Does Evolution Explain Tiger Stripes?

[JAL]

I do expect certain freaks of nature. Wouldn't surprise me to find a blonde woman with a few random black hairs, or a black woman with a few random red hairs. Or whatever. Fine. But striping? Look at a tiger. THOUSANDS of hairs perfectly arranged to form one stripe, then THOUSANDS forming a primary-color section, then THOUSANDS to form the next stripe. This evolved? Really? Evolution appears to be a pretty good artist, then.

Sure you can find scientists providing explanations - but they seem to be telling us what we already know, that's there some chemical or genetic process involved. That's still not telling us WHY it would evolve. If it were just a few random stripes - again - fine. I already attested to freaks of nature. But perfectly striped, OVER EVERY INCH OF ITS BODY? Hard to believe it's not design.

How do evolutionists explain this? They can talk about 'selective advantage' all they want but I doubt it would provide a convincing explanation of how PERFECTLY regular striping 'evolved'.

 

[archer75]

Just to my eye, it doesn't look PERFECTLY regular.

But anyway, it seems the first question would be "how do cat coat colors work?" I have no idea, but Sarah Hartwell seems to. I also don't know if domestic cat coats work like those of tigers, but here's a link anyway. Maybe the Tabby (Agouti) section is relevant?

GENETICS OF COLOUR AND CONFORMATION

 

[JAL]

Just to my eye, it doesn't look PERFECTLY regular.

But anyway, it seems the first question would be "how do cat coat colors work?" I have no idea, but Sarah Hartwell seems to. I also don't know if domestic cat coats work like those of tigers, but here's a link anyway. Maybe the Tabby (Agouti) section is relevant?

GENETICS OF COLOUR AND CONFORMATION

You seem to be pointing me to genetics. I already explained why genetics seems irrelevant to my question. In light of what I said, why do you still think genetics are relevant here? Again, the question is how a freak of nature manages to draw perfect stripes (ok near-perfect) - and not just a few of them but covering every inch of the body.

A few random freaks? Fine. Thousands upon thousands, (near) pefectly arranged? Really?

 

[archer75]

You seem to be pointing me to genetics. I already explained why genetics seems irrelevant to my question. In light of what I said, why do you still think genetics are relevant here? Again, the question is how a freak of nature manages to draw perfect stripes (ok near-perfect) - and not just a few of them but covering every inch of the body.

A few random freaks? Fine. Thousands upon thousands, (near) pefectly arranged? Really?

I have to assume "genetics" are relevant because it seems genes "control" or "cause" the visible patterning. And genes, they tell me, are passed from generation to generation, which makes them relevant to evolution.

I certainly didn't mean to pretend to expertise on evolution or markings on cat fur, let alone tiger fur. But if you're asking how something might have come about, seems that knowing what it is at more than one level (genotype, phenotype?) might help in formulating and answering the question.

When you say WHY in this way, I'm not sure whst you're asking. Why and how would seem to be answered together when one is speaking of a process without any human motivation. Or if you mean "what was the tiger's coat's intention..." then I don't think anyone can give you an answer unless you learn to talk to tigers / their coats and get them to talk back.

Anyway, it seems there's some cool stuff about this online, but it all seems to mentions genes in some way, so I won't post any links.

Seems to me your original post has successfully said in advance you won't accept any answer, since the post asks about evolution and that has to do with genes. So I'll be interested to see where the thread goes. Interesting question.

 

[JAL]

I have to assume "genetics" are relevant because it seems genes "control" or "cause" the visible patterning. And genes, they tell me, are passed from generation to generation, which makes them relevant to evolution.

I certainly didn't mean to pretend to expertise on evolution or markings on cat fur, let alone tiger fur. But if you're asking how something might have come about, seems that knowing what it is at more than one level (genotype, phenotype?) might help in formulating and answering the question.

When you say WHY in this way, I'm not sure whst you're asking. Why and how would seem to be answered together when one is speaking of a process without any human motivation. Or if you mean "what was the tiger's coat's intention..." then I don't think anyone can give you an answer unless you learn to talk to tigers / their coats and get them to talk back.

