Stand by Your Faith

Chiso didn't ask that at all.

Of course if he (she?) had, the scientific answer is pretty straightforward.

First of all, it is clear that in the case of these eyespots, there are intermediate stages that are beneficial. A black splotch intermediate stage would be less beneficial than these striking ringed eyespots with highlights, but they still would be beneficial enough to be selected.

It is also possible that future scientists will look at these butterflies in a future time and consider this picture an example of an "intermediate stage". Perhaps a little colored ring that simulates an iris would be even more beneficial. I bet if you looked at a million of these butterflies you would see some eyes that happen to have a little extra color....

Neologists assumption that each stage must be beneficial is incorrect.. Evolution doesn't demand this, many changes are neutral (neither good nor bad) and some changes that are a little bad will be selected if they are somehow connected to a different more beneficial change.

The fact is, evolution explains the development of these eyespots perfectly.

I don't think there is any other explanation that comes close to explaning it.

Does Chiso or anyone else want to try to give another explanation?

Please?

I shouldn't try to put words in someone else's mouth. I've got plenty of words for my own. I've only been a member of the forum for a week and I can't believe how many posts I've made. One thing I noticed right away is the futility of arguing an issue in media res without establishing axioms for agreement. That's why I've stayed clear of adding to my posts in other threads.
I think in this thread we have once again confused adaptation with evolution.

As I explained some species of moths have a different color or pattern on their hind wings, which are not visible when the moth is at rest. When they are quickly opened the contrasting color may startle a bird. Obviously, some patterns or colors are more effective, and patterns that slightly resemble vertebrate eyes would have been slightly more effective at deterring birds. Even a slight advantage means that moths carrying that trait have a slightly higher survival rate, which magnified over many generations could select for the most reaslistic eye pattern. It is not difficult to imagine how this works.

As I explained some species of moths have a different color or pattern on their hind wings, which are not visible when the moth is at rest. When they are quickly opened the contrasting color of the wings may startle a bird. Obviously, some patterns or colors are more effective, and patterns that slightly resemble vertebrate eyes would have been slightly more effective at deterring birds. Even a slight advantage means that moths carrying that trait have a slightly higher survival rate, which magnified over many generations could select for the most reaslistic eye pattern. It is not difficult to imagine how this works.

On my thread "More weird animals and animal traits," there is a picture of an underwing moth. On the same thread is a picture of a moth with two color phases, one a mottled color that blends in with tree bark, and the other phase black. In England before the industrial age the mottled phase was the most common, but with the coal pollution of the industrial age and the trees turning black, the black phase predominated. However, with pollution control the mottled phase once again has made a comeback.

Thankyou Neologist. A very intelligent question.

We're sitting here looking at a photo taken through a macro lens at a distance of probably no more than 5 cm. The illusion is still quite good in this circumstance.

In a case of mimicry or camouflage you've got to remember that early stages of it may not be good at 5cm, but on a dark windy night with rain falling it may make the difference between surviving and not surviving.

After that occurs, it becomes fine-tuned through the same processes until eventually it would be so perfect that it's convincing through a macro lens at 5 cm.

Also this is a particularly stupid example since we're mostly talking about a large symmetrical splotch pattern on the back that could probably occur through only a few mutations. (Genetically speaking that mutation would be very easy to occur).

Yet I hope my point has been made.



As for the fossil record, I don't know. I'm not a giraffe expert I'm afraid. You could look this up, I'd do it myself but time is a little limited at this instant. Perhaps if the conversation continues I can do it in my next post.

As for the likelihood of survival, obviously yes. An increased neck of... let's say 1 cm, wouldn't be particularly difficult to develop. If you've seen trees you'd know that in a vertical band of 1 cm on a large tree there will frequently be many leaves. Spreading this across an entire savannah, that 1 cm difference would grant access to hundreds of thousands of leaves.

Sorry for the hurriedness of this post. I hope to get a chance to make a better one soon, just in a bit of a hurry at this moment.

Just to point out.. I think the leading hypothesis for giraffe neck length has to do with mating behavior. The male with the longest neck would have a distinct advantage in mate selection, because it uses the neck to club its male opponents. Since long necked giraffes have a reproductive advantage, their genes are disproportionately represented in successive generations.

edit: don't mean to nitpick.. just thought I'd throw it out there