Nature is fascinating, and some of Nature’s best work—or evolution rather—is illustrated by animals that have evolved adapted to mimic leaves. Leaf mimics use an extraordinary type of camouflage to evade detection from predators or prey. These animals mimic leaves by using leaflike color patterns, modified exoskeletons, and cryptic behavior. You can see more fascinating examples of animal camouflage here.
INVERTEBRATES AS LEAVES
The “dying” leaf-mimic katydid below is a fascinating creature, and evolution natural selection has endowed it with the ability to mimic a dying leaf.
“Dying” leaf-mimic katydid image was found here and here.
. . .
Dead-leaf butterflies are extraordinary creatures to observe. The specimen below illustrates how adaptation through natural selection, which is a driving force of evolution, has helped the dead-leaf butterfly evolve to better evade predation by mimicking a dead leaf.
The dead-leaf butterfly image above was found here, but the actual image is by ToddinNantou on Flickr.
Image found here
. . .
The images and videos below show various species of leaf- and stick-mimicking mantises, including a dead-leaf mantis (Deroplatys desiccata) and a violin mantis subadult (Gongylus gongylodes). The leaflike appearance of these mantises is extraordinary.
Photo source for attribution here
The image above showing a dead leaf mantis (Deroplatys desiccata) camouflaged amongst some leaf litter was taken by Adrian Pingstone, and found here.
Violin mantis subadult was taken by Laurentiu on Picasa, and found here.
VIDEO: Leaf Mantis at 04:45:
VIDEO: A violin mantis catching a fly:
. . .
A leaf-mimic katydid mimics a decomposing leaf instead of a dying leaf.
“Decaying” leaf-mimic katydid image (©Martin Shields) was found here and here.
. . .
Leaf insects, or walking leaves, from the family Phylliidae are some of the best examples of leaf mimics.
Phyllium sp. image above by Sandilya Theuerkauf
Photo source for attribution here
Phyllium giganteum
Phyllium giganteum image by Drägüs was found here.
VIDEOS of walking leaves:
From LiveScience: Ancient insects used advanced camouflage:
A fossil of a leaf-imitating insect from 47 million years ago bears a striking resemblance to the mimickers of today.
The discovery represents the first fossil of a leaf insect (Eophyllium messelensis), and also shows that leaf imitation is an ancient and successful evolutionary strategy that has been conserved over a relatively long period of time.
d
d
d
. . .
An unidentified species of dead-leaf insect
The unidentified dead leaf insect image by Amaury Olivier Laporte was found here.
. . .
This leaf-mimicking katydid was photographed in Costa Rica.
Photo source for attribution here
Undergrowth dead-leaf katydid (Orophus sp.), Barro Colorado Island, Panama
The images below show several small-leaf katydids (Pseudophyllinae) from Peru and the Peruvian Amazon. The last image in the series shows a dead-leaf katydid nymph, which is an immature specimen.
The image showing the undergrowth dead-leaf katydid (Orophus sp.) and the series of images showing the small-leaf katydids were taken by artour_a on Flickr.
This katydid resembles a green leaf.
This katydid image is by Mjlaff on Flickr.
This peacock katydid’s (Pterochroza ocellata) exceptional resemblance to a dead leaf is remarkable, but if its camouflage fails and a predator realizes it’s a potential meal, the peacock katydid has another trick — it will quickly flash a pair of false eyes, by opening its wings, to startle the predator.
The peacock katydid images are by Piotr Naskrecki on Flickr.
. . .
The children’s stick insect (Tropidoderus childrenii) is found in Australia, and it mimics leaves of a particular species of Eucalyptus.
Photo source for attribution here
. . .
Not all invertebrate leaf mimics are insects. For example, this cuttlefish is doing an excellent job of mimicking a leaf.
Photo source for attribution here
. . .
VERTEBRATES AS LEAVES
Can you find the leaf-mimic frog? Leaf mimicry isn’t exclusive to vertebrates.
The first two leaf-mimic frog images are by ©Wolf Holzmann and were found here and here. The third leaf-mimic frog image is by Hank & Priscilla Brodkin and was found here.
. . .
The Uroplatus, a genus of gecko that’s endemic to Madagascar, are sometimes referred to as leaf-tailed geckos. The first image shows an individual hibernating during cooler Malagasy weather, and it uses its tail to mimic a leaf or to camouflage itself as it hibernates.
Photo source for attribution here and here
Satanic Leaf Tailed Gecko (Uroplatus phantasticus) image found here
. . .
The South American leaf fish (Monocirrhus polyacanthus) uses camouflage, mimicry, and stealth to hunt its prey. To capture its prey, it will patiently wait in the water column at an angle or sideways to mimic a dead leaf (note the individuals in the background).
The first image showing some leaf fishes in an aquarium was found here. The second leaf fish image was found here, and the third image was found here.
Video: The South American leaf fish uses its camouflage and stealth to hunt prey.
. . .
This robust ghost pipefish (Solenostomus cyanopterus) mimics a blade of sea grass, and it rests at an angle similar to the South American leaf fish above. Ghost pipefishes are relatives of the seahorses and display some of the best camouflage found in nature. Much like the weedy and leafy sea dragons, ghost pipefishes are very ornate and showy. You can find more images of ghost pipefishes here.
Photo source for attribution here
Photo source for attribution here
Photo source for attribution here
Photo source for attribution here
Photo source for attribution here
Photo source for attribution here
There are two robust ghost pipefishes in this image:
Photo source for attribution here
Photo source for attribution here
wow.. thats awesome
i knoe rite
I’m a bit confused on your choice of wording.
There is no such thing as “the driving forces of evolution.” Evolution, by definition, is a completely random process, aided only by the survival (or lack thereof) of the evolved creature.
The statement “chiseled out by the driving forces of evolution” presupposes that evolution is an ordered process, as opposed to random genetic mutations.
The theory that involves a directed pattern is not called evolution, it is called “intelligent design.”
It always irritates me when people confuse these two diametrically opposed theories.
Intelligent design is not a theory. First it fails to provide a hypothesis. Second it does not make any prediction that can be independently validated. Third it is based on faith and faith is not science. I might add it also does not invite scpetical review nor does it have any valid data.
Sounds like you’re talking about global warming.
Except global warming is based in science, and all real scientists in the world will agree that it is an actual, current phenomenon. It provides a hypothesis, makes lots of predictions, and can be validated. Please check your sources and make sure they’re not being funded by companies that produce or sell oil or chemical (often for things like fertilizers and insecticides).
Intelligent design is not a theory. First it fails to provide a hypothesis. Second it does not make any prediction that can be independently validated. Third it is based on faith and faith is not science. I might add it also does not invite sceptical review nor does it have any valid data.
I wonder whether Bud would object as strongly to a phrase such as “chiseled out by the driving forces of erosion”.
