Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 23

Thread: Chameleons and guided evolution?

  1. Top | #11
    Veteran Member Lion IRC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,514
    Rep Power
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by OLDMAN View Post
    Your kind of looking at it wrong. Once evolution starts down a pathway, for example brain size, the improvement and it's advantageous snowball.
    The improvement and its origin are the central question. The subsequent survival advantage it confers is really just the cart that follows the horse.

    In part because there is nothing stopping a successful species, and in part because more of the same is an even greater advantage. I think we can assume camouflage is a good advantage, multi-colored a better one, but the ability to flush or paint camouflage is the best.
    You assume that because of hindsight. You are looking in the rear view mirror. Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. Youre doing the very thing Intelligent Design folks are accused of.

    And try to remember your looking at the end product of millions of years of evolution, so it seems diverse and incredible. (which it is) But certainly not designed, and here's how we know.
    You can't have it both ways. Its special pleading to say we know its NOT designed because...[end product] whilst simultaneously denying others who are looking at the same [end product] and who say it IS designed.

    Not all creatures have camouflage like the octopus, but it certainly would be advantageous if they did.
    Not all creatures have camouflage because not all creatures need it.

    So if you were to build the perfect creature, wouldn't it have a human brain and the speed of a cheetah, wings to fly, be able to live on both land and water, etc, etc.
    Every time I try to talk about a maximally great/perfect being skeptics challenge me as to why I get to define 'perfect'. And yet here you are basing an argument on your assumptions that a perfect creature needs bird wings, fish gils, cheetahs legs, night vision, long hair, short hair, thick skin, soft skin.

    What we see are incredible animals adapted to specific environments. Camels can't live in the north pole, or polar bears in the desert, but they have amazing abilities to survive in one certain environment.
    Incredible? Amazing? I agree.
    But you're defeating your own argument because millions of years of natural selection and improvement should result in creatures that can live (survive) anywhere/everywhere. How many more millions of years are needed for us to achieve the amazing flying cheetah that can survive without water and hunts penguins in Antarctica?

  2. Top | #12
    Senior Member OLDMAN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    NB
    Posts
    864
    Archived
    2,107
    Total Posts
    2,971
    Rep Power
    50
    It is clear, in our modern society, not all people need the ability of reasoning, to survive.
    Simply twisting a statement backwards doesn't negate it. Your arguing things I never stated, things you simply or purposely misunderstood.
    For example: The very last statement, evolution isn't trying to build the perfect creature, it only rewards ones that survive. God on the other hand would not be worried about environment, he would simply tack on another survival trait.

  3. Top | #13
    Contributor skepticalbip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Searching for reality along the long and winding road
    Posts
    6,364
    Archived
    12,976
    Total Posts
    19,340
    Rep Power
    71
    Quote Originally Posted by OLDMAN View Post
    It is clear, in our modern society, not all people need the ability of reasoning, to survive.
    Simply twisting a statement backwards doesn't negate it. Your arguing things I never stated, things you simply or purposely misunderstood.
    For example: The very last statement, evolution isn't trying to build the perfect creature, it only rewards ones that survive. God on the other hand would not be worried about environment, he would simply tack on another survival trait.
    But it is common for creationists to think that is what the theory of evolution is about. I've yet to meet a creationist who is capable of understanding the idea of random mutation and natural selection resulting in a species well suited to its particular environmental niche (so unsuited for other environmental niches). They don't seem to be able to get past their assumption that the TOE describes a goal driven process.
    Last edited by skepticalbip; 01-17-2021 at 10:32 PM.

