Regarding Butterflies: Mimicry and the Evolutionary Path...

[Infundibulum]

It's an arms-race. It is many slowly evolving eyes across aeons that gradually become better in spotting the mimicry and many mimicries across aeons that get better on avoiding of being spotted.

A predator 'observing' (with eyes) ... then kickstarts an evolutionary trait that, over a short eon, results in a form that resists being eaten?
I would have to suppose, then, that that was was one hell of a genius predator and architect of the Evo process...

the need to ensure survival and procreation in a constantly changing (through aeons) environment is the architect of the evolutionary process.

 

[Vodsel]

Cyb, I have the feeling you are selectively reading the answers, maybe without realizing it... The points have been already made, Infundibulum has been quite clear, and I tried before but maybe I didn't express myself properly (or my comment got lost in the shuffle).

The observer mentioned by spinCycle is not an observer "creating" reality, the way some speculations about quantum collapse of reality talk about it. It's the organism that interacts with the butterfly and helps determine with its predator behavior whether the butterfly will be eaten or not.

Just picture a couple groups of butterflies. In one, a gene expresses by producing a pattern that remotely resembles an eye shape. This group will be positively selected (even in small proportion) versus the other group of butterflies that does not have any shape in the wings. The circular shape will be changing through generations, and some outcomes will prove to be useful to fool predators and others won't. Eventually, among the MANY species resulting, some will happen to have a structure in the wings that does not only match a reptile eye for some predators, but also matches our image of an eye with a light reflection from our point of view.

And again, these changes happen much faster than you might think, and of course have left a whole lot of mutations (or otherwise environmentally induced changes) along the way, which we are not aware of - either because they don't pick our attention, or because simply they are not there anymore.

 

[cyb]

the need to ensure survival and procreation in a constantly changing (through aeons) environment is the architect of the evolutionary process.

Ok...we're getting closer...

'The Need' is the Architect...

Explain, if you will, how 'The Need' knows anything about how photons refract off of polished surfaces?
(bearing in mind here that I'm not on board with random/chance mutation thing for the purposes of this question)

If I can be utterly convinced...I 'may' actually give up a spiritual quest and jump aboard the EvoTrain (without a ticket of course)

No pressure!!

edit: Sorry Vodsel we all seem to be posting at the same time...I'm getting a little lost.

 

[Vodsel]

^ No problem...

and btw, I don't think it's a Spiritual Quest vs. EvoTrain matter. It's about finding the synthesis of both, and there's still a lot of findings to make. One thing is sure, though... if you are not willing to consider random mutation as one important factor in evolution, it will be difficult for you to accept the theory overall.

 

[anrchy]

I think the simplest explanation would be that every design in life is used, whether for a certain reason or by chance. Clouds often form the shape of complex patterns or animals or shapes but for no discernible reason. There are only so many shapes and designs to choose from in this reality it would make sense to me that some would be used without an actual purpose.

 

[cyb]

^ No problem...

and btw, I don't think it's a Spiritual Quest vs. EvoTrain matter. It's about finding the synthesis of both, and there's still a lot of findings to make. One thing is sure, though... if you are not willing to consider random mutation as one important factor in evolution, it will be difficult for you to accept the theory overall.

You make an excellent argument and a convincing post.
You are right that if I just go with the random mutation...problem solved...

It's just as an artist...light is everything to me and mimicry is just a fakery...

As for the Spiritual Quest vs. EvoTrain matter...I've been cruising both for some time and they never cease to amaze and delight, on a daily basis...:thumb_up:

 

[DeMenTed]

Cyb you are an intelligent person who is looking for an intelligent designer of this phenomenon. Evolution obviously has intelligence as it has proven itself to be successful in life. Does it mean that a god or aliens coded the eye pattern? no would be my answer. Evolution is a trait that is part and parcel with life. without evolution life would become stagnant and variants in life wouldn't occur.

Think of the amount of owl butterflies that have existed and think about the millions of pattern possibilities that would have occurred over the millions of years. Mutations happen in every generation of life and the butterfly generations i assume would be a much speedier process than human evolution for example.

