I don’t mean anything that should be surprising to you. Natural selection is the way that populations of organisms vary in response to changes in their environment. DNA records information for making an organism well suited to its environment; that means it records information about the environment. When the environment changes, the information has to change for the organism to keep up, and (almost) the only way that can happen is through natural selection.
When selection from predators favors insects that look more like leaves, it has the effect of storing information about what leaves look like, in the form of instructions on how to make an insect that looks like a leaf.
It mimics a leaf to us and it’s prey. I’m sure there are other forms to of mimicry we’re not aware of (odor, sound, infrared, ultraviolet, etc). But that mimicry can be developed over time, so i don’t think it’s intentional (meaning the bug thought, I would be a lot harder to notice if I looked like a leaf, better get on that)
ADDENDUM: when I say it mimics a leaf to us and it’s prey, I’m suggesting that there are other critters in its environment who don’t see the leaf in bug, because they recognize leafs, primarily, by something other than visible light. So the mimicry is limited. That’s why I brought up other forms of mimicry we can not perceive because it is necessarily limited to some other sense
It is literally an image of a torn leaf on the back on an insect. There’s nothing in the definition of image that says or implies “consciously and deliberately created”. An image is merely a likeness of another existing object. The definition says nothing about how that likeness came into existence.
ID-Creationists see “intentional Design” everywhere they look because they either don’t know or deliberately ignore the natural explanations for observed phenomena like this.
I’m still waiting for you to provide what you think in the definition of image.
This discussion is beginning to resemble the absurd one imagined by Lewis Carrol about “the name of (this) is called X”.
Is there an image of a man in the moon, or does there just appear to be one?
I was reacting testily to Michael Callen’s description of a non-intentional image as like making a pattern by flicking paint. Creationist debaters like to say that evolutionary biologists have a theory that explains adaptations as “random”. This is very misleading. I was wondering whether Callen was doing that.
It’s so simple really, you’re just arguing about what the word image means. He’s saying you can use the word ‘image’ without it implying intent, and you seem to be saying you either can’t do that, or at least shouldn’t use the word ‘image’ if you really mean to say there is no intention involved.
I’d have to agree with Glipsnort that I’ve never understood the word image to necessarily imply that that which is an image of something is intended to be an image of something.
You might incidentally be right that if IDcreationists hear the word image, they too will take it to imply intention, thought I’m just not persuaded that is true.
The focusing on semantics just seems to me rather tedious. I’ve never had any problem being able to understand that, in describing evolutionary outcomes, mechanisms, or processes, intention is generally speaking never part of the picture. Natural selection is blind, it is not a thinking entity, it doesn’t know anything and can’t plan ahead. Perhaps I’ve just had the benefit of first really reading about it from people who were really good at explaining it. Again, whatever anyone may think about his “strident” views on religion and atheism, Richard Dawkins books on evolution such as The Selfish Gene, and The Blind Watchmaker, are really good for conveying an understanding of natural selection.
Even when some biologists fall through and use teleological language because they just aren’t that careful communicators, I’ve always taken that to be (pun unintended) unintentional.
It would take a lot of words to flesh out how, in point of fact, what they are describing can be rendered in non-teleological terms(Dawkins is good at that, he’s written multiple books where he does that very well). It’s just rather laborious having to police one’s words that tightly to avoid what I have to say some times almost seems like motivated desires to misinterpret(not accusing you of this here).
Did you read what I said multiple times, that it was not my intention? Or do you think that I’m a liar? Either way, it is an uncomfortable and avoidable situation. I said I was not and I’m not a liar.
I’m not arguing about what the word image means. I am saying that you shouldn’t use the word image in this context because to the layperson this conveys intent, which will confuse them and then they go down the design trail. I think that it is much better / safer to speak in terms of appearance. That’s what this whole $4!^-storm was about.
I am pretty sure that I’m right.
Amen. This has really sucked.
Clearly, and I don’t question this for you. I know precisely what you mean and intend. There’s no confusion. Again, the confusion occurs among the laypersons.
Right. Agreed. But remember who the layperson is reading. It’s not Dawkins. “(Some species) evolved a picture of a leaf? How did a “blind” process do that? How did a blind process know what a leaf was?” This is what they will say, then they will invoke design, and will never hear another word that is shared. Whereas if you speak about the development of the color, changing over time due to selection (as you all have here today), that resulted in a pattern that had the appearance of a leaf, one cannot invoke design, intent or any other troublesome word.
Hahahaha. Your grasp of English is so outstanding. Most native English speakers don’t get humor. You ‘get it’ in a second language. Bravo!
The point you make above is why I started this thread. I merely wanted to know how you would articulate this kind of image / design / pattern in such a way that would avoid the term being hijacked. It’s easy to say image. Or design. Or motor. But, as we know, these terms tend to get misappropriated.
I genuinely appreciate the recommendation. I’ll get to them after I get through Futuyma’s textbook, which may be another year or so… Thanks for your thoughtful comments.
In my whole life I’ve never met a single person who thinks image must mean “intentionally made”. That’s what so many of us keep asking you to justify. Where did you ever get the idea all images must be purposely constructed? Or that most laymen think images must be constructed?
You are missing my point and I really don’t want to belabor it any more. The point is that if you say that something evolved an image of a widget, then this is the impression that a layperson will get. Look at the comments in this thread and elsewhere here from design supporters.
That’s what you keep claiming but haven’t been able to support with a single shred of evidence. Maybe that’s the impression you personally got but you certainly don’t speak for all or even most laypeople.
I’ll note you still can’t provide any definition of image which includes intent.
My observation is that the evolution of mimicry makes sense from what we know of biology and of natural selection. At the same time, it is pretty damn remarkable. On an intuitive level, at first look, it does look like someone sculpted or painted some of these animals. That doesn’t challenge our scientific knowledge, but I do think there is legitimate reason to be incredulous. This is really incredible.
Well, there are actually very few true synonyms in the English language. Words differ in denotation, connotation, association, and formality.
OK. I kinda sorta see Michael’s point. Image has a tilt towards the objective or teleological, whereas appearance leans to a more subjective transaction. That is why imaging is the action of creating, well, an image of an actual thing, whereas appearing suggests a subjective view of a thing.
Pedantic to be sure. I’m sure that ID / YEC would run with image, semblance, appearance, looks like, or whatever other synonym that wasn’t nailed down.
Interestingly enough, I’m pretty sure that if you go for an Aristotelian/Scholastic metaphysic rather than the modern mechanistic/reductionistic philosophy, one could easily say that the insect’s shape and coloring constitute an image of a leaf in a robust teleological sense (it really does intrinsically and mind-independently represent a leaf) while maintaining that this trait originated entirely through the natural processes of evolution.