  4. Top | #14
    Veteran Member excreationist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,200
    Archived
    4,886
    Total Posts
    6,086
    Rep Power
    77
    Quote Originally Posted by OLDMAN View Post
    Your kind of looking at it wrong. Once evolution starts down a pathway, for example brain size, the improvement and it's advantageous snowball....
    More things:

    https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/...ge-colors.html
    Sometimes chameleons change their color when they are angry or fearful. To change its color, the chameleon adjusts a layer of specialized cells underlying its skin. Others change color in response to humidity, light, and temperature. Chameleons never stop growing. They keep shedding their skin from time to time. Furthermore, chameleons have excellent eyesight characterized by a 360-degree arc vision. Although chameleons do not hear, their bodies detect sound within the surrounding.
    https://chameleonowner.com/can-chameleons-hear/
    ....Chameleons have the poorest hearing of all lizards.

    the chameleon can only hear low tones having a frequency of 200 to 600 Hertz

    ....Chameleons and snakes are unique because unlike many other animals, they do not have outer ear structures or the lobe or flap on the outside of the head, making their ears difficult to find. They also lack a middle ear or the structure that captures and carries sound, so there’s neither an ear-opening or an eardrum.
    I was wondering what were the selection pressures that forced the whole chameleon family to lose the use of its original hearing mechanism and evolve a new seemingly inferior mechanism...

  5. Top | #15
    Veteran Member excreationist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,200
    Archived
    4,886
    Total Posts
    6,086
    Rep Power
    77
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalbip View Post
    ....I've yet to meet a creationist who is capable of understanding the idea of random mutation and natural selection resulting in a species well suited to its particular environmental niche (so unsuited for other environmental niches). They don't seem to be able to get past their assumption that the TOE describes a goal driven process.
    What about this?
    https://answersingenesis.org/natural...ion-in-action/

    It talks about mutations causing bacteria to become resistant to antibiotics....

  6. Top | #16
    Contributor skepticalbip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Searching for reality along the long and winding road
    Posts
    6,364
    Archived
    12,976
    Total Posts
    19,340
    Rep Power
    71
    Quote Originally Posted by excreationist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalbip View Post
    ....I've yet to meet a creationist who is capable of understanding the idea of random mutation and natural selection resulting in a species well suited to its particular environmental niche (so unsuited for other environmental niches). They don't seem to be able to get past their assumption that the TOE describes a goal driven process.
    What about this?
    https://answersingenesis.org/natural...ion-in-action/

    It talks about mutations causing bacteria to become resistant to antibiotics....
    That is an excellent example of exactly what I wrote in that post. That link assumes that any change that produces improved survivability must have been goal driven... Thanks.

    ETA:
    Just thought you might like to see a normal demonstration of bacteria mutating to new forms that can resist antibiotics. It isn't an amazing miracle but something well understood.

    .

  7. Top | #17
    Veteran Member excreationist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,200
    Archived
    4,886
    Total Posts
    6,086
    Rep Power
    77
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalbip View Post
    .....Just thought you might like to see a normal demonstration of bacteria mutating to new forms that can resist antibiotics. It isn't an amazing miracle but something well understood
    That video was interesting. I thought AiG would also say it is no amazing miracle and that it is well understood...

  8. Top | #18
    Contributor DrZoidberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Copenhagen
    Posts
    9,234
    Archived
    5,746
    Total Posts
    14,980
    Rep Power
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by excreationist View Post

    I was wondering what were the selection pressures that forced the whole chameleon family to lose the use of its original hearing mechanism and evolve a new seemingly inferior mechanism...
    So you want genetic drift explained? Human noses are as sensitive as dog noses. A human nose sends the same amount of information to the brain as the dog nose does. The reason we can't smell as well as dogs is because the parts of the brain that took in that information got repurposed to other things. Other functions gave an advantage over smell. Since the cost of making a nose with all those nerves is marginally more expensive we keep having this amazingly sensitive nose generation after generation without us being good at picking up smells.

    Having skin cells that can change colour has evolved in nature many times. It's not a particularly complex or amazing feature. Humans can do it to. Our skin becomes darker when exposed to UV rays.