It always irritates me when people say that intelligent design and evolution are dramatically opposed
The idea that evolution is random is one of its most common misconceptions. People tend to use “evolution” interchangeably when they mean “genetic mutation” — and genes recombining on the molecular level is indeed completely random. Evolution, however, is the process of change in a species that happens under the auspices of natural selection, and natural selection is the furthest possible thing from random. It is not a random coincidence that the insects whose genes happened to give them better camouflage survived to pass those genes on to the next generation, or that the best of the next generation survived to pass their genes on again — it is a process of constant, subtle refinement that has been around as long as life has.
Creatures with good genes tend to propagate them; creatures with bad genes tend to die. That is evolution and there is absolutely nothing random about it.
I have learner that there is no possible way that evolution could happen and faith may not be scientific but u can not record evolution. According to u guys it takes “millions and millions of years ” for an organism to evolve. So my question is can you record evolution and the answer is no thus faith is a key part to evolution. If u don’t believe in faith then you shouldn’t believe in evolution cause to except e volition you must have faith that it could happen. So it is much easier to explain a God or everlasting being as the reason that we are here than it is to explain a big bang or people evolved off of the back of krystals.
found a source here: http://www.boredpanda.com/amazing-animal-camouflage-photos/
…. But aside from all that, great pictures.
Hi Bud. I used the phrase, because I simply liked the description, and I was not trying to legitimize intelligent design, which I believe is a sham. I thought the phrase might be confusing, so before using it, I searched for a similar usage to reference it and found it in this article from LiveScience:
“Greatest Mysteries: What Drives Evolution?” (and linked to it): http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/070816_gm_evolution.html
And also here in “Forces of Evolution”: http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/070816_gm_evolution_forces.html
I certainly was not trying to refer to intelligent design, and I don’t think it is unreasonable to use the phrase “driving forces of evolution,” because it is thought that there are other ways to drive evolution besides natural selection, such as through “mutation[s], random genetic drift and gene flow” (in fact, several journal articles and book titles employ the phrase “driving forces of evolution”). Furthermore, in a way these “driving forces of evolution” are chiseling out the organism, so they may survive in the landscape.
Just amazing images. I disagree with Bud’s comment. There are driving factors in evolution and this does not indicate that evolution is an ordered process. The fact is that the driving factors are random, but drive modification of a species nonetheless. In the case of camouflage, the driving factor is to be able to avoid detection by predators. The individual that is lucky enough to have an advantagous mutation is more likely to survive long enough to reproduce and thus pass those genes on to its decendants.
This need to survive detection by predators, therefore, is the driving force. In a broad sense then, the driving force behind all evolution is a species’ enviromental influences.
I do agree that the phrase ‘driving force’ may be misconstrued by the enemies of evolution to mean the hand of god however, and for this reason all beleivers in reason must be alert to this.
Buck,
Thanks for you response. Unfortunately, the actual theory of evolution is so poorly understood, that using statement as you did, although you may understand the intended context, further adds to the confusion.
Surprisingly, Scott’s comment actually supports my point. He says “This need to survive detection by predators, therefore, is the driving force. In a broad sense then, the driving force behind all evolution is a species’ enviromental (sic) influences.”
On an individual level, an organism my be driven to improve its chances for survival. As a result, it may learn to hide more effectively. However, as a species, there is no drive for improvement. Only the reality that an organism with a more effective camouflage will be more likely to survive long enough to pass on its particular genetic traits.
Anyway. Thanks again for the pictures.
Seriously I cant see them. This is driving me crazy.
I find convergent evolution pretty interesting, this not being it.. Things like shark tails and dolphin tails taking different evolutionary paths in development (of shape) but ultimately tending to the same design. What i enjoy is that the convergence of the two tail designs indicates that there is in fact an optimal design for a tail (tested against a specific parameter – speed in this case). As an engineer its good to know that there is such evolutionary perfection out there that we can hope to emulate ourselves.
Seriously though, where are the damn frog and butterfly
I can’t find the frog either Rob, but according to the photographer, it’s in the leaf litter.
me either
That SnapShots/WordPress thing is very annoying and intrusive. It kept popping up and distracted me from how amazing some of the photos are.
Thanks for the recommendation, I disabled snapshots.
WOW., what a creature…
Dear Bud,
No one gives a shit.
Thanks, Joe
Wow!
That really is some great camoflauge – I’m jealous!
I’m impressed with natures design XP.
Still spotted them all in the first few seconds though, frog included.
Great post Scott, I look forward to more. *thumbs up*
4 realll!!
To consider evolution random would not be entirely accurate. Though mutations, the result of crossing over and assortment of chromosomes during meiosis may be random, the driving processes are not.
Evolution can be driven by a number of influences – the nature of the environment, competition and sex, for example. Could sexual selection account for the ornate display of the peacock? To have such adornment is likely to be a hindrance if being chased by a tiger, but if you are more likely to breed because females look for the most impressive display, then the genetic makeup that impresses the most is more likely to win out. Of course, all the pressures that play on various phenotypes would be complex, but evolution is, nevertheless, being driven by those pressures, which will, over time, influence the genotypes that confer advantage.
Should have added: brilliant pics, thanks. d
The word “evolve” implies progress. Is it progress to change – in order to survive – from what you are?
Reminds me of prisoners of war, and how they become “animal-like” in order to survive. Is that progress? Aka “evolution”?
In that point of view, I wouldn’t call camouflage evolution or intelligent design. I would call it the exact opposite.
evolution simply means ‘change over time’. It in no way suggests ‘progress’.
Props to Teresa, you’ve hit the tip of truth. It isn’t evolution, nor intelligent design. It is adaptation. Evolution truly means changing from one inferior creatures into a completely different creature. All of these are not completely different. They simply adapted to thier environment. People who live in the north are more tolerant of cold than a southern person. Did they evolve? No. They adapted.
Evolution does not have to be radical, nor does a creature have to change. There is such a thing as divergent evolution, where the parent species remains while a new child species forms because it formed a mutation that was not a hindrance to its environment. Camouflage is a result of evolution, because, to use a human analogy, people cannot radically change their skin color, texture, and form by living in a new environment. Using body paint to blend in with your environment, would be an adaptation, but that’s not what these animals did. These animals didn’t adapt, there were some that were born with a genetic mutation which allowed them to survive in their environment by avoiding detection as compared to their ancestors. Thus, they reproduce, and more of them are created over time. That’s evolution, not adaptation. Evolution can only be oversimplified by putting it into a sentence.
Hey either u don’t understand evolution at all or ur an idiot because it is impossible for a parent to pass an enviromentaly adapted gene to offspring so o.ly if u believe this evolution stuff. The offspring could have an adaption but that creature when it became an adult could not pass that gene of mutation to its offspring .
wrong. Again, evolution simply means ‘change over time’. Organisms never become something “completely different”, Rather, incremental changes build over time. Ove’r generations, the organism can be said to have evolved.
Point taken on adaptation Teresa, which is a better descriptor of the actual process than evolution; although, the driving force of adaptation is natural selection, and natural selection can be a factor for evolution.
Many thanks for all the comments and discussion!
C’mon, this is photoshopped, I can’t believe how gullible you people are!
FAKE!!