Anyway, it seems there's some cool stuff about this online, but it all seems to mentions genes in some way, so I won't post any links.

Seems to me your original post has successfully said in advance you won't accept any answer, since the post asks about evolution and that has to do with genes. So I'll be interested to see where the thread goes. Interesting question.

Please don't misinterpret me. I said that genes don't APPEAR to be relevant, thus shifting a burden of proof for someone to show WHY they are relevant. Maybe I wasn't clear on this. The REASON that genes appear to be irrelevant is that:
(1) All sides already agree that genes are involved, hence it seems to be a moot point.
(2) It APPEARS that only the creationist has a good explanation for PERFECT stripes, namely aesthetics by design (i.e. genes designed with aesthetics in mind).

Thought all that was clear from my opening post, but you don't seem to be following me? (Maybe I'm wrong).

 

[archer75]

Yeah, I'm unable to follow. For example, I don't see why if everyone agrees that genes are involved, they are therefore "irrelevant" to explaining the phenomenon that they're involved in.

Seems to me how the genes in question "work" would be the first question (and kind of a big question) and maybe then there would be room for speculation about how tigers ended up with that genetic situation.

But as it is, it seems you've said genes are agreed upon as involved and are therefore irrelevant, and you want an explanation about evolution without reference to genes. I can't provide that, I admit. But then, I'm not a professional or even amateur biologist, so no surprise there. Maybe another poster will come along who's up to the task.

 

[sfs]

I guess I don't understand the question. What's "perfect" about the stripes that you think needs explaining? It's not the precise locations of the stripes, since that varies from tiger to tiger. The fact that thousands of hairs in a stripe are the same color isn't surprising: the mechanisms of animal development are really good at creating sharp boundaries and distinct tissue identities within those boundaries. Do you find it surprising that you don't have bits of pancreas growing on your face? You say that the stripes cover every inch of the tiger's body, but they don't: the tiger has a default fur color that is modified in places to form stripes.

As for why evolution would produce stripes, it's presumably because they're really good for camouflage. There's a well-known style of military camouflage called "tiger stripe", because the pattern works.

 

[JAL]

Yeah, I'm unable to follow. For example, I don't see why if everyone agrees that genes are involved, they are therefore "irrelevant" to explaining the phenomenon that they're involved in.

Seems to me how the genes in question "work" would be the first question (and kind of a big question) and maybe then there would be room for speculation about how tigers ended up with that genetic situation.

But as it is, it seems you've said genes are agreed upon as involved and are therefore irrelevant, and you want an explanation about evolution without reference to genes. I can't provide that, I admit. But then, I'm not a professional or even amateur biologist, so no surprise there. Maybe another poster will come along who's up to the task.

You're correct. You evidently don't understand anything I'm saying, for example you keep putting words in my mouth. But I don't have time to try to fix it at this point.

 

[JAL]

I guess I don't understand the question. What's "perfect" about the stripes that you think needs explaining? It's not the precise locations of the stripes, since that varies from tiger to tiger. The fact that thousands of hairs in a stripe are the same color isn't surprising: the mechanisms of animal development are really good at creating sharp boundaries and distinct tissue identities within those boundaries. Do you find it surprising that you don't have bits of pancreas growing on your face? You say that the stripes cover every inch of the tiger's body, but they don't: the tiger has a default fur color that is modified in places to form stripes.

As for why evolution would produce stripes, it's presumably because they're really good for camouflage. There's a well-known style of military camouflage called "tiger stripe", because the pattern works.

Evolution seems to be about randomness that gradually confers a selective advantage. A birthmark would seem to be a good example of a random freak of nature. Unsurprisingly it doesn’t typically persist, as it confers no selective advantage. If a blonde women (or a white tiger) were born with a single black hair, I would likewise NOT expect this trait to persist, speaking from an evolutionary standpoint.


