[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 1.80 MB, 720x720, 1538629654270.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10046403 No.10046403[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

How does evolution explain this? Imagine how long it would take for their species to finally look like that? All naturally? It just doesn't make any sense, their disguise isn't even flawless, it looks close, but any animal can still see them moving.

>> No.10046412

what's wrong OP
have you never seen a leaf move before?

it's caused by the wind, obviously that video was taking in a very windy place

>> No.10046413

>>10046412
haha

>> No.10046420

>>10046403
>Two bugs are sitting on a plant
>One looks a little more like a leaf than other
>Leaf looking bug gets eaten less often than not leaf looking bug
>Continues over millennia until bugs look a lot like leaves

You not understanding this makes you moron, not a provocative and incisive thinker

>> No.10046421

>>10046420
But what if an animal wanted to eat the leaves?

>> No.10046423

>>10046421
Darwin BTFO lmao

>> No.10046424
File: 189 KB, 900x1440, kisspng-alexander-skarsgrd-the-legend-of-tarzan-eric-nor-jane-disney-5b4e742adc4c67.3938308315318682029024.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10046424

>>10046420
But not all insects look like that you dimwit.

>> No.10046425

>>10046421
OH NO NO NONONONO

>> No.10046447

>>10046403
Retards like OP should be gassed.

>> No.10046449

>>10046403
You're right, OP. It was clearly an act of God who thought leaves looked pretty and though insects should look that way too.

>> No.10046453

>>10046421
Evolution absolutely EXPOSED

>> No.10046461

>>10046453
EPIC STYLE

>> No.10046477

>>10046421
Damn

>> No.10046512

>>10046424
>not all insects get an advantage from looking like leaves
>the majority of insects never had a random deformity that made them look like leaves

>> No.10046731

>>10046421
This evolution takes place in an area where leaf eating animals are not commonly found. That's why such evolution is possible in the first place.

However, even if you are going for the special creation route, why are they not perfect then? Why would god not make them exactly like leaves. God may work in mysterious ways, but evolution does not

>> No.10046769

If God made these insects to be beautiful, why didn't he make me to be attractive and appealing to women?

Check mate, Christianity.

>> No.10046774

>>10046403
Is that the new pokemon HD?

>> No.10047082

>>10046421
Plenty of other leaves to choose from, few such insects.

>> No.10047464

>their disguise isn't even flawless
what if there is a version of this insect with flawless disguise, so perfect we havn't discovered it yet?

That tree you can see outside your window right now with leaves all on it. did you see the leaves move when the wind blows? what if that's not the wind? what if every leaf on that tree is actually an insect!

>> No.10047484

>>10046403

ITT a brainlet encounters entomology

>> No.10047487

>>10046403
Evolution theory is so embarrassingly retarded that scientists are terrified of admitting it publicly, so they have to double down and pretend it makes logical sense.

>> No.10047537

>>10046403
>Imagine how long it would take for their species to finally look like that?
Probably thousands upon thousands upon thousands of years. The problem here is that you dont seem to grasp how long the Earth has been here. Evolution isnt even that impressive when you get into timescales on the order of tens of millions of years. In fact, its kind of disappointing when you think about it. On those timescales i would expect that bug to be able to become an actual leaf, and photosynthesize for a while to avoid predators, before turning back into a bug.

>> No.10047548

>>10046403
Insects generally doesnt live long, hence they evolve faster.

>> No.10047554
File: 24 KB, 525x559, 1537404710982.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10047554

>>10047487
Why is it that you type of people almost always have the "they know the truth but are too scared or have an evil plan so they hide it from us" vibe?

Like listen to your logic:
>oh shit evolution isn't real
>this strikes me with fear, i cant publicly admit it's false
>of course, the obvious thing i can do is create false studies and evidence to try and prove it's true!
>xD take that science!

>> No.10047562

>>10046420
Gullible atheist fool. The Devil is laughing.