Wow, I can’t believe how pedantic you all are. Adaptation, ‘progress’, evolution, etc.
Look at the pictures, say wow, move on. And michael, you’re an idiot.
i didn’t find the frog
Just below middle way of the image showing leaf litter and above the stick crossing the image, towards the left, you will see a dark image that looks like a frog.
Great pictures. In the first one all I could see was the legs. (I think?) Thanks for posting.
Thanks Tommy. There is more to those legs. If you look left of the dying “leaf,” you will see a head, and the animal will jump out at you.
Do you honestly believe a cyclone (evolution)could go through a junk yard and create a 747? Yeah and intelligent design is a scam. Right. How simple minded can you be? Do you really think you have the brain power to make that assumption? Such vanity you have .
Intelligent design is a scam. In fact, it’s a simple-minded scam developed in recent times. The proponents of intelligent design point the finger at evolution and science, but intelligent designers need to take a long hard look in the mirror, and they need to take a good dose of objectivity. In my opinion, interpreting creation through intelligent design is a mistake, because it delegitimizes religion for some folks making an effort to rationalize their existence. Whether you like it or not, species do change over time and its observable. Furthermore, Creator or not, you need certain things in this universe and on planet Earth to keep everything ticking (adaptation, natural selection, and evolution; laws of thermodynamics, gravity and many other things we try to understand in science). The only side of the argument demonstrating vanity regarding the issue are the developers and proponents of intelligent design.
I want to make one thing clear. “Evolution” in a scientific context does not mean improvement. If you’d taken any 101 level course it would have been hammered in that it’s any “change over time.” Any change over time due to pressure. IT DOES NOT MEAN BETTER!
A crocodile or shark hasn’t changed in forever, because they’re still very effective with primitive designs. Humans are changing a lot (see very northern dwelling tribes with very short limbs to minimize heat loss, various running speed records held by western and eastern African groups, and power lifting records by western Europeans…not to mention things like levels of alcohol dehydrogenase by culture). Or see the fact that we’ve made dogs that weigh less than a pound (teacup poodles) and nealry 200 pounds (Irish Wolfhounds and others).
If we can make dogs differentiate that much in just a couple hundred years, you’d have to be blind to belive that “macro” evolution is just a myth.
Fantastic images! Have never seen some of these before especially the frog. Keep ‘em coming please.
This is prove God made all creatures. Nature alone could not create such maverick tricky animals.
Pingback: Monday Link Roundup for 11/10 | Dallas McLaughlin
Haha, President Sarah Palin I hope your comment was meant as a joke. If it was then its hilarious! If it wasn’t then you’re retarded and its STILL hilarious.
Wow, I am really glad you shared these pictures. It is amazing how they do that!
Pingback: Dear Kitty. Some blog :: Ancient leaf insect fossil found in Messel, Germany :: December :: 2006
Great work! Nature is a genius.
Just one point- Bud, there is nothing wrong in using the phrase ‘driving forces of evolution’. As a fact, mutations are considered the driving forces of evolution.
Here, I believe that buck has used the phrase in a more generic sense calling natural selection as that force.
Hope you don’t mind!
Wow! I knew about the frogs… I knew about some bugs, but not the ones you showed us. I hadn’t seen those fish before either. Truly amazing. Also, for the life of me, I cannot see the frog in that big picture. I have tried and tried.
Pingback: Strange Animal Defense: Camouflage, Shape Shifting and Other Bizarre Mechanisms | WebEcoist
hey bud who cares just look at the pictures
Pingback: Rue The Day! » Nature is Weird, Camoflauge is Cool
Hey, what a great project! Thanks for using my picture in it!
Cheers, Steffi
this is really cool! i saw one that’s a moth looking like an owl.
Maby in 10000 years.. It´s too early for that, nothing Photoshop can´t fix dough..
My God, these are really amazing. I find no problem in believing this is the work of a Creator. I mean, c’mon man what does it take for you to realize that these exquisite designs are no accident?! It was there 47 million years ago! And you still conveniently explain this away?
And to those who say that these adaptations were necessary for them to survive: How come the regular insects are still around? (*insert long-winded nonsense in defense of evolution here*)
speciation occurs, in part, due to local enviroment and predator pressures. Nothing in the process requires the extinction of the earlier species. Dogs and domestic pigeons are a case in point. Or, if you’d rather a ‘wild’ version, killiefish and newts, both of which are excellent examples of ring species.
I believe in evolution, but some animals are so amazing that I can only wonder if they aren’t the product of some sort of intelligent design.
Pingback: The Old English Sheepdog | Dog Information
Wow buck you must be trolling. A force of evolution is a natural force such as competition, environment change, predation, etc.
Ever seen fotoes of caterpillar’s head painted as if manacing big eyes? One example of intelegence design.
Not a fan of Sarah Palin but what she said of foot prints of man and dinos is documented by Eric von Daniken.
Some of you has read me, I’m giving no further statemnt of affiliation.
Using von Daniken as source does not bolster your argument.
why must intelligent design and evolution be opposed?
do I believe that an invisible man made two people out of dirt and we all come from them? NO. that’s just stupid.
it IS possible for an anomaly like a cyclone going through a junkyard, and making a 747 by accident… but only once. EVER. and I’d shit bricks.
that being said, Bud’s Theory of Evolution presupposes that cyclones have been turning out 747s every thursday afternoon, for trillions of years. also stupid.
the real question is: why does life cling to survival?
why does it care? if we come from a bunch of minerals that got hit by weird electricity or just happened to decide one day that they’d become an animal, then what caused that, because this theory depends on an inherent mind that is independent of matter, you know, like GOD or something.
just because Bible Freaks say and think dumb stuff, doesn’t mean that Atheism is the only answer.
Agnosticism. it’s called intelligence. I have seen stuff happen randomly, and sometimes it happens in such a way that the Neuroses of Religion makes me think that when I have an experience of synchronicity, it’s like God is winking at me.
TL;DR
Cool Aminals, Holmes.
That is just amazing
Calling Intelligent Design a “sham” is only because you do not know God. I’m sure he would forgive you for your ignorance. You can only speak on something you are aware of, and since you’ve never talked with God or felt his presence my advise would be to stick with learning about all the creatures he created for your education and Joy. I’m sure you believe in a devil even if you don’t believe in God. If I did not know for absolute sure that I had a soul, I’d sure be finding out before it was to late. I love this site as I haven’t seen these and I thank you for that!!!!
Snowbird, just curious what “God” you are speaking of. In case you haven’t noticed, the world carries many forms of religion that believe in many different “Gods.” Are you too self-centered to understand that? If you were born in a different region of the world, you would believe in a very different God or Gods that you believe in now. Have respect for other people and other people’s beliefs, do not assume that your God is the ONLY God out there and the ONLY God that anyone believes in. If you have no respect for science, then shut off your computer – unless you think that God “intelligent designed” that too. My God believes that you are very ignorant. My God believes that you have no soul and that you should shut your mouth. My God is better than your God.
If I was designed by God and all He gave me for defense was the fact that my back looked like a decomposing leaf, I’d be fucking pissed. What, you ran out of poison stingers?!
