subject matter any further than we have because the "inner mechanism" resides outside our observable space and is, therefore, forever hidden from us.

 

[happypup]

Just look how quickly we got many variations of dogs with very different looks and behaviors when humans start acting as selective filters upon the species. Is it so hard to see how much more drastic changes could get if the process was refined for a much longer time period?

Also, can people not see how harmful the "an invisible intelligent force must be behind this" explanation is? It declares it's impossible to study and understand the subject matter any further than we have because the "inner mechanism" resides outside our observable space and is, therefore, forever hidden from us.

I can't understand why but for some it provides a comfort to think that way. Perhaps it is because they see the world as inherently random and chaotic like Maninthemirror does, and having something like them somewhere out there with control eases their inner fears. The Universe is not random though, the meticulous process of uncovering the underlying patterns of the Universe called science eliminates the need for the comfort provided in an all powerful father figure, but it requires a personal dedication to uncovering the mysteries of nature for yourself to provide the same comfort, and the strength of character to recognize that I don't know is sometimes the best answer we have. I think a God, an Intelligent Designer, is an easy alternative to the much harder and more rewarding path of discovery humanity has pursued over the entirety of our history.