So I guess we’re to believe something much more random than a birthmark? Thousands of hairs striping the ENTIRE body - just happened one day? (And yes, the stripes do cover the entire body, much as you tried to deny it).


Or perhaps you think it happened gradually – but camaflouge needn’t be so perfectly ubiquitous (and so amazingly full of symmetry) to be effective (i.e. to confer a selective advantage). I guess all the IMPERFECTLY camaflouged/striped tigers died out? This is hard to believe, as such a level of perfection would hardly seem necessary for survival. I mean, aren’t there plenty of non-striped animals that survive? Does an animal need to be striped, and perfectly so, to survive?

: the mechanisms of animal development are really good at creating sharp boundaries and distinct tissue identities within those boundaries.

(Yawn). Yes, the genes we have right now are very good at what they do. And?

Do you find it surprising that you don't have bits of pancreas growing on your face?

Pancreas are made of cells, and yes, I actually DO have cells growing all over my face. And?

 

[sfs]

Evolution seems to be about randomness that gradually confers a selective advantage. A birthmark would seem to be a good example of a random freak of nature. Unsurprisingly it doesn’t typically persist, as it confers no selective advantage. If a blonde women (or a white tiger) were born with a single black hair, I would likewise NOT expect this trait to persist, speaking from an evolutionary standpoint.

Neither would I, which I why that's quite unlikely to be how stripes evolved.

So I guess we’re to believe something much more random than a birthmark? Thousands of hairs striping the ENTIRE body - just happened one day? (And yes, the stripes do cover the entire body, much as you tried to deny it).

No, that seems highly implausible too. (And no, stripes can't cover the whole body, or they wouldn't be stripes. Sure, they're distributed across the whole body, but that's not what you wrote.)

Or perhaps you think it happened gradually – but camaflouge needn’t be so perfectly ubiquitous (and so amazingly full of symmetry) to be effective (i.e. to confer a selective advantage). I guess all the IMPERFECTLY camaflouged/striped tigers died out? This is hard to believe, as such a level of perfection would hardly seem necessary for survival. I mean, aren’t there plenty of non-striped animals that survive? Does an animal need to be striped, and perfectly so, to survive?

Tiger stripes aren't in fact symmetric over most of the body, so yes, imperfect camouflage can work just fine. If tiger stripes did in fact evolve gradually, and evolved because they contributed to fitness through camouflage, then yes, the less well-camouflaged tigers would have died out. That's natural selection in action.

(Yawn).

Could we at least pretend to be trying to have an adult conversation?

Yes, the genes we have right now are very good at what they do. And?

And my point is that new developmental traits, like tiger stripes, can piggyback on the existing developmental machinery. There are numerous signaling molecules in developing mammal embryos in various gradient, striped and other patterns. The tiger ancestor would have already had genes for producing dark pigment in certain cells. A single mutation could hook that developmental module onto an existing signaling molecule, producing diffuse stripes. One or more additional mutations could have recruited additional developmental signals to produce sharper edges.

Until researchers work out the details of how mammalian color patterns are controlled genetically (they're mostly completely unknown at present), any suggestion of how the tiger's stripes actually evolved will be nothing but a guess, and likely wrong in its particulars. It is interesting, though, that the gene that triggers differentiation into light or dark pigmented fur in cheetahs and house cats (a gene named EDn3) also has a larger role in tissue differentiation from neural crest cells in all mammals. This suggests that coat color patterns did indeed evolve by making use of existing developmental signals. It is also interesting that a single gene (Taqpep) in house cats controls whether they have a blotchy coat or the mackerel stripe tabby pattern, and that the same gene plays a role in forming spots in cheetahs. So the idea of one or more additional genes controlling details of the pattern is not unreasonable.

 

[UpandDown]

I do expect certain freaks of nature. Wouldn't surprise me to find a blonde woman with a few random black hairs, or a black woman with a few random red hairs. Or whatever. Fine. But striping? Look at a tiger. THOUSANDS of hairs perfectly arranged to form one stripe, then THOUSANDS forming a primary-color section, then THOUSANDS to form the next stripe. This evolved? Really? Evolution appears to be a pretty good artist, then.