PS – I’ll find my frog
who took my frog
who found my frog
Pingback: DARKCOLD » Something to Terrify…
There are four processes that affect the frequencies of alleles, selection (sexual and natural), mutation, genetic drift, and gene flow. I think only Bud has a “poor understanding” of evolution. The rest of us have a very good understanding of it. When Bud can not only describe genetic drift and its effect on the frequency of alleles (in both small and large group dynamics) to me, but tell me why its wrong, then I’ll listen.
I’m not sure why these things always fall into the creation vs. evolution debate, or why there’s a debate in the first place. Pervasively though the creationist argument there runs a misunderstanding about the evolutionary model. Darwin posited a theory about the development of species, not a theory about the biogenesis on the Earth. Since then we’ve learned the mechanisms by which evolution occurs and have witnessed examples of it in action. What seems to me central to the creationist argument is a further misunderstanding of linguistics whereby the word species is taken to mean something real in nature, which is simply not true. Species indicates a group of individuals who share enough genetic information to be able to exchange genes and produce viable offspring. Through time, genetic drift alters genetic information to a point where this gene exchange becomes impossible. All this means is that every organism is genetically distinct and that through generations of reproduction, the distinctions between two organisms which shared a common ancestor increase, eventually to a point where cross breeding of these two organisms is no longer viable.
Anyway, very good photos! I think I finally found the frog, which would have been an altogether easier endeavor if it had been bloody well bigger!
Thank heavens for some sense Penn. These are wonderful pictures. I wish that people who know little about life sciences would stop trying to push their own viewpoint about evolution/creation and just enjoy what is to be seen and marvel at the natural world.
Many thanks again for the discussion, in addition to the sharing of experience, knowledge, and viewpoints that have resulted from this blog post. Although the discussion may seem frustrating or pointless to some, certainly there is something to learn from it and the images—like the remarkableness and significance of living things, “natural” landscapes, and the need to preserve them.
Evolution is the Result of Adaptation.
When something adapts, it survives longer
it’s random genes that helped it survive get passed on
if there was a group of brown insects
and all the landscape was bright green
the predator would pick out and eat all the brown ones
but the randomly green ones stayed safe, purely by chance
they were able to have babies
over time, there were only green ones left
so a brown insect EVOLVED into a green one
the *adaptation* part comes from the fact that the very-green were *favoured* by the opposite sex and got laid more…a bio-chemical choice, aka sex appeal
there was another lot of these brown insects
with their few random green ones (like our albinos)
they were in an area that was mostly rock and mud
all the green ones stood out
they got eaten
they never got married or had babies
the brown group survived as it was hard for the predators to see them against the brown backdrop
the rocks were sharp and painful
so the ones with more footpadding survived better
as they didn’t die of bleeding feet
10,000 years later
we have the brown-insect group
and a few miles down
their green-insect cousin
they’re 99% similar but for the colour
and they both adapted to their environments
one evolved into the greenbacked booga
the other evolved into the puffy-footed-booga
well children! i hope you enjoyed that lesson. Adaptation leads to Evolution
Adaptation can be mostly mindless and chance-based
my coffy is cold gotta go…!
Where’s the leaf frog…? such great camouflage XD
Totally photoshopped, I would know; I’ve seen quite a few photoshooped images in my day; look at the shadows, they’re all pixelated. Yup, totally photoshooped.
You can’t even spelled photoshopped right. Who would believe you?
Science is about doing stuff, ask any scientist with a job. What we should do is use evolution, make something with it. That’d shut up the creationists.
The whole point of “evil-ution” is that the creature evolves by itself. Evolution can NOT be observed, so why would people think it’s true/
We have. They’re called antibiotics.
And seedless watermelons.
Pingback: Fascinantes camuflajes animales [Fotos] - Ojo Cientifico
Even more interesting is how mankind has applied lessons learned from nature to human enterprises.
The art of camo
http://madsilence.wordpress.com/2007/08/24/the-art-of-camo/
~MadSilence
You should also check out the sea horses referred to as “sea dragons”. Those things are crazy.
Sea dragons have been highlighted here:
http://conservationreport.com/2008/10/12/can-you-see-me-animal-camouflage-37/
Ghost pipefishes are remarkable too:
http://conservationreport.com/2008/10/12/can-you-see-me-animal-camouflage-36/
All animal camouflage on this blog can be seen here:
http://conservationreport.com/tag/can-you-see-me-animal-camouflage/
The mimic octopus (Thaumoctopus mimicus) is another fascinating creature too: It can change color, shape, and even change or mimic behavior of other sea creatures such as flounders, sea snakes, lionfish as a defense mechanism.
WOW!!!!
blah blah blah
evolution requires faith… there just isn’t enough evidence (as the theory would require).
I wear a coat in the winter..so what
Steve Verdon provides a helpful footnote regarding evolution (http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/politics_and_evolution/):
this is totally awesome. Now I learned something today!
Steve Verdon’s quote there is correct, but does nothing to assuage the distaste that agnostics or religious people feel for Atheistic Evolution Theory.
I understand the quote is directed towards Palin-types who seem to think that dinosaur bones were put in the ground by god to test our faith, but I just want to remind everyone that because you belive in direction, in a kind of limited predestination, in that there is the high possibility that there may be a larger consciousness (not just one of those Gaea thingers, like Higher Order animals, Quantum Angels?) informing the molecular or cellular changes to some degree, and that it would appear according to accumulated data that all these changes being devoid of conscious intent on the part of the Evolvee or a Quantum Angel would seem preposterous.
Random Chance always plays a role, however, it seems important to point out that the Atheistic/Unconscious Evolutionary Model is as imbalanced and ridiculous on it’s face as the Xtian Version.
The ‘Junk pile-tornado-747′ anology is hpelesly off target. The elements of reproduction, transmissin of hereditary factors and selectin are missing
Amazing pics, thanks!
These are truly amazing creatures, whether by creation, intelligent design or evolution!
All theories can be called scams until proven. Believe or not evolution is a theory, as is intelligent design. In order to prove a theory according to the scientific method certain steps must be accomplished. One of those steps is to test the hypothesis by doing experiments. Since these theories have occurred over millions or billions of years, it would be impossible to do replicate it in a time span we could observe. Sure, we are able to look at changes in dogs or other species or short time spans but we have yet been able to observe one species evolving into another. Evolution has many holes in it that have yet to be explained. Where are the intermediary species? We cannot find examples of those in fossil form. They should be scattered all over the earth. Moreover, it does not explain the very beginning of life. In physics, when a theory does not explain everything fully and is full of unknowns, it is time to find a theory that does. We seem to be stuck on evolution. It is time to move on.
Arguably, intelligent design isn’t even a theory, since it’s largely a lie made up (1) to counter evolution and (2) to give Christianists confidence in their strict literal interpretation of the bible. As a result, intelligent design is completely made up!
If you can believe in intelligent design and not even consider evolution, then something is wrong upstairs. Evolution is science and it’s been tested and vetted (unlike Sarah Palin). If evolution were a weak theory, then scientists would have moved on a long time ago. It’s ridiculous to suggest otherwise, and it suggests a lack of intellectual curiosity in trying to read or research the issues surrounding evolution.
Furthermore, I’m appalled that some people believe we should teach intelligent design or some form of creationism along side evolution in schools. While some folks concede and believe it should be taught in philosophy class, I don’t think it’s even credible enough to be taught there.
Fossilization is a rare event. Consequently, fossils are rare, because even bone breaks down over time, so the conditions must be right in order to preserve a specimen through mineralization, as an impression (like a fern), through tree resin that results in amber, or a specimen might be preserved in a low oxygen or very cold environment. So, it’s not surprising that the fossil record is lacking, but there are fossils and a fossil record, and they can’t be ignored—just like evolution can’t be ignored.
Buck, you sound like people who criticized evolution 100 years ago. People like you have closed their minds to anything other different to what you believe.
Intelligent design is one possible explanation some people use to fill some of the holes in the THEORY of evolution. You criticize these people but at least they are opening their minds enough to bridge their beliefs with those of people like you.
Of course evolution explains changes and adaptations within species. This has been proven and is observable. What you are doing is making excuses and apologizing for the things we do not know. Science does not do this. It simply seeks the knowledge of those things we do not know.
I never said evolution was a “weak” theory. It has too many holes, too many unknowns to say it is the total truth. It is still a theory! Open your mind. There may be other explanations to what you believe is fact.
wow, i never heard someone on the side of Intelligent Design say “open your mind.” Anyone else see the irony here??
Let me just remind everyone that Gaileo was sentenced by the Pope to house arrest in 1633 for going against the Church and stating that the Earth revolved around the sun; thereby making the Sun the center of the Solar System, contrary to what is written in the BIBLE. Had Gaileo not had friends and wealth to keep him out of prison, he likely would have been executed by the Church. He was finally pardoned in 1992 by Pope John Paul II (nearly four centuries later)… So my friends, not EVERYTHING written in the BIBLE is true – straight from Pope John Paul II himself. Maybe those who follow Science and Evolution, Fact and Logic aren’t the ones to have to “open their minds,” perhaps it’s the Church who publicly held the belief that the Earth was the center of the Solar System until 1992.
Then again, I believe that the Earth is flat and that the God Apollo drives his chariot to make the sun rise every morning… All Haul Apollo – the one TRUE God. Who needs science?
I wouldn’t consider myself closed minded just because I weigh evidence and facts, then discriminate against intelligent design. Comparing how I currently feel about intelligent design to how some folks viewed evolution 100 years ago is ridiculous. Intelligent design is not science. Furthermore, the criticisms of evolution that occurred ~100 years ago that you accuse me of is still here, since it has evolved into intelligent design.
The truth of the matter here is, although fun to speculate, no one here will ever know exactly what is going on…U can only speculate…I speculate GOD is at work here…Could anything so limitlessly complex be ordered by anything else? Evolution? Evolution has no mind of it’s own….nor do any of the other concepts being given credit for what our world is. Only something with intelligence far above any of our measely minds, could create such wonderful things. Some of your comments is proof that we could never come close to explaining any of the intricacies pictured.
and Steve, don’t forget I love you…LOL
and another thing…could anyone explain how Steve got so cute?? Let’s speculate on that
Your “faith” in evolution is no different from my faith in God. We both believe in something we cannot touch. I also believe in a form of evolution different from you. Unfortunately, evolution as a whole has become a religion. You believe in it because you have faith it is true. You must have faith because it raises too many questions to be a single answer. Our scientific beliefs should not be based on faith.
Intelligent design is not necessarily a criticism of evolution. It is a starting point, which is something evolution does not answer. Intelligent design does not exclude evolution. Evolution can be part of it. Nevertheless, I must concede intelligent design, just like evolution, cannot be proven.
Charles Darwin said this:
Firstly, why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?
But, as by this theory (of evolution), innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?
Lastly, looking not to any one time, but to all time, if (evolution) be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly have existed.
Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against (evolution).
The problems with or objections against the Darwinian model for speciation only come into play when it is extrapolated out to say everything has a common ancestor. Worse yet, the “common ancestor” was dead physical matter.
If Darwinism is strictly held to considering only species; then it bears no objectionable points. Any faith can easily embrace the idea that a loving GOD would endow His creation with the ability to adapt to surroundings for the best chance to survive. So, we can gladly hold to speciation, but not “the tree of life”.
As for the fossil record, why are we able to claim crocodiles (from the Wikipedia entry) “They are an ancient lineage, and are believed to have changed little since the time of the dinosaurs. They are believed to be 200 million years old whereas dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago; crocodiles survived great extinction events.” The only way we could claim this is if there is sufficient record to confirm it. The fact that the same record does not confirm changes from one phylum to another in over at least 65 million years tells you something, if you are willing to listen. Do we have proof of one phylum leading to another phylum? I argue we only have conjecture.
Further, in a post linked in the right hand column, the fear of axolotl becoming extinct is of concern. Why? Isn’t this just evolution saying it’s time for them to go away? Why should we be bothered with trying to save them? Is it an innate response to GOD’s command for us to tend the garden? We don’t need any other animal on this planet. Vegans have shown we can survive just fine on vegetation alone.
WHAT??
Wow! [in a WTF astonishment sort of way]
Welp, time for my 2 cents I guess … Nature is Awsome .. that’s a universal fact, whether by ‘design’ or accident … but then, why do we appreciate a beautiful sunset, or gasp at the grandeur of the Grand Canyon … is it because it’s ‘intrinsically’ beautiful.. the question is ‘why’ do we find things beautiful and other things ugly .. do animals, for instance, find beauty in nature ? no firm answers here, just a question ..
As far as evolution, survival of the fittest, and ‘natural selection’ are concerned, Evolution, to me at least, allows the most rational explanation .. it doesn’t ‘preclude’ or omit the existence of a higher intelligence, it just may be the mechanics by which Nature or God works ….
It is true that “evolution’ is quite a random process.. it’s when a particular random mutation, such as an insect that resembles a ‘dying’ leaf, is now ‘left alone’ to propagate further, while the ‘more obvious’ ones get eaten …. suddenly, you have offspring that are “all’ now more likely to survive to the next generation … that’s all survival of the fittest is really all about .. not a quest to deny a God, just an obvious action/reaction of nature … the ‘mutated’ animals of the African plain that were ‘mistakenly’ born with Longer necks, were also able to reach the higher branches of the trees, their food source .. and so they were ‘more fit’ to propagate, and … well, can anyone say Giraffe …
The Galapagoes Islands have been a great ongoing experiment that Man has been able to observe for over a century now … and low and behold, we have seen species of birds change beak sizes and ‘adapt’ to island changes as natural selection and ‘survival of the fittest’ has taken place .. right before our eyes.. this isn’t a theory.. we now have hard evidence of documented changes in the species on that island … like I said , this isn’t to discount a Higher intelligence, it’s just natures way maintaining a survival instinct … if you went around a particular corner every morning and one day someone was around that corner that punched you in the face three mornings in a row … you adapt .. you don’t just go whistling aroung the same corner on day four not expecting another punch in the face .. you start proceeding with caution … you change ..
