Evolution Intelligent Design

Researchers: Grey camouflage works better than zebra stripes

Spread the love

Do readers remember Darwinian school lessons to the effect that zebra stripes are an excellent camouflage? Well, read this:

Dull, featureless camouflage provides better protection from predators than zebra stripes, according to a new study.

Biologists explaining the existence of such stripes have proposed the “motion dazzle hypothesis,” which suggests that high-contrast patterns can make it difficult for predators to track a moving target.

University of Exeter scientists tested this using a touch-screen game called Dazzle Bug in which visitors to Cornwall’s Eden Project had to catch a moving rectangular “bug.”

Bug patterns were programmed to “evolve” to find the best camouflage strategy.

“Surprisingly, targets evolved to lose patterns and instead match their backgrounds,” said senior author Dr Laura Kelley, of the Centre for Ecology and Conservation on Exeter’s Penryn Campus in Cornwall.

“Our results indicate that low-contrast, featureless targets were hardest to catch when in motion.”

University of Exeter, “Grey camouflage ‘better than zebra stripes’” at ScienceDaily

The paper is open access.

The paper uses data from a game played by citizen scientists. We don’t really know for sure how lions would use the same data. But the story is apparently more complex than textbook Darwinism.

7 Replies to “Researchers: Grey camouflage works better than zebra stripes

  1. 1
    martin_r says:

    “Grey Camouflage Works Better Than Zebra Stripes” :))) just another falsification of darwinian just-so stories…

    It is always the same… when researchers start to take the topic seriously, and look closer at it, it ALWAYS turns out that Darwinian just-so stories are dead-wrong.

    I can recall an older mainstream paper, it is a kind of heretic, it starts with the following sentence:

    “May a biologist in these polarized times dare suggest that Darwin is a bit wrong about anything ?
    Even worse, does a biologist risk insult, ridicule, anger, and intimidation to suggest that Darwin is incorrect on a big issue ?”

    Full article from a mainstream darwinian paper:

    “Challenging Darwin’s theory of sexual selection ”
    https://www.jstor.org/stable/20028107?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents

  2. 2
    martin_r says:

    taking about camouflage…

    look at this short video, be patient:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8xJ13pAZNw

    Now we live in 21st century, humans developed tons of sophisticated technology.

    How an adult mentally healthy person can think, that this active camouflage from the video above arose just so? By some mysterious, blind unguided natural process ? WITH NO HELP FROM ENGINEERS ???

    Does a lay darwinian atheist even understand, how something like that, an active camouflage may work ? Such an active camouflage is even in 21st century an engineering SCI-FI.

    Darwinist believe in miracles :)))

  3. 3
    martin_r says:

    and, let me add one more Darwinian just-so story,

    “How did the giraffe get its long neck? ”

    from a mainstream article (such a mess):

    “Most people assume that giraffes’ long necks evolved to help them feed. If you have a long neck, runs the argument, you can eat leaves on tall trees that your rivals can’t reach. But there is another possibility. The prodigious necks may have little to do with food, and everything to do with sex.

    https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19135-zoologger-how-did-the-giraffe-get-its-long-neck/

  4. 4
    EDTA says:

    Martin_r, thank you for posting that giraffe link! Very interesting. Especially this quote:

    “If giraffes evolved to reach higher branches, we might expect their legs to have lengthened as fast as their necks, but they haven’t.”

    Leg lengthening might (?) require less genetic change as opposed to the neck, which would ostensibly need more types of tissues to lengthen/duplicate.

  5. 5
    martin_r says:

    EDTA, you welcome.

    one more note regarding lengthening legs vs. lengthening neck. Lengthening neck is not that simple as Darwinists imagine. Among other things, you need to “redone” giraffe’s heart (needs a huge stronger heart) to pump enough blood ‘in time’ up to giraffe’s head. I am pretty sure, that AT THE SAME MOMENT, also giraffe’s circulatory system “pipes” in the longer neck need to be ‘redone’ as well. Also, i am pretty sure, that there are lots of other things that need to be “redone” simultaneously in order to have such a long neck and enough blood in the head.

    As usually, Darwinian biologists telling their fairy-tales and totally ignore elementary physics. It is like in some mental hospital.

  6. 6
    martin_r says:

    EDTA, i forgot,

    from the NewScientists article above, this is also interesting:

    “The evidence supporting the high-feeding theory is surprisingly weak. Giraffes in South Africa do spend a lot of time browsing for food high up in trees, but elsewhere in Africa they don’t seem to bother, even when food is scarce.”

  7. 7
    polistra says:

    I’d heard that zebra stripes were more about repelling flies than repelling lions. ISTR that there was a pretty decent experiment proving the repellent effect.

Leave a Reply