Sure you can find scientists providing explanations - but they seem to be telling us what we already know, that's there some chemical or genetic process involved. That's still not telling us WHY it would evolve. If it were just a few random stripes - again - fine. I already attested to freaks of nature. But perfectly striped, OVER EVERY INCH OF ITS BODY? Hard to believe it's not design.

How do evolutionists explain this? They can talk about 'selective advantage' all they want but I doubt it would provide a convincing explanation of how PERFECTLY regular striping 'evolved'.

First Define the term EVOLUTION.

If you mean Micro Evolution, YES, that's a scientific FACT. There are changes within a kind of animal.
If you mean MACRO Evolution, IE: Dinosaur magically turning into a BIRD, NO. Macro Evolution is a Religion. A BELIEF based on ASSUMPTIONS. It can not be proven with empirical science. It wasn't OBSERVED, it can't be observed, tested, or repeated.
There isn't a single laboratory test that can be done to confirm Dinosaurs can turn into birds, or Fish into people. It's nonsense.

As much as Evodelusionists try to convince people that Darwinian Evolution is somehow scientific, that fact is it's NOT. It's outside the realm of empirical science. It's a belief. A religion based on FAITH and ASSUMPTION. It can't be proven. It's an elastic theory.

Stripes, spots, solid colors, are all explained by the genetic code in the Tiger or other animal. A Tiger that has spots, and then another stripes isn't PROOF of the ability for Dinosaurs to turn into birds. LOL It's evidence of the same kind of animal having genetic variation within the same kind of animal. In fact, it's almost always a LOSS of genetic information that brings about the change. That's backwards from Darwinian Evolution.

You can NEVER GAIN new useful information from a Mutation or natural selection, no mater what some might try and claim. Mutations always destroy information and wreck it. Loss of information ALREADY there that was programed BY GOD!

If you want some really good information on this entire topic check out Jonathan Sarfati Ph.D. information in book or video. GREAT STUFF! Very smart guy who explains DNA, and genetics very well.

 

[Papias]

But perfectly striped, OVER EVERY INCH OF ITS BODY?

It doesn't cover every inch of it's body. Not that it matters - either could evolve easily.


Look at this picture. You can see that the chest and arms don't have stripes.

Or perhaps you think it happened gradually – but camaflouge needn’t be so perfectly ubiquitous (and so amazingly full of symmetry) to be effective (i.e. to confer a selective advantage). I guess all the IMPERFECTLY camaflouged/striped tigers died out? This is hard to believe, as such a level of perfection would hardly seem necessary for survival. I mean, aren’t there plenty of non-striped animals that survive? Does an animal need to be striped, and perfectly so, to survive?

I guess I don't understand what you mean by "perfect". You can see that the stripes aren't all the same width ("perfect"?), aren't straight, aren't symmetrical, and even are different from tiger to tiger - so if one tiger's stripes are "perfect" then, since the others are different, they are "imperfect"? They don't even stay the same on the same tiger, but are different from stripe to stripe, failing to keep the same spacing, and so on.

Or perhaps you think it happened gradually – but camaflouge needn’t be so perfectly ubiquitous (and so amazingly full of symmetry) to be effective (i.e. to confer a selective advantage).

You can see how the stripes work as camouflage in this image (compare to the background grass).

And yes, of course it could evolve gradually, because partial camouflage is still better than none. Just look at the stripes of the quagga.

Hard to believe it's not design.

.... and there's the rub. If you are going to attribute the random stripes to "design", then you also attribute all the brain-dead designs in nature to God, blaming our creator for countless absolutely stupid designs that anyone who isn't a moron could do better than. Everything from a giraffe's nerves to a sea turtles eggs to a whales lungs and our own backwards eyes. It would be hard to come up with worse blasphemy.


In Christ-


Papias

 

[Papias]

But perfectly striped, OVER EVERY INCH OF ITS BODY?