>> No.10047581
File: 141 KB, 500x486, lol.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10047581

yay its another retarded /pol christfags raid thread

>> No.10047588

>>10046403
>any animal
Just a reminder that humans have some of the best eyesight in the animal kingdom.

>> No.10047597

>>10046421
We can end the thread here

>> No.10047618

>>10047554
>Why is it that you type of people almost always have the "they know the truth but are too scared or have an evil plan so they hide it from us" vibe?
I don't think "they" know the "truth", but they certainly know evolution is bullshit because "they" made it up.

>Like listen to your logic:
>oh shit evolution isn't real
>this strikes me with fear, i cant publicly admit it's false
>of course, the obvious thing i can do is create false studies and evidence to try and prove it's true!
>xD take that science!

No one genuine is doing studies into "evolution". People in high positions of academic authority, in this case evolutionary theory, are in the club. They're called "fellowships", they get money and fame in exchange for perpetuating scam science.

>> No.10047624

>>10047618
>evolution isn't real
only the ignorant say this
i feel bad for them because if they knew more then they wouldnt make such silly assertions.

>> No.10047653

>>10047624
If you take evolution to its logical extreme then incest would incur no issues.

>> No.10047754

>>10047653
>If you take evolution to its logical extreme then incest would incur no issues.

nope. it wouldnt, and you just exposed yourself as the brainlet you were pretending not to be.

>> No.10047777

>>10047754
So where's your argument that exposes me as a brainlet?

>> No.10047789

>>10046403

Insect which had weird shapes were eaten a bit less and had more weird descendant.
Repeat until actual stage is reached.
Change the process if the selective pressure changes.

I see nothing strange about it.

We humans are far more strange than those insects.

>> No.10047813

>>10047789
This logic requires that the clear leaf imitation was based on pure chance, random mutations throughout each generation. The mutations don't know what leafs are or what they look like, but just by chance mutated like that regardless.

Is that correct?

>> No.10047827

>>10047813

correct.

we didn't develop an opposable thumb out of sheer force of will either.

>> No.10047830

>>10046403
If you were God, would you have designed these insects exactly the way they are, or somewhat less efficient, or somewhat more efficient?
If exactly like how they actually are, then what would be the reasoning behind it?

>> No.10047853

>>10047827
Do you not think that's a remarkable coincidence? To the point of being absurd? Everything about the imitation, down its tiniest detail, was a random mutation. The veins for example, even having anything remotely looking like leaf veins is absurd, but the fact they are in the right place, evenly spaced out etc just makes "mutations" being the cause a complete joke.

>> No.10047861

why does nobody take sexual selection into account?

>> No.10047870

>>10047853

Well....veins look like plant veins because they have the same function.
Vascular systems are also really old, so we simply implemented the same solution because it works.

Coincidence is a thing humans say because we see patterns everywhere, even where they are only a correlation and not a causation.

Like sacrificing a goat to make rain come.

>> No.10047883

>>10047813
>but just by chance mutated like that regardless.
The ones that looked more like leaves were eaten less often, meaning they'd have more opportunity to spread their mutation, the more leaflike over the generations, the more successful, and it becomes a positive feedback loop until you get nearly perfect mimics.
Look up the Heikegani crabs in japan for an example of humans creating a selection pressure. Some of the crabs had exoskeletons that kind of look like a samurai mask, leading the fishermen to throw them back thinking they were the spirits of samurai who had drowned themselves at sea rather than surrender.
Year after year after year of this meant that the crabs that looked more like a samurai mask were more likely to survive, and it became a selection pressure. Eventually the crabs went from looking kinda-sorta like a face, to looking eerily like one.

>> No.10047892

>>10047870
>Well....veins look like plant veins because they have the same function.
I'm talking about the "veins" on the leaf insects, I don't think they're actual insect veins, they are there to imitate how real leaves look, but according to you they're just random mutations that coincidentally appear like veins on a leaf.