    One thing that keeps amazing me about creationists is the lack of interest. If you really cared about this, you'd look it up. You'd find a real scientific text book and learn about it. It's not that hard. I had a period when I found evolution mindblowingly amazing and studied all I could. You also clearly find it mindblowingly amazing. You find it incredible even. I will admit, so did I. But our school system is honest about all the other things, so I thought, they're probably honest about this as well, and the problem is on my end and on understanding.

    This is a sceptics forum. I'm not a scientist. I know there are some scientists here. But this is not the place to turn if you actually have an interest in understanding these things. There's loads of videos youtube explaining evolution.

    Also, chameleons are cool, but they're not nearly as cool as the octopus. Those guys are even more amazing. Try to explain that using ToE. It's much harder.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=st8-EY71K84

  9. Top | #19
    Veteran Member excreationist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,200
    Archived
    4,886
    Total Posts
    6,086
    Rep Power
    77
    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by excreationist View Post

    I was wondering what were the selection pressures that forced the whole chameleon family to lose the use of its original hearing mechanism and evolve a new seemingly inferior mechanism...
    So you want genetic drift explained? Human noses are as sensitive as dog noses. A human nose sends the same amount of information to the brain as the dog nose does. The reason we can't smell as well as dogs is because the parts of the brain that took in that information got repurposed to other things. Other functions gave an advantage over smell. Since the cost of making a nose with all those nerves is marginally more expensive we keep having this amazingly sensitive nose generation after generation without us being good at picking up smells.
    A sense of smell getting less sensitive is different from a hearing system that stops using the old system and uses a separate new system (that is generally inferior)....
    https://chameleonowner.com/can-chameleons-hear/
    "...Chameleons have a membrane at the side of their head which they use to hear low tones..."

    Having skin cells that can change colour has evolved in nature many times.
    Yeah though I don't think there are many animals that can change to pretty much any color like chameleons can. They can also have many different patterns - or a chaotic pattern.

    It's not a particularly complex or amazing feature. Humans can do it to. Our skin becomes darker when exposed to UV rays.
    Changing to any color is different from going darker over the course of days or years.

    One thing that keeps amazing me about creationists is the lack of interest. If you really cared about this, you'd look it up. You'd find a real scientific text book and learn about it. It's not that hard.
    If that's so easy then maybe skeptics on this forum could do it... I'm not happy with Politesse's attempt though - I think the color changing involves more than just simple skin stretching because I think there are at least 3 independent kinds of color changing elements. BTW "real scientific text books" are often A$100....

    ....There's loads of videos youtube explaining evolution.
    Well in the OP I did say "It is probably impossible to convince skeptics that any species in the virtual evolutionary tree were designed or guided. Intellectually the chameleon family seems to me to be highly unlikely but not impossible"

    Also, chameleons are cool, but they're not nearly as cool as the octopus. Those guys are even more amazing. Try to explain that using ToE. It's much harder.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=st8-EY71K84
    That octopus video was interesting... I'm impressed about its ability to squeeze...

    I found this by the same creator:

    At about 2 minutes in it talks about "chromatophores"...
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromatophore
    Mature chromatophores are grouped into subclasses based on their colour (more properly "hue") under white light: xanthophores (yellow), erythrophores (red), iridophores (reflective / iridescent), leucophores (white), melanophores (black/brown), and cyanophores (blue).


    That is what I expected.... the primary colors for subtractive colors / paints - black and white, and red, blue and yellow....

    More about that video:
    perhaps the greatest deception that the spy lizard chameleon has ever achieved is deceiving humans into thinking that they change colors in order to blend in with their surroundings - they do not - they change color based on temperature and their mood - the only surrounding this could help them blend into would be a sad clown convention

    I don't think that is entirely true though.... e.g.
    Last edited by excreationist; 01-19-2021 at 12:38 AM.

  10. Top | #20
    Veteran Member excreationist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,200
    Archived
    4,886
    Total Posts
    6,086
    Rep Power
    77
    More about the video:


    "the chameleons upper and lower eyelids are fused to form a small hole just large enough for its pupil"

    That explains how the eyes can also change color....

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •