Home » Intelligent Design, News » Scientists observe fish increasing eyespots to mislead predators

Scientists observe fish increasing eyespots to mislead predators

the big spots are fake eyes/CoECRSHere:

For decades scientists have debated whether false eyespots, or dark circular marks on less vulnerable regions of the bodies of prey animals, played an important role in protecting them from predators — or were simply a fortuitous evolutionary accident.

The CoECRS team has found the first clear evidence that fish can change the size of both the misleading spot and their real eye to maximise their chances of survival when under threat.

“It’s an amazing feat of cunning for a tiny fish,” Ms Lonnstedt says. “Young damsel fish are pale yellow in colour and have this distinctive black circular ‘eye’ marking towards their tail, which fades as they mature. We figured it must serve an important purpose when they are young.”

“We found that when young damsel fish were placed in a specially built tank where they could see and smell predatory fish without being attacked, they automatically began to grow a bigger eye spot, and their real eye became relatively smaller, compared with damsels exposed only to herbivorous fish, or isolated ones.

“We believe this is the first study to document predator-induced changes in the size of eyes and eye-spots in prey animals.”

File:A small cup of coffee.JPG

File under: The whole linked array of changes was coded in advance by a completely random process that improved survival chances.

File:A small cup of coffee.JPG

File with: Our entire universe shows no evidence of design. If it weren’t exactly the way it is, we just wouldn’t be here to see it, that’s all. OR There are countless flopped universes out there and this one just happens to work.

Hat tip: Phillip Cunningham

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

2 Responses to Scientists observe fish increasing eyespots to mislead predators

  1. Phenotypic plasticity.

    http://biota-curve.blogspot.co.....icity.html

    These types of changes in lifeforms have nothing to do with random variations or natural selection.

    1. The spot develops non-randomly based on environment triggers.

    2. The spot develops on all affected individuals in the population. (*of those within appropriate development period)

    So why are evolutionists still constantly claiming that ‘Feature X’ was fixated in a population via random variation and natural selection over many generations, when so much empirical evidence says otherwise?

    This issue with plasticity really needs more visibility. It presents major problems with identifying new alleged species in the fossil record, as well.

  2. Of realted note to environmentally induced changes, Epigenetics is turning out to be far more sophisticated that anyone, especially Darwinists, had ever anticipated. Shapiro, Nobel, and Woodward, note the surprise, and the insurmountable hurdle that epigenetics places on proposed neo-Darwinian mechanisms in the following references:

    James Shapiro on “dangerous oversimplifications” about the cell – August 6, 2013
    Excerpt: “Depending upon the energy source and other circumstances, these indescribably complex entities can reproduce themselves with great reliability at times as short as 10-20 minutes. Each reproductive cell cycle involves literally hundreds of millions of biochemical and biomechanical events. We must recognize that cells possess a cybernetic capacity beyond our ability to imitate. Therefore, it should not surprise us when we discover extremely dense and interconnected control architectures at all levels. Simplifying assumptions about cell informatics can be more misleading than helpful in understanding the basic principles of biological function.
    Two dangerous oversimplifications have been (i) to consider the genome as a mere physical carrier of hypothetical units called “genes” that determine particular cell or organismal traits, and (ii) to think of the genome as a digitally encoded Read-Only Turing tape that feeds instructions to the rest of the cell about individual characters [4].”
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....-the-cell/

    Modern Synthesis Of Neo-Darwinism Is False – Denis Nobel – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/w/10395212

    Physiology is rocking the foundations of evolutionary biology – Denis Noble – 17 MAY 2013
    Excerpt: The ‘Modern Synthesis’ (Neo-Darwinism) is a mid-20th century gene-centric view of evolution, based on random mutations accumulating to produce gradual change through natural selection.,,, We now know that genetic change is far from random and often not gradual.,,,
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.....4/abstract

    The Mysterious Epigenome. What lies beyond DNA – Thomas Woodward – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpXs8uShFMo

    Indeed, the central dogma view, (DNA makes RNA makes Protein), of neo-Darwinism is shown to be a fundamentally flawed conception of the cell:

    Demise of the Gene – September 19, 2012
    Excerpt: Although the gene has conventionally been viewed as the fundamental unit of genomic organization, on the basis of ENCODE data it is now compellingly argued that this unit is not the gene but rather the transcript (Washietl et al. 2007; Djebali et al. 2012a). On this view, genes represent a higher-order framework around which individual transcripts coalesce, creating a poly-functional entity that assumes different forms under different cellular states, guided by differential utilization of regulatory DNA. (What does our genome encode? John A. Stamatoyannopoulos Genome Res. 2012 22: 1602-1611.)
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....64371.html

    The Extreme Complexity Of Genes – Dr. Raymond G. Bohlin – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/8593991/

    In any other field of science, such as physics and/or chemistry, such contrary findings, findings that departed so radically from a-priori expectations, would be earth shattering news that would spark intensive research into why we had been so flawed in our basic conception of the cell and a dramatic reworking of that flawed conception. But not with Darwinian evolution. Most Neo-Darwinists still carry on as if nothing has happened and still hold that random mutations to DNA are the be all end all explanation for how all such staggering complexity came to be. In any other field of science, if such denial of evidence was seen it would be a major scandal that would result in ruined careers.,,, I would have never believed such was possible in American science if I had not seen it first hand!

    Moreover, as if all of the preceding was not crushing enough for the neo-Darwinian ‘bottom up’ view of the cell, besides environmental factors, it is now found that even our thoughts and feelings can ‘epigenetically’ control the gene expression of our bodies:

    Genie In Your Genes – video
    http://www.genieinyourgenes.com/ggtrailer.html
    main website
    excerpt: There are over 100 genes in your body that are activated by your thoughts, feelings and experiences
    http://www.genieinyourgenes.com/

    Anxiety May Shorten Your Cell Life – July 12, 2012
    Excerpt: These studies had the advantage of large data sets involving thousands of participants.
    If the correlations remain robust in similar studies, it would indicate that mental states and lifestyle choices can produce epigenetic effects on our genes.
    http://crev.info/2012/07/anxie.....cell-life/

    How those marital rows can be bad for your health by JENNY HOPE – December 2005
    Excerpt: Married couples who constantly argue risk damaging their health, according to a study.
    It found that marital rows can prolong the time it takes the body to heal itself after an injury.
    One argument alone can slow this process by a day.
    And the study claims that when married couples feel consistently hostile towards one another, the delay in the healing process can be doubled.
    - per Daily Mail

    Whereas conversely, it is found that the positive mental state of happiness, love, caring, and nurturing, have a pronounced positive effect on health,,

    The health benefits of happiness – Mark Easton – 2006
    Excerpt: “It’s not just that if you’re physically well you’re likely to be happy but actually the opposite way round,” said Dr Cox.
    (Extensive studies show that) “If you are happy you are (much more) likely in the future to have less in the way of physical illness than those who are unhappy”.
    - per BBC

Leave a Reply