>> No.10047897

>>10047892

I still see no issue, if the selective pressure favoured those insects who looked like leafs, the most accurate the pattern the most effective the camouflage, most descendants, etc.

>> No.10047898

>>10046403
>Imagine how long it would take for their species to finally look like that?
millions of years? the amounts of time that evolution says it takes?

There, explained by your lack of even basic fact checking

>> No.10047915

>>10047853
>a random mutation
How many random mutations do you think happen every generation?
Most of them are completely benign which means they wont affect the survival rate. Some are harmful, and will weed themselves out of the population because of it.
The handful that become a positive trait are selected for more often since that makes it more fit than it's peers. Survival of the fittest.
I mean I'm more astonished by shit like cuttlefish or chamelion's camouflage than a bug with chunky bits of exoskeleton that look like a leaf.

>> No.10047920

>>10047883
>The ones that looked more like leaves were eaten less often, meaning they'd have more opportunity to spread their mutation, the more leaflike over the generations, the more successful, and it becomes a positive feedback loop until you get nearly perfect mimics.
Yes but you're trying to make out there was always a random mutation that occurred, that by pure chance made the insect look more leaf-like, when these mutations are not trying to look leaf-like because they are completely non-conscious with no concept of what "leaves" are.

>Year after year after year of this meant that the crabs that looked more like a samurai mask were more likely to survive, and it became a selection pressure. Eventually the crabs went from looking kinda-sorta like a face, to looking eerily like one.
Again, this implies that the mutations somehow consistently mutate towards looking like a "face", why wouldn't it just stay the same if they weren't getting eaten in the first place? Instead the mutations became more face-like...

>> No.10047925
File: 19 KB, 222x293, 1496028341392.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10047925

>>10046421
ATHEISTS ON SUICIDE WATCH

>> No.10047929

>>10046731
You idiot god doesnt have to makde everything 'perfect' according to your perspective just lmao you are a real brainlet. So many things can be said to discount your idea that i wont even bother; this way the rest of the brainfuls and I can mock you in our own minds

>> No.10047930

>>10047897
Let's imagine these insects before they looked like leaves. What would the first mutation to becoming leaf-like look like?

>> No.10047934

>>10047920

Don't misunderstand, the mutation is random, the selective pressure is not.

The subset of mutations which intersect the subset of selective pressure with a positive outcome can be extremely specific.

>> No.10047936

>>10047929
Mock you in our own Superior* minds du fricke ein schwarz mutter und ein gros madchen

>> No.10047938

>>10047930

We have no idea and it's a non confinable problem.
We can also have convergent evolutions, divergent evolutions and parallel evolutions.

>> No.10047948

>>10047915
How many random mutations does it take to make a normal insect look like a leaf?

>> No.10047951

god invented evolution

>> No.10047954

>>10047934
Your theory requires that neither the mutation nor the selective pressure is random, they must work in tandem otherwise it falls apart.

>> No.10047955
File: 68 KB, 923x713, 1536134839064.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10047955

>>10046421
(((Evolution))) exposed

>> No.10047958

>>10047948
As many as it takes, for as long as it takes.
It's not like a perfectly normal insect had a baby that looked exactly like a leaf. That's not how it works. It's slow iterations that compound on themselves.

>> No.10047967

>>10047954

Nope,the mutation does not need to be nonrandom.

Imagine this scenario, you have a trillion dices and you have some predilection for smashing all the dices which have a result of less than 4 when you launch them.

Assuming that the launch is flawless bla bla, after you smash enough dices you can bet you've selected the dices for some production flaw which will alter the 1/6 result for a single dice roll to 1.115/6 for those numbers you desire.

And that is how evolution works.
The structural defect in the dices has not been programmed, but has a significant impact on selection due to external factors.

>> No.10047968

>>10047853
"It dosent seem logically intuitive to me so its false"