Chameleons and guided evolution?

[excreationist]

I have a hunch an intelligent force exists
see:
thread: A God without compelling evidence?

I believe that our world might not be very old and the history of the evolutionary tree was a virtual history that involved some interesting designs that seemed to evolve naturalistically. 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.

Weird hands

Independent eyes

Color changing body and eyes

Glow in the dark bones

Very long tongue

Prehensile tail

Can have horns

 

[ideologyhunter]

I dunno...with a wispy ash-blonde wig and bandana, any of those could be my great-aunt Doris. No horns, but she has one ginormous carbuncle on her nose.

 

[Worldtraveller]

Your 'hunch' does not trump the last ~100 years of actual science and research.

Glad I could help.

 

[Politesse]

You could, ya know, test that hunch by learning some things about chameleon evolution... Or just turn your brain off and make silly forum posts I guess.

It's a pretty interesting story, actually, one of constrained evolution in a very specific and crowded biome, in the chaotic wake of the Cretaceous extinction event.

 

[excreationist]

You could, ya know, test that hunch by learning some things about chameleon evolution... Or just turn your brain off and make silly forum posts I guess.

Well I did say "It is probably impossible to convince skeptics that any species in the virtual evolutionary tree were designed or guided" Also my hunch that an intelligent forces exists is based on personal experiences and chameleon evolution just seems interesting.

It's a pretty interesting story, actually, one of constrained evolution in a very specific and crowded biome, in the chaotic wake of the Cretaceous extinction event.

So the single family evolved multiple region color and pattern changing body and eyes AND glow in the dark bones AND an incredibly long tongue etc? The color and pattern changing seems to detect multiple areas of the environment somehow (see pink and blue photo).

Perhaps you could tell the story of how some (or all) of those amazing features (a tongue that can be longer than their body etc) evolved....

 

[Politesse]

You could, ya know, test that hunch by learning some things about chameleon evolution... Or just turn your brain off and make silly forum posts I guess.

Well I did say "It is probably impossible to convince skeptics that any species in the virtual evolutionary tree were designed or guided"

It's a pretty interesting story, actually, one of constrained evolution in a very specific and crowded biome, in the chaotic wake of the Cretaceous extinction event.

So the single family evolved multiple region color and pattern changing body and eyes AND glow in the dark bones AND an incredibly long tongue etc? The color and pattern changing seems to detect multiple areas of the environment somehow (see pink and blue photo).

Perhaps you could tell the story of how some (or all) of those amazing features (a tongue that can be longer than their body etc) evolved....

The same way as anything else, gradually accumulating genetic variations that favored the survival of some proto-chameleons over others. The confined and difficult situation during the millions of years during which they were diverging no doubt put additional pressures on their population, encouraging the persistence of extreme variations.

 

[excreationist]

The same way as anything else, gradually accumulating genetic variations that favored the survival of some proto-chameleons over others. The confined and difficult situation during the millions of years during which they were diverging no doubt put additional pressures on their population, encouraging the persistence of extreme variations.

So while in a single family they gradually evolved the longest tongues in the animal kingdom, and a body that can turn all of the colors of the rainbow (and pink, grey, black, white, etc) and have different patterns, and glow in the dark bones.... (etc, etc) ?
I think that to change between so many colors it would involve at least 3 pigments (or whatever it uses). Even if the evolution wasn't guided I think the chameleon family has some of the most amazing features.

 

[Politesse]

The same way as anything else, gradually accumulating genetic variations that favored the survival of some proto-chameleons over others. The confined and difficult situation during the millions of years during which they were diverging no doubt put additional pressures on their population, encouraging the persistence of extreme variations.

So while in a single family they gradually evolved the longest tongues in the animal kingdom, and a body that can turn all of the colors of the rainbow (and pink, grey, black, white, etc) and have different patterns, and glow in the dark bones.... (etc, etc) ?
I think that to change between so many colors it would involve at least 3 pigments (or whatever it uses). Even if the evolution wasn't guided I think the chameleon family has some of the most amazing features.

Again, the thing to do would be to investigate some of these features rather than just standing back and going "Wow this is amazing therefore it must be a product of God breaking the rules of His own universe in order to get some really cool looking lizards into it at the last minute." (If the world is six thousand years old, then chameleons show up in the record approximately 20 minutes ago, as paleontologists believe they split off at about 60 millon years BP) "Thank goodness God supports the exotic pet market so devotedly!"