Mankind itself will change and adapt in ‘small’ and maybe big ways as well .. If we decided to ‘settle’ on Mars, but also decided that it would be easier and more practical that only people under 5 feet tall would be more efficiently resourced for setting up a habitat on Mars, we would find that ‘by and large’, MOST of the offspring to couples under 5 ft tall would themselves be under 5 ft tall … I wish I could tell you this was theoretical Rocket science ..but it’s simply genetics over generations that’s at play here … that doesn’t mean that a ‘stray’ or ‘mutant’ person born on mars would “never’ be over feet tall … and if a taller person survived better or adapted better, than his genes would carry to the next generation and you would start to see …. you got it , evolution in progress …
but the only real question to be anwered here is , why is Leo so cute … I suspect a handsome father and sexy momma are at play here ….
Pingback: “Got Bat?”
I agree with the ‘adaptation’ concept here: It’s not evolution until the resulting species no longer can mate with the others of the earlier species. But, evolution is going on all around us, and as someone else said, it’s not all positive. The gene mistakes that result in retardation are failed attempts at evolution, and nature takes care of failed attempts quite nicely as a safety check for rewarding evolution. As we remove these safety checks, we start altering the survival-rewarded genes, such that natural de-selection of such things like diabetes, blood disease, and even bad eyesight are assured to be passed on to our decendents, causing negative ‘adaptation’ and potentially evolution.
All those god-claimers better explain the concept of dinosaurs prior to addressing anything else here (the bible calls them ‘trickery’!).
Have fun
It’s amazing how animals can camouflage like that. Not that I haven’t heard of it, but I didn’t know there are so many animals that could do that.
Pingback: Top Posts « WordPress.com
Pingback: Webparade - Il meglio del Web » Blog Archive » Animali che si nascondono
Pingback: Nature Blog Network » Meet Buck and The Conservation Report
> and since you’ve never talked with God or felt his presence my advise would be to stick with learning about all the creatures he created for your education and Joy.
I’ve been searching for an ID proponent who could explain God’s apparent fixation with bugs – there are millions upon millions of species of insect – if we take the moment of initial creation as 4004BC as many ID folks do He must have been knocking out dozens of new bug designs every day. Why?
Pingback: Mimikry | WiRRESWiRKEN
Pingback: BarelyBlogging » Blog Archive » links for 2008-12-05
these pictures blow my mind!
if I looking for frog
him name is hopkin green frog
I lost my frog
29-3228
Love,
Terry
P.S. I’ll find my frog
Who took my frog
Who found my frog
2012 15th AVE. S
Bud: you suck, even though I agree with you, you suck. Work it out, somewhere else please.
Whilst looking at these divine organisms I felt a strong desire to eat them. The challenge of finding one is so great; upon discovery I would admire the evolutionary feat, adapt my palate, and then intelligently design a stunning menu. If GOD and/or SATAN really made these awesome creatures, they’d want us to eat them.
Pingback: Sarx » Blog Archive » In wisdom
Pingback: Bugs Camouflaged As Dead Leaves « Our Descent Into Madness
O M G !!!
This is fantastic! I didn’t knew nothing about this untill know :-O
incredible!!
massive big up for the post!
same here!!!!!
Pingback: Animal Camouflage « RandomKids
Pingback: ¿Insectoplantas?¿Plantinsectos?¿Aniplantas?¿Plantimales? « Ksawa
This is awesome, truly. The manifold gifts of God’s creation and its carefully nursed development is readily apparent. I especially note the protection of valued traits from the vagaries of selection:
“A fossil of a leaf-imitating insect from 47 million years ago… shows that leaf imitation is an ancient and successful evolutionary strategy that has been conserved over a relatively long period of time.”
If anything anywhere can impress that the concept of mediated evolution is properly basic, it is this page. Kudos and God bless.
Thank you for your fascinating dissection of these phenomena. These little creatures embody a Gestalt that rises above any blueprint or Platonic form of a leaf. The verisimilitude of the illusion is a veritable miracle.
Just… WOW. These pics are incredible! (I still haven’t found the frog!) God kicks everybody’s butts all over the place when he pulls out all the stops. This is awe inspiring.
Hi,
Nice series.
Please note that picture 2 and video show Philium sp. which are not Mantids. They are Phasmids.
Cheers
Andy
Thanks Andy, and you are correct. I should have had them with the other Philium spp. and not with the mantids.
WHAT?
I guess controversy is a driving force in blog comments!
Isn’t it great that WordPress 2.7 will have comment pagination?
Nice photos!
Pingback: Leaf-imitating creatures « David Kirkpatrick
These creatures are amazing! Nature never fails to awe us with it’s diversity. Now if only humanity were able to show the same awe within it’s many differences as well.
Great photos. I just got one yesterday of a dead leaf bug here in Costa Rica. Wish I could submit it to you. I will be posting it on my blog at http://www.sellingcr.com/crblog or http://dominical.wordpress.com
o…lalala…
Really awesome.. !!!
que imagens
Hello, I found this post through the top posts page on WordPress, you’ve assembled a fine collection of photographs!
I’m quite delighted to see that one of my photographs is included in this post, however, could you please change the credit so it points to this page: http://www.flickr.com/photos/toddalperovitz/2092798784/ rather than the flickr static page.
Thank you!
This is amazing!!
How anyone can truly believe that evolution is ‘blind’ or left to chance, is beyond me.
Its actually quite preposterous.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m no fundamentalist, and don’t necessarily believe in God.
But I would like for any darwinists to enlighten me as to how exactly a bug can ‘mutate’ a leaf on their back, to match other leaves in their area.
The amount of genes needed to mutate in the correct sequence, I imagine is many…
What is the feedback mechanism for this???
How did the bug ‘know’ that the leaf it finally mutated on its back, matched other leaves, and would now keep it safe???? Of course some may say that obviously the fact that they survived is the feedback needed to keep the mutation. But HOW did the mutation come about in the first place??
I definitely understand not wanting to believe in a creator God, and Im definitely not saying ‘God’ did it….all I’m saying is that evolution suspisciously seems to know where its going, and that its definitely not ‘blind’.
Heres a good example of what I mean….
Some may have read Dawkins’ book ‘The Blind watchmaker’. In one of the chapters he tries to prove random mutation by running random letters through a computer which ‘mutates’ the letters, to form a readable sentence. Basically every time it finds a wrong letter it throws it away. Every time it finds a right letter it keeps it. So, according to him, its basically mimicking natural selection, choosing whats best, and getting rid of the rest. And he claims that after only 30 or 40 iterations of his program, he went from totally randomized letters to getting this coherent sentence.
“methinks it is like a weasel”
What blows my mind, considering he’s a pretty smart guy, is that he says it’s a perfect illustration of evolution via random mutation/natural selection.