It doesn't cover every inch of it's body. Not that it matters - either could evolve easily.


Look at this picture. You can see that the chest and arms don't have stripes.

Or perhaps you think it happened gradually – but camaflouge needn’t be so perfectly ubiquitous (and so amazingly full of symmetry) to be effective (i.e. to confer a selective advantage). I guess all the IMPERFECTLY camaflouged/striped tigers died out? This is hard to believe, as such a level of perfection would hardly seem necessary for survival. I mean, aren’t there plenty of non-striped animals that survive? Does an animal need to be striped, and perfectly so, to survive?

I guess I don't understand what you mean by "perfect". You can see that the stripes aren't all the same width ("perfect"?), aren't straight, aren't symmetrical, and even are different from tiger to tiger - so if one tiger's stripes are "perfect" then, since the others are different, they are "imperfect"? They don't even stay the same on the same tiger, but are different from stripe to stripe, failing to keep the same spacing, and so on.

Or perhaps you think it happened gradually – but camaflouge needn’t be so perfectly ubiquitous (and so amazingly full of symmetry) to be effective (i.e. to confer a selective advantage).

You can see how the stripes work as camouflage in this image (compare to the background grass).

And yes, of course it could evolve gradually, because partial camouflage is still better than none. Just look at the stripes of the quagga.

Hard to believe it's not design.

.... and there's the rub. If you are going to attribute the random stripes to "design", then you also attribute all the brain-dead designs in nature to God, blaming our creator for countless absolutely stupid designs that anyone who isn't a moron could do better than. Everything from a giraffe's nerves to a sea turtles eggs to a whales lungs and our own backwards eyes. It would be hard to come up with worse blasphemy.


In Christ-


Papias

 

[sfs]

First Define the term EVOLUTION.

Genetic changes to a population over time.

If you mean Micro Evolution, YES, that's a scientific FACT. There are changes within a kind of animal.
If you mean MACRO Evolution, IE: Dinosaur magically turning into a BIRD, NO. Macro Evolution is a Religion.

Um, no. I have a religion -- it's Christianity. Evolution, including macroevolution, is part of science.

It can not be proven with empirical science. It wasn't OBSERVED, it can't be observed, tested, or repeated.

Of course it can be tested, and of course it's empirical science. Look, do you really think all of the world's biologists, scientific professional organizations, national academies of science, research universities, scientific journals and museums are utterly clueless about what they do for a living? That you know more about what's science than scientists do? In what world is that even remotely plausible? How many professional scientific papers have you published, anyway, since you're setting yourself up as an expert?

You can NEVER GAIN new useful information from a Mutation or natural selection, no mater what some might try and claim.

This is so trivially wrong it's hard to know how to respond. Let me try this tack: you have DNA in your body that produces exquisitely tuned antibodies that perfectly match a wide range of viruses and bacteria. That's a whole lot of useful information by any definition. You weren't born with that information. Where do you think it came from?

If you want some really good information on this entire topic check out Jonathan Sarfati Ph.D.

Or you could check out one of the many thousands of scientists who actually have training in and do research on some aspect of evolution. You know, the people who might actually know something about the subject.

 

[JAL]

The tiger ancestor would have already had genes for producing dark pigment in certain cells. A single mutation could hook that developmental module onto an existing signaling molecule, producing diffuse stripes. One or more additional mutations could have recruited additional developmental signals to produce sharper edges.

You're saying tigers just HAPPENED to have this wonderful, incredibly symmetric striping pattern under the covers (latent in their genes and thus conferring ZERO SELECTIVE ADVANTAGE) and then a single mutation uncovered/ released it? How is this seeming fantasy any easier to believe than the notion it all transpired in one day?

If you are going to attribute the random stripes to "design", then you also attribute all the brain-dead designs in nature to God, blaming our creator for countless absolutely stupid designs that anyone who isn't a moron could do better than. Everything from a giraffe's nerves to a sea turtles eggs to a whales lungs and our own backwards eyes. It would be hard to come up with worse blasphemy.