The butterflies with no design on their wings would quickly be eradicated by their predators leaving only patterned wings. The next step for the predator is now choosing which patterned butterflies to eat. The predator will probably eat the least threatening looking patterns. the butterfly is continuing to mutate during this process and at some point a circle pattern emerged which amongst the rest of the patterned butterflies was the least likely to be eaten. This process is refined over millenia until what we are left with is an accurate representation of a real eye. Every concievable pattern has probably came and gone due to the predators instincts on what it thinks is the easiest and safest meal.

Either that or evolution as we know it is a conscious thing that knows and understands the vulnerabilities of its host and the instincts of its predators. Personally i go for chance mutations but anything is possible in this strange place called earth

 

[DeMenTed]

I was thinking a bit more about this and i agree that there definitely seems to be intelligent logical design in the process and there had to be another observer present.

Ive came to the conclusion that the intelligent other observer is the butterfly itself. The butterflies that aren't getting eaten are possibly recognizing which patterns are more likely to be eaten and are then incorporating that into their mating system. The intelligent butterfly is designing it's future by mating with butterflies that have the eye characteristics. They are the eyes that are seeing and recognizing the benefits of having eye like shapes on wings. Over time they have recognized that the specular design is an improvement in their evolution and thus they are the most successful at breeding. This makes sense to me

 

[cyb]

Firstly thanks to all who are replying for your time and insights...
DeMenTed I am delighted that it's got you thinking...

Strangely if you type "specular highlights in butterfly eye spots" into Google...the #1 spot brings you here

(Are we the only ones discussing the Specular nature of the eye spots' highlights?)

As I was drifting off to sleep last night I was contemplating this further;

~ If it is a random mutation..why is it that it occurs many times, across many class/genus/species?
(when does random...cross the line to become common?)

~ How long has this phenomenon existed in Evo time scales? Recently emerged or manifest over immeasurable generations?

~ If this has been manifesting for a long time (aeons)...why has it not become dominant and overruled the non-specular spots? (both co-exist today)

~ Also specular optics, whilst obviously being perceptible by a creature, would not be 'understood as photonic' by it's (limited) neural lexicon. So it could not choose to adopt this mutation as 'better' (evo goes random again)
If not random, then something knows about optics...
(I've worked in high end fibre optics and spectral analysis...it's incredibly complex):surprised

~ The particular highlight on the Owl Butterflies wing is crescent shaped, not a simple white spot as in some others. this denotes a highlight that can only have come from an acute angle off a convex surface...this strikes me as very determined and not random at all (but that's just me.)

Please note that I am not being deliberately obtuse here to the Evo specialists.
These are just musings mixed with a dash of Devils Advocatery...:twisted:
I must lower my dose of noopept

Some fascinating reading to be had on the subject:
(seems like hot topic in Evo circles)

http://lib.bioinfo.pl/meid:54249

Understanding how the spectacular diversity of colour patterns on butterfly wings is shaped by natural selection, and how particular pattern elements are generated, has been the focus of both evolutionary and developmental biologists. The growing field of evolutionary developmental biology has now begun to provide a link between genetic variation and the phenotypes that are produced by developmental processes and that are sorted by natural selection. Butterfly wing patterns are set to become one of the few examples of morphological diversity to be studied successfully at many levels of biological organization, and thus to yield a more complete picture of adaptive morphological evolution.

Spectral reflectance and directional properties of structural coloration in bird plumage

How the Butterfly Gets Its Spots And what they tell us about fate

 

[cyb]

I'm gonna bump this thread and throw it open to 'non evolutionists' as well...

Just to gather some new insights...

Evolution explains one way ! ... what are the others?





and again; please keep religion and dogma out of it...thanks

 

[imPsimon]

~ If it is a random mutation..why is it that it occurs many times, across many class/genus/species?
(when does random...cross the line to become common?)

The reason why it occurs many times is because most predators (animals in general) use their eyes to hunt
so this mutation is bound to pop up here and there. Same as real eyes have been developed
independently for at least 20 times (probably more) because in a world which spends a lot
of it's time in light, eyes (photo sensitive cells) are bound to give you an edge.

~ How long has this phenomenon existed in Evo time scales? Recently emerged or manifest over immeasurable generations?

