Camouflage and Mimicry

[Virgule punctuation mark]

I was looking at some pictures of leaf insects and other "mimic" animals in the new National Geographic, and in the article it said that these species evolve through hundreds of generations of natural selection. The genes of the more successful passed down through the generations as the traits become more refined to survival.
My question is how exactly do these things come to be. How do animals (or their bodies?) know what their environments look like to such a degree that they are able to morph into an analog of the surroundings?  I don't understand how an insect can comprehend the leaves around it in such detail that their beings over the generations shape into a tree's leaf, with the smallest coloring details or even "bite marks".
Foxes bodies also have abilities to recognize weather changes and change fur colors to match the season. But is it really possible to obtain such a degree of evolution with only breeding and nature?

[rdl]

Well God also factors into there somewhere

[bluaki]

If a bug is bright red and lives in a habitat of dark green leaves, it'll likely be eaten easily before it has the chance to reproduce.
If a bug in the same habitat is bluish or yellowish, it has a pretty good chance of survival. So it's likely to breed.
If a bug in the same habitat is exactly the same shade of color as the leaves, much fewer predators will be able to see and eat it so it has the highest chance of survival.

The newer colors are created out of either mutational coincidence or cross-breeding of two similar colors or something like that. Over time the species develops the characteristics which give it the highest chance of survival. The organisms of a species with the highest chance of survival are the ones most likely to create more offspring.

That's the basic idea of anything about evolution. Camouflage and mimicry being no exception. Some of the more detailed or complex mimicries may take a much longer period of time to evolve, though.

[Virgule punctuation mark]

That does make sense, but with infinite variables over countless generations it still seems unlikely for something so close to perfect would exist, perhaps a higher power isn't too unlikely in that aspect.
Besides would a potential mate theoretically even recognize a mate if it suddenly met one that came out looking a different color and shape?
I suppose humans too are born with slight random changes, though it's unimaginable for generations to slowly look more like the earth or the grass no matter how deliberate and well thought out the breeding.
It's hard to comprehend too, how different life is to prey and the different classes of living beings, it's completely foreign to any way of living we are used to as mammals/predators.

Also I read about another form of mimicry, a predator species capable of making it's prey's pheromones to attract it, even some plants are able to create insect pheromones, this is far too complex and deliberate for "natural selection", are living beings aware on such a molecular level as that?

[Daddy]

Well God also factors into there somewhere

No.

I'm not sure on the exact process of how the patterns and whatnot form but as for the coloring and how the species keeps that feature through evolution, Bluaki is spot on.  And two things.

1.I don't know the process's details but  biologists do.
2. Using lack of knowledge as an argument for God as a cause is doubly harmful for arguing the case for God.  Once the real reason something happens is found the case for God loses another argument and the case "against" gains one. 

Look at lightning. We didn't know why it happened so we attributed it to Zeus. We know why now.

[rdl]

usually means I'm kidding.

God does factor in somewhere. But not as a "oh i dont get how this works lets just say god did it".

[YPrrrr]

1.I don't know the process's details but  biologists do.

Are you sure? I mean evolution is only considered a theory so obviously not everything is known or understood about the process... How the more complicated features of animals came about may still be unexplained by scientists.

[Daddy]

Are you sure?

Uh they've spent 6+ years in college alone researching it. They are much better equipped to answer the question.

I mean evolution is only considered a theory

Are you trolling? This seems to be one of the most common Christian arguments.


A scientific theory is NOT the same as a regular theory.
A scientific theory is NOT the same as a regular theory.
A scientific theory is NOT the same as a regular theory.
A scientific theory is NOT the same as a regular theory.
A scientific theory is NOT the same as a regular theory.
A scientific theory is NOT the same as a regular theory.
A scientific theory is NOT the same as a regular theory.

so obviously not everything is known or understood about the process... How the more complicated features of animals came about may still be unexplained by scientists.

I'm pretty sure this is something they can explain.

[Smell Memory]

you have to have citations or else

[Virgule punctuation mark]

you have to have citations or else

I do have some "else" instead of citations, but thanks for checking anyways. 
Although I did find an article about the plants emulating insect pheromones I was talking about before, it turns out I was mistaken, my apologies. https://www.msu.edu/user/miller20/kaeb.htm
The chemicals that corn plants create when exposed to certain caterpillars' saliva attract parasitic warps to lay their eggs in the species they specialize they specialize in using. I don't think this has to do with the mimicry I was talking about so never mind that, still it may be interesting in an evolutionary concept.

[YPrrrr]

Uh they've spent 6+ years in college alone researching it.

How does that mean they have the answer?