But its nothing of the sort!!!!!!
Its actually a brilliant example of intelligent design or guided/conscious evolution.
Cuz for the computer to be able to throw away the bad letters, it had to know what the good letters were!! It had an END GOAL that was pre-programmed into it. The random letters had a ‘template’ that they were mutating towards.
Sure the mutations were ‘random’, but the end result was predetermined by a ‘higher’ intelligence. (a la Dawkins selecting a Shakespeare sentence as the goal)
So what Im getting at is that forms can only ‘randomly’ evolve TOWARDS a SET DESIGN / GOAL…..randomness can never just PRODUCE designs of infinite complexity, without knowing that complexity beforehand.
Hence, guided evolution, or ID (ugh, hate that term) is the most likely answer.
Heres a site that proves that strictly random mutation can only bring extinction…..
http://www.randommutation.com
by showing that a coherent sentence can never be formed by random selection.
So my conclusion then….
Is that the universe’s evolution has an END GOAL, that everything is evolving towards.
Whether that End Goal, was put there by a ‘higher intelligence’/ ‘God’, is beyond answering.
But nonetheless….its like a fractal.
A fractal cant exist without an equation, and before that equation is entered, the shape of the fractal is known. Even though chaos rules the fractal, the shape in the end is the same.
The end is in the beginning, the alpha in the omega.
And its no coincidence that everything around us is fractal, and that the universe is fractal…
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14200
http://www.fractaluniverse.org/
Just proves even more so, that there is
a strange attractor guiding the evolution of the universe.
Is that God? Who knows….who cares. All I know is evolution is DEFINITELY NOT BLIND!! Random, sure….but not blind.
Pingback: Last Class Day « blueollie
Pingback: Things I’ve Found Interesting Two Days Before my Philosophy Final « ACTRIVI’s Web Log
Isso sim é camufragem !!!
KKKKKKKK…
Pingback: Johnsenclan » Blog Archive » Links 12/9/08
Pingback: LittleWiki: Animals & Insects
Pingback: Insects Look Like Dead Leaves. « Blog yOur Mind
Pingback: ⓝⓘⓚⓤⓚⓨⓤ Blog ~ Laura en UK » Blog Archive » Ninja container!
i is leaf not cheezburger
these are so cool and awesome like tot ale dude.
Pingback: Die beste Tarnung | ReliLinks
Pingback: Jubeo News - Las noticias más relevantes en la Blogosfera e Internet
i find the defence of ID that there is no evidence of how species cant all breed with each other quite flawed.
humans cannot breed with apes because we have 23 pairs of chromosomes and they have 24. our common ancestors had 24, but somewhere along the line our “missing” chromosome became a part of our “2nd” chromosome, showing how species can split apart
Amazing nature and creature!! thumbs up!!
the question is who made these enorm “random mutations” .
crap theory wich dumb scientist give,dont explain inteligence which stands behind it.
they dont know exactly how they functioning,who is created universe,how its big.
the inteligence who created organisms was ,is keeping focus on too many functions and factors to claim its random=blind…then we became somehow random smart too…
Cool! Evolution, ftw!
There must be some mechanism that allows species to adapt. I believe in God, but it seems ridiculous that God is constantly controlling everything. Certainly, it makes more sense that the universe was left to the natural laws after it was created by whatever created it. Creationism, intelligent design, or whatever the Christianists deceitfully call it to impose their agenda, is a lie. Furthermore, criticizing science, theories, and evolution is plan ignorance, especially since science has provided most of what we need today. Personally, I believe the greatest sin is living in ignorance and manipulating religion to impose one’s own agenda and prejudices.
As long as humanity continues to consider “God” to be a singular being, we will continue to live in the dark on matters such as this..
Pingback: Folre i Manilles » L’art de no ser vist
I’m really astounded at the number of comments here that demonstrate supreme ignorance of not only evolutionary theory, but science in general. I don’t even know where to start.
A THEORY is not equivalent to a hypothesis, speculation, or a guess. It is the highest level of certainty in science. A theory is a unifying explanation of multiple hypothesis that have withstood testing, observable facts, and laws. A theory can never become a law, which is an explanation of a simple phenomenon, usually expressed mathematically. By definition, theories are well supported and disproving one (or even several) of the supporting hypotheses does not weaken the theory. To topple a theory, you develop an alternate theory that accounts for ALL of the evidence AND fills in gaps left by the previous theory.
As for new phyla arising recently- That would be completely unexpected under evolutionary theory since phyla are the basal groups within kingdoms. Asking the question of why it hasn’t happened is akin to asking why an oak tree hasn’t sprouted any new trunks on any of its branches lately.
Now for evolution itself…
There is no implication that there must be linear progress made in which each generation is more complex or has more developed structures than the last. Evolution is simply the change in allele frequency within a population, usually making them better adapted to certain conditions.
Evolutionary biology makes no distinction between “microevolution” (or adaptation) and “macroevolution.” “Macroevolution” simply results from the changes accumulated through “microevolution.” To make a distinction between the two would require some mechanism that would allow “micro” to occur, but not “macro.” There has been no plausible supposition of what that mechanism is, much less evidence to support its existence. On the contrary, there are multiple examples of OBSERVED cases of speciation, especially among plants and insects that illustrate that there is no such boundary.
The idea of “transitional forms” as creationists like to think of them is also a bit silly from a biological point of view. Taxonomy works in discrete groupings even though biology works in a continuum. From a taxonimic point of view, asking for transitional forms is akin to asking what comes between Wednesday and Thursday. There is no allowance for in-between organisms that share characteristics of two groups. They get lumped into the group they most closely resemble- even if it appeared to be an almost 50/50 split. There are numerous examples, both living and fossilized, of species or populations that share characteristics of different groups. Between reptiles and birds, there is a series of about 2 dozen different species. There are numerous fossils linking fish and tetrapods, land mammals and whales, early hooved mammals and modern horses, etc. There are some very complete records of transitions between species in trilobites, scallops, oysters, and foraminiferans to name a few. In living species modern corals are a great example, especially the genera Acropora, Montipora, and Montastrea. There are also numerous birds and amphibians that represent gradient or ring species.
The 747 argument is just silly and not at all analogous to evolution. I would argue that suddenly creating something so complex from nothing is much more analogous to creationism. First of all, evolution works in small successive steps, not as one huge leap. Second, it is not a random process. Mutations are random. Selection is not- it’s based on fitness. Third, evolution has no end goal it is trying to achieve. It has no 747 it’s aspiring to build.
Dawkins’ weasel program did have an end goal, but only to define the selective pressure- i.e. how the computer knew it has a “fit” solution. In that regard it’s not a great analogy for evolution, but it does illustrate the non-randomness, which was his point. The chances of forming “methinks it is like a weasel” in one big random jump are infinitesimally small. However if you do it step by step with some criteria of what works and what doesn’t at each step, a workable outcome becomes probable. In Dawkins’ program he set the selection criteria by defining an end goal, but you can create genetic algorithms that select based on criteria without a defined end goal as well. For example if you’re designing a bridge truss you can have the computer randomly mutate a design to form multiple new designs and then have it select (non-randomly) the one with the best weight to strength ratio, which continues to be mutated and selected. This process has been used to design real-world structures that outperform the best human-designed structures. No pre-defined end goal is needed, just mutation and selection- both of which are provided already by nature.