I'd say both since this eye pattern have not evolved from one species but across several different ones. Animals should at least have evolved eyes for this pattern to emerge though.

~ If this has been manifesting for a long time (aeons)...why has it not become dominant and overruled the non-specular spots? (both co-exist today)

Just because you think it would be the most successful pattern against predation doesn't mean it
is true for every environment on this planet.
Also, if you give enough time the animals without the highlight might also develop a highlight...or maybe get
rid of the eye completely because that's more successful.

~ Also specular optics, whilst obviously being perceptible by a creature, would not be 'understood as photonic' by it's (limited) neural lexicon. So it could not choose to adopt this mutation as 'better' (evo goes random again)
If not random, then something knows about optics...
(I've worked in high end fibre optics and spectral analysis...it's incredibly complex):surprised

I'm not sure if I understand what you mean.
You seem to make this more complex than it really is. No one needs to know anythig about optics.
There is no conscious choice of neither predator nor pray as to which design is better to keep.
In the case of butterflies and owl it's all about what design is most successful in scaring of the owl.
The owl thinks, lunch or it thinks, Whoa! I'm outta here.

~ The particular highlight on the Owl Butterflies wing is crescent shaped, not a simple white spot as in some others. this denotes a highlight that can only have come from an acute angle off a convex surface...this strikes me as very determined and not random at all (but that's just me.)

I think it has been answered above and also earlier in this thread.
Simple white spots can develop into crescents over time because they are a minuscule % less
likely to be eaten by some predators and thus passing of it's genes that looks more like a crescent.
I think time is the answer.

Butterfly scaring of predator

BBC Two - Natural World, 2010-2011, Butterflies: A Very British Obsession, Flashing eyes

A terrifying encounter with a butterfly sends a wood mouse packing.

www.bbc.co.uk

Some eyes might have started as a mating preference or is completely driven by mating behaviour
but in the case of most butterflies it seems to mainly be used
as warding of predators.
From what I know butterflies have rather primitive eyesight and mainly use pheromones for mating.


EDIT: "Whether one considers the eye to have evolved once or multiple times depends somewhat on the definition of an eye"

Evolution of the eye - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[cyb]

I think I have come to a conclusion that sounds a lot like:

'It really doesn't matter...Butterflies are pretty...Just get on with your time in this 'existence' and don't sweat the small stuff...'

Thanks for all the responses and if you have any more insights or epiphanies... Be sure to post them up.

 

[Parshvik Chintan]

well nothing matters, but that is hardly a good reason to stop thinking about it.

the evidence for evolution is pretty astounding and undeniable.

at this point all we can do is stare in awe at how seemingly miraculously effective it is at mimicry.

i don't think anyone can say with certainty, precisely how the genes to create the first formed.

life is amazing.

 

[cyb]

OK...Now...This one really is just messing with my mind...! :surprised
​

This spider moth species is a dramatic example of how one species can reap benefits from mimicking or looking like another species.
It has wings lighter than a feather and is one of the most delicate creatures on earth.
But this tiny moth can frighten off predators far bigger then itself - with its scary spider-like markings.
The Lygodium Spider Moth knows how to stand up for itself by using intricate patterns that mimic the shape of a spider - deterring potential predators from attacking it.
The fascinating bug was discovered in Thailand in 2005, and is described in the journal Annals Of The Entomological Society of America.
The moth feeds on ferns, and the researchers think that the creepy spider markings help protect it from predators, Business Insider said.
Researchers have documented previous incidences of moth species mimicking the behaviour of spiders as a way to defend against their predation.
But this spider moth species is a dramatic example of how one species can reap benefits from mimicking or looking like another species.
The moth has other unique features to help it in its battle for survival. Its caterpillar-like form makes it resemble beetle larvae.
When the moth reaches adult state it also has armoured segments on its rear similar to those on beetles but unlike anything seen before in a moth, the Featured Creature blog wrote.
Previous research on insects suggests that when prey - like the Lygodium Spider Moth - sense an approaching spider, they stretch out their wings and the predator thinks it has met one of its own species.
It will often flee to avoid an aggressive confrontation, the Why Evolution Is True blog said.
So a moth with this pattern might escape being eaten because it either frightens off oncoming predators or flies away while its predator is startled.