Uh they've spent 6+ years in college alone researching it. They are much better equipped to answer the question.
Are you trolling? This seems to be one of the most common Christian arguments.

Just because I'm Christian doesn't mean I'm arguing that God did it or whatever you're implying... Really that's quite the conclusion to jump to... I'm merely saying scientists do not know everything about every species, quite possibly including these rare examples that were listed in National Geographic. I only said that scientists do not fully understand how the process of evolution may work. For the record I believe in evolution anyway, so really stop acting like I'm an idiot regarding the subject just because of my religion

I'm pretty sure this is something they can explain.

That seems to be a parallel of "God did it." You don't know, you don't know that scientists know, you can't just assume that they do when you yourself are at a loss for an explanation.

[Daddy]

How does that mean they have the answer?

They have more access to fossil records, genomes, peer reviewed papers, etc.

Just because I'm Christian doesn't mean I'm arguing that God did it or whatever you're implying... Really that's quite the conclusion to jump to... I'm merely saying scientists do not know everything about every species, quite possibly including these rare examples that were listed in National Geographic. I only said that scientists do not fully understand how the process of evolution may work. For the record I believe in evolution anyway, so really stop acting like I'm an idiot regarding the subject just because of my religion

I never said that. I said the "evolution is only a theory" argument is commonly used by Christians when it is not a theory in that sense.

They are a subset of the people who use that argument. 

That seems to be a parallel of "God did it." You don't know, you don't know that scientists know, you can't just assume that they do when you yourself are at a loss for an explanation.

No, I mean in this specific situation I'm pretty sure they can explain it.


http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Phylliidae+evolution&hl=en&btnG=Search

There is a long document in that first link that explains it.



I just realized I completely ignored the fox example though it should be obvious what causes that. As the seasons change days become longer and shorter. Temperatures change. The body adjusts for this with hormones which affect things including fur color.

[Virgule punctuation mark]

I just realized I completely ignored the fox example though it should be obvious what causes that. As the seasons change days become longer and shorter. Temperatures change. The body adjusts for this with hormones which affect things including fur color.

I understood that, my question was referring more to why these changing came to be in the first place, in other words I'm not questioning the mechanism, but the creation of the mechanism. As bluaki has explained creatures that have received desirable traits for survival are of course more likely to live and breed, but how is it that these defects come into existence in the first place?

As we see in nature it is rare for any species to be born with noticeably diverse traits within their own group. What was the trigger for a member of the Canidae such as ancient wolves or other predators to branch off into the vulpine that change the specific colors "white" or "brown" and have them come into existence specifically in an arctic region with annual snowy and warm months?

Is it really just the result of countless eras of diverse species dying out until only ones coincidentally adept to snow exist, or are the changes within a species deliberately affected by the environment in ways I don't understand?

[Daddy]

I understood that, my question was referring more to why these changing came to be in the first place, in other words I'm not questioning the mechanism, but the creation of the mechanism. As bluaki has explained creatures that have received desirable traits for survival are of course more likely to live and breed, but how is it that these defects come into existence in the first place?

Changes in environment create stress. The stress itself is what causes the hormones to be released.

This, with the reduced melanin production, is the cause.

As we see in nature it is rare for any species to be born with noticeably diverse traits within their own group. What was the trigger for a member of the Canidae such as ancient wolves or other predators to branch off into the vulpine that change the specific colors "white" or "brown" and have them come into existence specifically in an arctic region with annual snowy and warm months?

It didn't progress that fast really.

Some of the ancestors split off into wolves (and later dogs no need to explain this), foxes, and others.   The foxes themselves began to diversify.

Is it really just the result of countless eras of diverse species dying out until only ones coincidentally adept to snow exist, or are the changes within a species deliberately affected by the environment in ways I don't understand?

The foxes whose winter coats didn't have a lighter color as a result of hormonal changes/lack of melanin were much easier seen by predators and eaten, or seen by prey and would starve.  They were not able to pass on their genes while the foxes whose genetics were much more likely to cause a light fur would survive to reproduce. Multiply this over many generations and eventually all of the foxes possess this trait.

[Virgule punctuation mark]

I think I understand now, I was looking at this in the wrong way, I misunderstood the cause and effect aspect of evolution.
I always thought changes occur because of the need, rather than the solution fitting into the problem. Such as; "A giraffe's neck becomes longer over the generations because it works at getting higher leaves." rather than the way it works "a giraffe can reach higher leaves become some gain longer necks and are more successful." is this correct?

It seems like such camouflage mechanisms would benefit all species significantly, though only some experience such changes and succeed in that evolutionary branch, I have a few more questions on my mind, but it would digress off the topic of the thread.

Thanks for the explanations.