Yep I understand that deep sea cretures are offten red as they don't show up against any light that way?
On 21 July, 12:54, Pacificadave <[email protected]> wrote: > Or maybe no advantage at all,the color red is one of the first colors > to disappear the deeper you get, maybe they never had the need for > that color since it doesn't exists at a certain depth. D. > > On Jul 20, 10:31 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I'm working on a paper for a conference on Darwin - something of an > > excuse for myself and two colleagues to have a Xmas drink together in > > Portugal. The topic, at least in working form, is 'simplexity and > > tropical fish realism'. One or two in here raise their spines, > > stickleback fashion, whenever teleology raises its head. Orn has > > fought them off long and hard - my thanks for that. I found this > > whilst brushing up a bit on Darwinism via the Stanford Encyclopedia of > > Philosophy on-line. The relevance to teleology is in the last line, > > though I've left the rest in as we should all know some prawns are > > colour-blind to red. > > > To take one startling example, he was able to test and confirm a > > hypothesis that a group of males, with a color pattern that matched > > that of the pebbles on the bottoms of the streams and ponds they > > populated except for bright red spots, have that pattern because a > > common predator in those populations, a prawn, is color blind for red. > > Red spots did not put their possessors at a selective disadvantage, > > and were attractors for mates. (Endler 1983, 173-190) We may refer to > > this pattern of coloration as a complex adaptation that serves the > > functions of predator avoidance and mate attraction. But what role do > > those functions play in explaining why it is that the males in this > > population have the coloration they do? > > > This color pattern is an adaptation, as that term is used in > > Darwinism, only if it is a production of natural selection (Williams > > 1966 261; Brandon 1985; Burian 1983). In order for it to be a product > > of natural selection, there must be an array of color variation > > available in the genetic/developmental resources of the species wider > > that this particular pattern but including this pattern. Which factors > > are critical, then, in producing differential survival and > > reproduction of guppies with this particular pattern? The answer would > > seem to be the value-consequences this pattern has compared to others > > available in promoting viability and reproduction. In popular parlance > > (and the parlance favored by Darwin), this color pattern is good for > > the male guppies that have it, and for their male offspring. > > (Binswanger 1990; Brandon 1985; Lennox 2002). This answer strengthens > > the ‘selected effects’ or ‘consequence etiology’ accounts of selection > > explanations by stressing that selection ranges over value > > differences. The reason for one among a number of color patterns > > having a higher fitness value has to do with the value of that pattern > > relative to the survival and reproductive success of its possessors. > > > Selection explanations are, then, a particular kind of teleological > > explanation, an explanation in which that for the sake of which a > > trait is possessed, its valuable consequence, accounts for the trait's > > differential perpetuation and maintenance in the population. > > > Now that the teleology question is settled, can anyone explain what > > advantage to the prawns it is to be colour blind to red?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