 

[imPsimon]

Wow, that's insane! Completly amazing!

 

[cubeananda]

Its pretty much scientific to say that in terms of a quantum grid, there is a point which is pure consciousness which can manifest any of infinite possibilities.


That thing would be smart, right? And since it is not limited to being efficient, it can create beautiful things, too.

It's only tempting to bring up religion because something like this implies something far more important. Who designed your soul? Who designed your life? How can it be possible that you were painted in relationship to everyone else?

My guess is a conscious mix of beauty and efficiency. Rainbows must have some kind of advanced organic creature to perceive them. They wouldn't exist otherwise. So why do rainbows exist?

 

[Parshvik Chintan]

Its pretty much scientific to say that in terms of a quantum grid, there is a point which is pure consciousness which can manifest any of infinite possibilities.

no.. it really isn't

which isn't to say i disagree. but i believe that would fall under the category of "pseudoscience"

 

[anonenium]

something to throw into the mix

there is a difference between true mimicry and bluffing.

true mimicry is when a dominant species has another species come in who looks like them and thus is left alone, this normally occurs because the dominant species as one significant advantage (poison normally) that makes it so other species leave it alone.

this happens with some types of bugs and a number of snakes and frogs, but you already have to have the dangerous species established in order for this to be possible, and your just granted the leway allowed to the other species. and this occurs over many generations with anyone deviating from the higher umbrella being killed off (because they are recognized as not dangerous)

bluffing on the other hand you not trying to mimic an entire other species, just a curtain characteristic, the eye patches are a perfect case of bluffing, they are not trying to appear to be anything except one part of a much larger (and unseen) creature and such a change in the species was caused by one sudden mutation, i have seen this for instance with a kid i know who was born with a set of skin tabs on his cheeks on both sides of his face. similarly one butterfly had two spots appear on both wings, probably wernt even circles) but it was enough to spook predators and that one was allowed to suddenly breed at mass, and collectively the white spots became more circular as the mutation refined itself and those who had less round spots were caught out and eaten.

but bluffing can take other forms, for instance all the cacti that try to appear to be rocks, even bluffing can appear in mating (look at the mating dances of some bird species)

the funny thing is that showing off, hiding and mimicing all develop from the same mutations, and any mutation can cause an advantage to any of those three areas, it just comes down to a question of does that mutation allow that species to survive.

but true mimicry occurs over many generations as the protection of anothers identity is needed to survive, bluffing and hiding changes occur spontaneously, and in true mimicers spell there demise, but in other species could give them a significant advantage to making children, either by luring mates or hiding from predators.

one of these three outcomes will always occur, the species will become flashier, better at hiding or faster/stronger, a mutation for being flashy will either make them less interesting or more interesting and thus overburdened (look at the plumage on peacocks, those things slow them down significantly) if hiding is the game then they will become more noticeable and thus be found or less noticable and thus will be less likley to mate, requiring numbers over time to breed the perfect hider and for the faster/stronger ones that is the play againest one another, if they are stronger then need more food get bigger and have to have a more selective diet because they cant catch prey, if they become faster then they will become prey, thats why they need to be much faster, mating in such a species normally the larger male hordes the females, but the fast one can slip in mate quickly and can run off hopefully not getting eaten by the larger one.


this is presuming intelligence is not a genetic factor (which it is) and that it is critical fro the breeding ability in the species (which frequently, even in humans it is not), by then it takes on a whole other level because with a significant intellect you can appear to be any of these things with the correct wardrobe (look at the birds who have to have blue nests or the musk animals who will rub their scent everywhere)

so in short its not always clear cut but on this level one mutation will always lead to one of three results, but mutation for a true mimicker is disadvantageous because there survival is dependent upon the perception of another species, if they stop imitating them the mimic will die.

 

[moniker]

I'm not religious in the least bit, in fact I despise most organized religion but because of what I observed in my life, I strongly believe there is a master designer who does things very scientifically as well as artistically..... and I will leave it at that..

[YOUTUBE]

 

[imPsimon]

bump...nothing to add except this being amazing:

hemeroplanes triptolemus