Mangling evolution by natural selection (can't blame Creationists for this one)

[tcsenter]

It has always bugged me since a long time, but yesterday I was reminded of it in a nagging way. Watched a "science-nature" program that aired on some cable channel, with the subject being "mimicry" where some organism or another supposedly "mimics" something else to avoid being eaten, gain advantage in mating, etc.

The entire show at multiple points used explanatory language that strongly implied if not explicitly stated an intent or purpose in outcome. e.g. (paraphrased by me) "the hope of the king snake is that it will be left alone because it looks like the venomous coral snake."

The picture that emerges from the expository language used implied that some 'intelligent' or 'sentient' mechanism or force was at work with the following chronological implication:

1. some species (or sub-species) did not have the advantage of another
2. an 'intelligent' force inherent within noted a difference in coloration or morphology was linked to this advantage
3. it changed IN ORDER TO look like that other thing so it too could benefit by deception or misidentification

NO THAT'S NOT HOW EVOLUTION BY NATURAL SELECTION WORKS. These were biologists explaining or narrating, too. I've also seen this expository approach used by science educators and educational materials that were blessed by strictly secular organizations or auspices.

It's very pervasive and we can't blame the loony Creationists for this one.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Anyone ever told you you're too literal? Ever thought the intent of these science nature videos on cable was skewed towards entertainment rather than scientific accuracy?

 

[Belegost]

Anthropomorphization how does it work?

 

[feralkid]

 

[EliteRetard]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLDgQg6bq7o

I know there are others...

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Have you lost your sperving bearings?

 

[ImpulsE69]

God raped Mary. He belongs in jail. No one is above the law.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

People that use evolutionary psychology to explain every aspect of human behavior are my pet peeve.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

People that use evolutionary psychology to explain every aspect of human behavior are my pet peeve.

You should train your pets better.

 

[Red Squirrel]

People that use evolutionary psychology to explain every aspect of human behavior are my pet peeve.

Some people read so deep into that stuff that they actually think that everything in a life is predetermined and is not free will. I kinda want whatever drugs they're doing.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

God raped Mary. He belongs in jail. No one is above the law.

Not true. Mary was just another slut who drank too much at a frat party and didn't want to own up to her actions. If I had a dollar for every girl who slept with the entire football team and tried to tell her family that she was really a virgin I'd have as much money as the Catholic church.


"No daddy, I'm a good girl, it was an angel that did it to me..."

 

[Jeff7]

Anyone ever told you you're too literal? Ever thought the intent of these science nature videos on cable was skewed towards entertainment rather than scientific accuracy?

A lot of people take it that way though, like the viceroy butterfly "wants" to evolve to look like a toxic relative, and so it strains and grunts each generation to try to look that way.

Some evolutionary paths don't lead to improved survival. They're more likely to die off than changes that are either neutral or beneficial.

People that use evolutionary psychology to explain every aspect of human behavior are my pet peeve.

Why though? It can be quite useful.
"These are our origins, and they give possible insight into the reasons for some of the problems we have today."
<IGNORE>

That's where our hardware and firmware came from, and those play a large role in dictating the behavior of a system, whether it's silicon- or carbon-based.

 

[EliteRetard]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qyj7gI2kMW4&index=3&list=PL_saLI-LH-VoCBccTkGUojCNIcGAH2Wu5

:whiste:

 

[ImpulsE69]

Not true. Mary was just another slut who drank too much at a frat party and didn't want to own up to her actions. If I had a dollar for every girl who slept with the entire football team and tried to tell her family that she was really a virgin I'd have as much money as the Catholic church.


"No daddy, I'm a good girl, it was an angel that did it to me..."

Well at least now he could go on Maury to prove he is NOT the father.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Well at least now he could go on Maury to prove he is NOT the father.

Sure, god has killed hundreds of millions of people to get his way, but we can trust him to not rig a DNA test.

 

[WelshBloke]

Anyone ever told you you're too literal? Ever thought the intent of these science nature videos on cable was skewed towards entertainment rather than scientific accuracy?

Its a legitimate gripe really.

Life just does stuff, stuff that works sticks around longer.

 

[edro]

I agree with OP.

Most people who watch these shows are not very scientifically savvy and should be constantly reminded how evolution actually works.

"Over thousands of years, king snake color variations that looked similar to coral snakes were passed on due to reduced predatory selection. Coral snake color patterns "worked" so they remained unchanged."

 

[SlitheryDee]

My hope is that my large primate brain will aid me in solving any problem that my environment may impose on me.

I don't think that's a statement that says anything about how I came to have a large primate brain. I just came equipped in a certain fashion, and I hope my equipment keeps me alive.

 

[Jeff7]

I agree with OP.

Most people who watch these shows are not very scientifically savvy and should be constantly reminded how evolution actually works.

"Over thousands of years, king snake color variations that looked similar to coral snakes were passed on due to reduced predatory selection. Coral snake color patterns "worked" so they remained unchanged."

Also to be included is that the life forms alive today aren't the "best" solutions to the problems of surviving in various ecological niches. They're adequate, and work well enough. Some might not work out long-term. (Pandas, I'm looking at you.)
Crocodiles have done quite well. That's a basic setup that's remained pretty stable for a very long time. The nautilus has also gone a very long time with little change.
Some biological solutions show up early and happen to work well. If genetic mutations don't help out enough, they don't stick around; you can't fix what's not broken, and you can't always enhance what's already pretty darn good.

 

[norseamd]

NO THAT'S NOT HOW EVOLUTION BY NATURAL SELECTION WORKS. These were biologists explaining or narrating, too. I've also seen this expository approach used by science educators and educational materials that were blessed by strictly secular organizations or auspices.

It might once the animal is sufficiently able to mimic the other organism, the mimicking animal through various sensories becomes aware of this, and the animal may then begin to consciously take full advantage of the mimicry, but I do not know how much influence an animal may be able to influence further evolution, other than indirect influences from animals that fully utilize any mimicry surviving more often and thus contributing to continued evolution of mimicry through natural selection.

 

[tcsenter]

Also regularly see a lot of complete assumptions passed as fact. i.e. the King snake benefits from looking like the coral snake, it must have changed to look like the coral snake.

This is complete speculation and also strongly implies one existed before the other. We have no idea which of the two was extant in it's region first. Since the King snake eats other snakes including poisonous ones, it might be the coral snake that is benefiting from being confused with the King snake. That's a coin toss we have no idea which is even more likely.

I see a TON of this from within science, not limited to biology nature shows. FAR too many assumptions with little to no support or evidence passed off as fact. I get that it's leading or most credible hypothesis (based on what is known at the time) but then introduce or discuss it that way, not as accepted fact.

Again, we should be getting our own house in order on poor science presentation, especially the 'decently plausible hypothesis without hard evidence' automatically becomes hard assertion phenomenon.

 

[JTsyo]

Bit off topic but the mimic octopus blew me away. Hard to believe that it learned all the different animals by sheer trial and error.

 

[edro]

Also regularly see a lot of complete assumptions passed as fact. i.e. the King snake benefits from looking like the coral snake, it must have changed to look like the coral snake.

This is complete speculation and also strongly implies one existed before the other. We have no idea which of the two was extant in it's region first. Since the King snake eats other snakes including poisonous ones, it might be the coral snake that is benefiting from being confused with the King snake. That's a coin toss we have no idea which is even more likely.

Great point.

 

[edro]

Bit off topic but the mimic octopus blew me away. Hard to believe that it learned all the different animals by sheer trial and error.

wow!

 

[MongGrel]

Life just does stuff, stuff that works sticks around longer.

+1

Later