"Whatever it uses" is a thin layer of guanine, the same chemical that makes up about a fourth of your DNA; guanine crystallizes when there's a bunch of it together, and the chameleon creates the color shifting illusion by stretching its skin, thus changing how the light reflects off of it. So it isn't so much different colors as a degree of stretch; though the arrays of color they produce are really awesome, creating a new one isn't any more amazing than the last. Just like it's amazing you can use your oral anatomy to produce sounds but isn't as astounding when you produce a different consonant from usual, a new chameleon color is easily learned, and we've observed them inventing new ones on the fly in captivity.

We don't know as much about the fluorescent bones, as they were only recently discoevered. The tongue thing should be self-evident, given that they are insectivores.

All of the above information is easily found with a few minutes of googling. I didn't just happen to know all of this, I'm just less intellectually lazy than yourself and looked it up after reading your post.

We do agree that chameleons are pretty cool, though.

 

[excreationist]

Again, the thing to do would be to investigate some of these features

Well I identified them (7)... I thought my original post was long enough....

rather than just standing back and going "Wow this is amazing therefore it must be a product of God breaking the rules of His own universe in order to get some really cool looking lizards into it at the last minute."

Though I think if "God breaks the rules" it is a non-obvious way which can be explained by skeptics as still being naturalistic (e.g. seeming to be coincidence). It would probably also involve an AI.

(If the world is six thousand years old, then chameleons show up in the record approximately 20 minutes ago, as paleontologists believe they split off at about 60 millon years BP) "Thank goodness God supports the exotic pet market so devotedly!"

I think we are given the impression that the universe is 13 billion years old but I don't think it was explicitly simulated. I think the simulation started fairly recently and worked backwards to generate a virtual history.

"Whatever it uses" is a thin layer of guanine, the same chemical that makes up about a fourth of your DNA; guanine crystallizes when there's a bunch of it together, and the chameleon creates the color shifting illusion by stretching its skin, thus changing how the light reflects off of it. So it isn't so much different colors as a degree of stretch; though the arrays of color they produce are really awesome, creating a new one isn't any more amazing than the last. Just like it's amazing you can use your oral anatomy to produce sounds but isn't as astounding when you produce a different consonant from usual, a new chameleon color is easily learned, and we've observed them inventing new ones on the fly in captivity.

I am quite knowledgable about color theory. Stretching implies a single continuum. So it could involve a hue on a spectrum... but it seems the chameleon can also change saturation/desaturation and brightness/darkness. So I think there should be something else besides one kind of stretch. Also I think magenta isn't even on the spectrum (it is a combination of blue and red)



Also there are a large number of complex patterns - which isn't just a simple case of stretching like you're saying.... there are spots, stripes, pretty plain, or be very chaotic: (I assume this is real)

You didn't talk about how it learned to connect the stretched colors/patterns with its environment (and create abstract patterns). It looks like there are hundreds or thousands of connections between its brain and different areas on the skin...
e.g. here are tiny specks - it even matches the eye

We don't know as much about the fluorescent bones, as they were only recently discovered.

I wonder what the selection pressures for that would be...

The tongue thing should be self-evident, given that they are insectivores.

It would take a lot of gradual changes.... even though this is just within a single family... and it is sticky.

All of the above information is easily found with a few minutes of googling. I didn't just happen to know all of this, I'm just less intellectually lazy than yourself and looked it up after reading your post.

Well when I was looking at the color info I didn't understand it so thanks for the explanation.

We do agree that chameleons are pretty cool, though.

Yes

 

[OLDMAN]

Your kind of looking at it wrong. Once evolution starts down a pathway, for example brain size, the improvement and it's advantageous snowball. 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.
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.

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

 

[Lion IRC]

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?

 

[OLDMAN]

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.

 

[skepticalbip]

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.

 

[excreationist]

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/10-animals-that-can-change-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...

 

[excreationist]

....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/natura...c-resistance-of-bacteria-evolution-in-action/

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

 

[skepticalbip]

....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/natura...c-resistance-of-bacteria-evolution-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.

.

 

[excreationist]

.....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...

 

[DrZoidberg]

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

 

[excreationist]

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.

 

[excreationist]

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....