And no, I don’t find it at all improbable that the dead leaf katydid evolved to its current form because I understand that looking like a leaf was not the result of mutations within a single generation and there was no choice by the insect involved. Its ancestors likely looked much like the green katydid which is much more obvious than these guys. Any mutation that makes it look even marginally more like a leaf is advantageous when compared to the normal phenotype. It’s less likely to be seen, less likely to be eaten, and more likely to survive to maturity so it can pass those odd genes on. Any mutation that makes it stand out more is deleterious and increases the odds that it will be weeded out of the population before it breeds. The next generation will have mutations of their own, some of which make them look more like leaves and some that make them look less so. These mutations will continue to be selected for and continue to accumulate. It has no need for the insect to “know” that it looks like a leaf for this process to occur and even if it did know, that knowledge would have no bearing on the genes it passed on to future generations.
Wow, well said. Very well said.
I just looked at these photos again. And, realized that we, humanity, do the same thing as these insects. Some of use camouflage everyday, like the above insects. We do this to survive. While others are bold, like striped bumblebees, and fly proudly – showing our true colors.
The question is, which are you?
Just musing..
im very impressed with that creatures but i cant find the frog! ….really
cool
Those are amazing. I still can’t see the leaf mimic frog. That’s some darn good camouflage.
Time for me to go buy a leaf blanket! Awesome shots
Pingback: Retazos de la web del 2009-01-17 (microblogging) » hombrelobo, una mente dispersa
Pingback: links for 2009-01-17 at James A. Arconati
Mike G . . . your discussion of science thinking and evolution was so elegant and lucid, I copied and saved it. However, it seems to me that you stumbled beyond the realm of science when you asserted, “Third, evolution has no end goal it is trying to achieve. It has no 747 it’s aspiring to build.” You can’t know that . . . you’re just running on assumptions of a faith. You may be right, you may be wrong. But in either case, the statement was not a scientific one.
On the other hand, that doesn’t trouble me nearly as much as the frantic hubris of self-proclaimed lovers of God who want to tell him how he has to do his work, make his art, show love, or whatever they call his act(s?) of creativity. It seems to me that if they really loved God, they’d stick to the most honest scientific observation and consideration possible and do everything they possibily could to not impose their wishes
Pingback: WEIRD AND FASCINATING CREATURES: Adaptations and mimicry « The Conservation Report
LOL its nice
hi, i like how you did some pictures about different kinds of animals, they are so, so cute!!!! well thank
you so much, and hope you do some more pictures if you can, thanx!!!!
FR:Samantha hogg
hehe very nice pics i wish i was vesible
sry i meant invisible
Wow. I actually found a leaf camouflaged insect in my backyard last week. I didn’t want to disturb it for fear it could hurt me, but I took pictures. It was so realistic!
I have never really knew about these amazing creatures
DRIVING FORCES OF EVOLUTION…
see susam blackmore’s TED talk on memes and “temes”
DARWIN’S DANGEROUS IDEA…if you have 1)variability and if you have 2)selection and
if you have 3)heredity you MUST MUST MUST get evolution
or…design out of chaos without the aid of mind
these are the “driving” “designing” forces of evolution
Pingback: CAN YOU SEE ME? | ANIMAL CAMOUFLAGE « The Conservation Report
these pictures are awseom!but i want to know if you if it’s poisounus and why you would hold them?
Awsome pics
Pingback: Insect leaf mimics « Bug Girl’s Blog
Pingback: Camuflaje Natural « Web Log del Colegio Estación Limay
woooaahh??
Wow! That’s incredible… and I like that video with the mantis getting the fly.
Pingback: AskWiki: Animals & Insects
This is wonderful, thanks for the infomation it helped me alot on my science fair!
Pingback: Mr. Gary's Blog » Blog Archive » Grade 4 Science – Animal Adaptations - Mr. Gary's Science and Social Blog
for ‘driving forces’ read ’causes’. hopefully that pedant Bud will not take issue with the notion of cause and effect or we’ll never hear the end of his waffle. what a nitpicking pain in the arse. clearcut semantic abuse. possibly some 4chan nolife lamely attempting to self-entertain.
oh and godly types, GTF out of discussions on science for christs sake. go and congregate somewhere else
I honestly think everyone that sat down and took ten minutes to write a book on here need to get a life! And to some of you who continuously come on here and check what ppl are saying will always be sitting alone in your house with your 6 cats, really grow the fuck up! Oh and Buck very cool pics, thx.
Pingback: Bladder Cicada from Australia | What's That Bug?
wat rubbish only leaf things why not frogs?
yo encontre en mi casa un animalito con forma de palomita y parecia una hoja seca o un trozo de madera pero sus alas son sedosas y suaves ademas de que vuela es color cafe tiene ojos verdes y parece que tiene un peque;o pico con dos orificios como nariz que es alguien me puede ayudar
These pictures are amazing!
fantastic pictures! The nature creates the greatest art in this world!
nature is great.Ingenious…..
wonderful and rare collection
Pingback: Angelsfire.nl » Animal Camouflage
God is so good, you don’t get this from a big bang.
thay is freakey
We have numerous camo bugs here in Costa Rica. I am constantly surprised by them…in a fun way!
That is so totally awesome, and I’m only 10.
Animal diversity is always suprising, and these photos demonstrate the fantastic potential of nature. You can also check some other stunning animal camouflage photos here http://www.photographymojo.com/2011/04/playing-hide-and-seek-incredible-animal-camouflage-photography/
i cant find the leaf frog in the picture:(
I like this website because there is a lot of animals that camoflage
I LIKE THIS WEBSITE BECAUSE THERE IS A LOT OF ANIMALS THAT CAMOUFLAGE
that was really hard to see but my cosuin helped me find animals that were hard but i just saw one and HI EMILY
MWHAHAHAHAHAH.bye
get over it.. wasent that bad..
goood job !
losers
cOOL CAN HELP FOR MY POSTER
Growth
Ill never touch leaves
Pingback: Animal Equality - Page 9 - Grasscity.com Forums
I’m on work experience non nude preteen
665
icant find it
Pingback: Season For Moths « Just Moving Along
Amazing!
Awesome, awesome and awesome!
Pingback: ¡No puedo creer que no sea una hoja! — Amazings.es
Pingback: Is it a leaf? Is it a bug? It’s Adaptation! | Mrs Bursk's Science Class
Pingback: Nature - It's Pretty Special
Pingback: Anonymous
Pingback: » Butterfly Video Butterfly Facts
I love geckos
Unbelievable!
Pingback: » wek Butterfly new
Pingback: » Butterfly Butterfly Facts
Pingback: » Butterfly Drawings Butterfly Facts
Pingback: Copiii invata programare (?) « E&G Point Construct