You might want to tread cautiously on those words. In my personal opinion you just called God stupid and brain-dead (whether you realize it or not). I can't explain in detail on the orthodox forum (I'm a Nicene-accepting Christian but have a non-mainstream Doctrine of God). Given forum rules, the most I can probably get away with is summarizing my view without defending it (although I can defend it pretty well). I refer to the sum total of matter as the Totality. It had a First Motion (kind of a big bang that began time), but it's more precisely a First Thought. This PIECE of the Totality that had this first thought is the first person to awaken ('evolve' so to speak). Many billions of years later, this same Person, who now calls Himself the Ancient of Days, formed us (and the angels) out of leftover matter. The 13 billion years of the known history of the universe is part of His learning period. This is the reason for any imperfections we find in Nature.

However, what 'appears' to you to be stupid and brain-dead designs are many, many orders of magnitude more sophisticated than you and I can possibly comprehend. Let me explain why. The soul ITSELF is material (exists within the body). Suppose you're a mechanical engineer tasked with creating a machine such as a vehicle - except there's one EXTRA requirement, namely, every flow of matter within the car (every flow of electricity, magnetism, fluids, air, etc) must move the vehicle's soul in ways cogitatively, emotionally, and behaviorially beneficial. So now it not only has to be MECHANICALLY sound, it must be PSYCHOLOGICALLY sound as well. THAT, my friend, is a challenge WAY beyond current levels of human comprehension. And once you get such a vehicle working fairly well, would you bother go back to redesign it for any little imperfection? No - especially if the imperfection occurs in creatures of no eternal importance (i.e non humans meaninig non-descendants of Adam).

So on judgment day I think you'll find out that you, without warrant, just called God stupid and brain-dead, but I'm confident he'll forgive you (smile).

Let me give an example of how sophisticated these designs are. Suppose I had to potty train you. Pretty easy if you're intelligent right? I would just explain it to you. But what if I had to surgically manipulate your brain such that you know how to use the toilet WITHOUT REALLY UNDERSTANDING WHAT YOU ARE DOING? This would be knowledge without knowledge, and it 's an insult to God for people to casually slap the word 'instinct' on it as though it's something easy to understand. This is a feat utterly BEYOND current human comprehension. Here's some areas where my cat has knowledge without knowledge. It knows:
(1) On a plate of food it knows how to select the healthy foods.
(2) It knows how to use a litter box.
(3) It knows how to nuture babes (for instance pick them up by the scruff of the neck).
(4) It knows how to play with me without hurting me.
(5) It knows how to show affection
(6) It knows how to use affection to manipulate me when it WANTS something.
(7) It knows WHAT to hunt.
(8) It knows HOW to hunt, and how to kill.
(9) It knows to seek out human beings to begin with, to recruit them as an ally.
and the list goes on and on.

Is it any wonder, given the sort of design-challenges this creates, that we find imperfections in nature? I define God as a finite being who is perfect in the sense of fully, pefectly maximizing His potential. Which is plenty enough for Him to protect, serve, and judge the world, fortunately.
-I agree that camouflage is a weighty argument, as long as it's not presumed a DECISIVE argument for evolution. Meaning, God is actually a smart enough designer to craft both aesthetics AND camaflouge/survival in tandem.
- And I do believe in some degree of micro-evolution. Adapdability is part of His wise design.
- Some good arguments have been made on this thread, so I'm not going to pretend I proved my side of things.
- Sorry I don't have time to participate further. I'm leaving this thread. Thanks all!

 

[JAL]

Sorry I forget to mention - not only did He have to design individual creatures correctly, but He had to do it in a social context and ecological context as well. He had to consider food chains, the impact of environment on animal psychology, natural disasters, etc, etc, etc. The list of factors that He had to consider seems to have no end.

 

[sfs]

You're saying tigers just HAPPENED to have this wonderful, incredibly symmetric striping pattern under the covers (latent in their genes and thus conferring ZERO SELECTIVE ADVANTAGE) and then a single mutation uncovered/ released it?

