tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post4973570946315342154..comments2024-03-29T01:45:45.002+00:00Comments on Rosa Rubicondior: Seeing Eye To Eye With A ButterflyRosa Rubicondiorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06063268216781988588noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-42440119379588993082012-04-26T13:24:08.117+01:002012-04-26T13:24:08.117+01:00Is there any evidence for these 'human predato...Is there any evidence for these 'human predators', by which I assume you meant predators on humans, other than imaginary?Rosa Rubicondiorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06063268216781988588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-59889009503962147722012-04-26T12:09:44.701+01:002012-04-26T12:09:44.701+01:00An interesting premise for a short story muse but ...An interesting premise for a short story muse but I think it would have to be set in a parallel dimension, the knower's of sciences would be poo poo it like a swarm if it were set in our universe with statements like, the bigger the brain the greater the awareness of environment.<br />Scary thought though that there may be some alien/species that is more capable than humans. Hope the camouflage holds. :)Crispy Seahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01785485472381609247noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-58926153476081341012012-04-26T09:14:56.574+01:002012-04-26T09:14:56.574+01:00"The butterfly doesn't know the birds don..."The butterfly doesn't know the birds don't eat it, let alone that they don't eat it because of the camouflage. They don't even know it's camouflage, it might not even know there are birds, to the same degree of ignorance as the bird, which doesn't know that the fox it just avoided wasn't a fox." <br />So its possible that the human species are camouflaged and unaware of it. It is possible there are human predators out there that we are completely unaware of. Perhaps we are not the top of the food chain? Just remember how sure we used to be that the sun revolved around the earth and how sure we were that we were the center of the universe. Just an interesting thought to entertain...........billhicksmostfunnyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01598431385803045069noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-68860569984621359532012-04-26T00:15:04.274+01:002012-04-26T00:15:04.274+01:00You're right again of course. It IS important....You're right again of course. It IS important.Rosa Rubicondiorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06063268216781988588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-53401367473628207862012-04-25T19:44:30.680+01:002012-04-25T19:44:30.680+01:00Thanks for the clarification, I thought as much.
I...Thanks for the clarification, I thought as much.<br />I wasn't attempting to imply you, or the post were, or are, suggesting 'cognitive choice' but I find I must press the point about 'trying'. I feel 'trying', specifically in a description of any aspect the evolutionary process, implies 'cognitive decision' or at the very least 'conscious will', as an intrinsic property of the word. I do understand what you mean by "it's fair to say 'trying'" but others may not and, in the current climate were it seems so few have a real grasp of the natural selection process, even the smallest, unintentional misdirection, can confuse a novice. I just have a hunch that in world were the majority seem to think their 'Casper' 'drives' their body around, it's all to easy for those new to evolution to misapply 'spirit driver' to the 'conscious will' undertone of 'trying'.<br />I realise it seems a bit pedantic but I do think it's important.Crispy Seahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01785485472381609247noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-43058124018917729022012-04-25T14:53:28.256+01:002012-04-25T14:53:28.256+01:00You are quite right of course. There is no determi...You are quite right of course. There is no determination or plan in evolution. I was using a rather lazy metaphor (a short-hand maybe) for the superficial appearance of determinism. Because the outcome is often so similar to what we would expect of an intentional process, looked at with the hindsight of knowing the outcome - in this case a wing-pattern which both attracts a mate and deters predators - it is often easier to express it in those terms. <br /><br />I don't suggest a butterfly has a conscious thought process like us but I think it's fair enough to talk about trying to find a mate or trying to avoid being eaten but certainly not in terms of trying to evolve a specific solution. Evolution of course is a change in allele frequency and takes place at the gene-pool level and not in individuals so there is no way an individual could influence that even with a desire to.<br /><br />Thanks for pointing that out and giving me the chance to clarify it.Rosa Rubicondiorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06063268216781988588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-45685815622605840452012-04-25T12:00:04.405+01:002012-04-25T12:00:04.405+01:00As you know, loving your work - however...
"...As you know, loving your work - however...<br /> "so, whilst the butterfly was trying to evolve ways of attracting a mate without being eaten, it happened upon a pattern which looked a bit like the eyes of a fox or a stoat"<br />As the post states, those butterflies' wings sprang from a random mutation which looked a bit like eyes, they didn't get eaten, their<br />offspring survived and so the mutation flourished. However, they didn't 'happen upon' the mutation, the predators instinct formed the<br />evolutionary path of the original random mutation, the butterfly wasn't 'trying' to achieve anything.<br />Whilst overall the post and the information it imparts is correct, the choice of words above, as with many eminent scientists and TV presenters, have involuntarily imbued the animals with a knowledge of outcome, or purpose, that is absent from the evolutionary process.<br />The butterfly doesn't know the birds don't eat it, let alone that they don't eat it because of the camouflage. They don't even know it's camouflage, it might not even know there are birds, to the same degree of ignorance as the bird, which doesn't know that the fox it just avoided wasn't a fox. <br />As I said it's common and I think mostly, as is the case here, there's nothing devious in it; I'm pretty sure it's just down to brevity. Stephen Fry is even guilty of it. On a program he was presenting about some animal or other, he once said "...and it stores it in special glands in it's neck" whereas if he were to say "and specialised glands have evolved in its neck to store it" the meaning would have been retained without the accidental transmission to the listener of any implication that the animal had a desire for or chose the ability, body part or trait.<br /><br />As your and my goal seems the same, the eradication of misinformation, I hope you hear this in the spirit it's intended.Crispy Seahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01785485472381609247noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-18627376374698370172012-04-23T18:00:30.092+01:002012-04-23T18:00:30.092+01:00Chanpart
Please do not spam this blog with advert...Chanpart<br /><br />Please do not spam this blog with advertising.Rosa Rubicondiorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06063268216781988588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-10167956110699162702012-04-23T07:38:33.852+01:002012-04-23T07:38:33.852+01:00Woyundao.
Please do not spam this blog with adver...Woyundao.<br /><br />Please do not spam this blog with advertising.Rosa Rubicondiorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06063268216781988588noreply@blogger.com