No, I'm not saying that tigers just "HAPPEN" to have a symmetric striping pattern that confers zero selective advantage. Weren't you the one complaining about people putting words in their mouth? I'm saying it is a fact -- a simple, well-established thing that we know and have studied in depth -- that all vertebrates already have a wonderful, highly symmetric striping pattern of signaling molecules as part of their normal embryonic development. The pattern isn't under the covers: it's under the skin. It's the pattern that gives rise to repeated structures like vertebrae and ribs. I'm not saying that this is how tiger stripes did evolve, but I am saying that it is a perfectly plausible mechanism.

Look, you asked how evolution could explain tiger stripes. Why are you so unwilling to listen to the answer?

 

[Wolseley]

Does evolution explain tiger stripes? Well, sort of.

They started out as the TAP47 pattern, called the "lizard" pattern, used by the French Army in the 1940's and 50's; it looked like this:

The French used this pattern extensively in Indochina; after they pulled out of Indochina in 1954, the pattern was adopted by the Sư Đoàn Thủy Quân Lục Chiến, or South Vietnamese Marines. They altered the pattern slightly, and produced this:

The pattern was also adopted by the Biệt Động Quân, or the Ranger Battalion of the South Vietnamese Army with slight color alterations, which resulted in this style:

After the United States became involved in Vietnam, they began to use a variety of patterns based on the Vietnamese model, and called them "tiger stripes"; a typical example looked like this:

Various styles, colors, and slight differences in pattern would be used before the end of the war; depending on the base color, the tiger stripe uniforms would become known as the "blue" pattern, the "gold pattern", the "green" pattern, the "yellow" pattern, etc.

After the war, the tiger camo pattern was adopted by many countries, each of whom changed it further to fit their needs; some examples:

Namibia:

Serbia:

Russia:

Guyana:

There are even commercial, military-style desert tiger patterns:

And the US Air Force uses a digitalized tiger pattern:

So the answer to your question, did tiger stripes evolve, is absolutely! They surely did.

But it didn't have anything to do with natural selection.

 

[rjs330]

Genetic changes to a population over time.

Um, no. I have a religion -- it's Christianity. Evolution, including macroevolution, is part of science.

Of course it can be tested, and of course it's empirical science. Look, do you really think all of the world's biologists, scientific professional organizations, national academies of science, research universities, scientific journals and museums are utterly clueless about what they do for a living? That you know more about what's science than scientists do? In what world is that even remotely plausible? How many professional scientific papers have you published, anyway, since you're setting yourself up as an expert?

This is so trivially wrong it's hard to know how to respond. Let me try this tack: you have DNA in your body that produces exquisitely tuned antibodies that perfectly match a wide range of viruses and bacteria. That's a whole lot of useful information by any definition. You weren't born with that information. Where do you think it came from?

Or you could check out one of the many thousands of scientists who actually have training in and do research on some aspect of evolution. You know, the people who might actually know something about the subject.

Yes all those people know nothing. Evolution of all this GS from a common ancestor is a crock. It cannot be examined tested or reproduced or observed. It's all guess work and assumption.

 

[rjs330]

No, I'm not saying that tigers just "HAPPEN" to have a symmetric striping pattern that confers zero selective advantage. Weren't you the one complaining about people putting words in their mouth? I'm saying it is a fact -- a simple, well-established thing that we know and have studied in depth -- that all vertebrates already have a wonderful, highly symmetric striping pattern of signaling molecules as part of their normal embryonic development. The pattern isn't under the covers: it's under the skin. It's the pattern that gives rise to repeated structures like vertebrae and ribs. I'm not saying that this is how tiger stripes did evolve, but I am saying that it is a perfectly plausible mechanism.

Look, you asked how evolution could explain tiger stripes. Why are you so unwilling to listen to the answer?

He's unwilling to listen because you don't have an answer. You have guess work with no proof that it actually occurred.