Can someone explain this to me , im not trolling. Ok so the

I think it would be a warning to make them think about the consequences of eating it, so the predator could maybe spare it's life and look for a better meal whilst if it was camouflaged the predator would assume the camouflage was the organisms main mode of defence and eat it...

>>2304138
It's the same reason we mark construction areas with bright orange cones/signs, so you know the danger.
If a predator knows that bright green frog is dangerously toxic, it will give that frog a wide berth.

>>2304138
Did you get that pic from /lgbt/?

>>2304161
How does it know? If it knows through evilution, wouldnt just enough wolves dying from eating the same mushroom or whatever make them realize?

>>2304161
Also constructions sites are meant to be reflective at night i believe

>>2304153
Dont animals precieve colors differently than we do?

>>2304171
No i got it from knowyourmeme.com

>>2304172
it is through evolution, and that thing you're describing with the wolves requires
1. a social animal
2. a memetic/learning animal

most creatures, wolves and people and whatnot excluded, don't have that advantage. Furthermore, aposomatism goes further back than wolves...probably goes back to insects and reptiles...probably predates birds, evidenced by how universal it is (even among advanced social predators)

so there you have it. like most adaptations, this one required a lot of bloodshed.

and one last thing...sometimes it does depend on learning. i saw a doc where a baby caiman tried to eat a bright grasshopper. the taste was foul and the caiman spit it out. one grasshopper died, but countless more were saved by the association that caiman made upon trying to eat it.

Just saying that people kicking red amanitas just because EWWW are the worst. Reflex "don't tough bright" is because all the gamblers from both predatory and prey sides had less chances to pass their genes. Sadly it's not working for humans anymore.

>>2304138
It's all about randomness and super-long periods of time.

The evolution of poison and bright colors works this way:
1. One day a mutant bug is slightly toxic
2. The mutant bug's babies are also slightly toxic. The most toxic baby bugs survive longer than their siblings because whatever eats these bugs may get them in their mouth and spit them right back out before eating them.
3. This new generation of bugs has more babies. Some of them are even more toxic. Again, the most toxic babies survive better and have more babies than their less toxic siblings.
4. Rinse, lather, and repeat a few thousand times until predators usually don't mess with this type of bug.
5. Now that predators don't mess with them, the weird-colored ones start surviving too.
6. Eventually there are more weird-colored ones than camouflaged ones.
7. Predators start avoiding the weird-colored ones because it's super-obvious that they're poisonous. The camouflaged ones still get eaten on occasion, until eventually there aren't any more of them left.

Now:
8. Another type of bug (not poisonous) has a random mutant weird-colored baby.
9. Predators think the weird-colored non-poisonous bug is actually a poisonous bug and don't eat it.
10. Repeat steps 3 through 7 for the weird-colored non-poisonous bug.

If another bug out there has the random color mutation happen to it, then maybe that species will get lucky too. But the problem with randomness is that it's random. Mutations are rare enough as it is, and most of the time they're bad for the animal. Getting one that could help, and then being lucky enough to be in a situation where it DOES help, is like winning the lottery.

>>2304138
they don't CHOOSE to evolve bright colors instead of camouflage. it just worked and that's why it didn't die out.

>>2304138
[spoiler]Karl Pilkington?[/spoiler]

>>2304812
at some point, something has had it away with a leaf

>>2304138
Anon, retake highschool biology.
The basic processes of natural selection and evolution are fairly easy to understand.

>>2304138
>Be carnivore
>once try to eat a very bright frog
>tastes like shit, feel bad for days, bad_times.jpg
>better not eat one of those shiny demons ever again

>>2304138
I think (as in pulling out of my ass) that the reason poisonous animals could afford to be more colorful was because predators learned to avoid them in the first place, after prior experience with their early, less colorful form. In other species, induviduals with bright colors got selected out, and the camouflage developed. As the colors got brighter / more color patterns survived on poisonous animals, it got easier for predators to avoid them too. Bright colors might have aided them in finding mates easier, and less accidental predation, so it became a strong trait.

>>2304138
Animals have far worse eyesight than we do, in general. They use their ears or nose or another sense we barely have developed, like sensing electricity.

We're very sight oriented and intelligent so we could tell one brown mushroom from another brown-green mushroom and avoid the bad one. Animals mostly cant do this, they wont discern an obvious difference between those two. So instead ones brown, and ones bright fucking red. This way that mushroom wont be eaten and the animal wont die either.

Evolution works both ways.

It is advantageous for BOTH the predators and the prey if there are clearly defined markers for soecific dangers, and only if the markers aren't usually lies.

>everybody has markers of danger, even where there is none
>evolution proceeds to cause both predators and prey to disregard them
>they vanish or become meaningless

>poisonous prey has no particular marker
>predators die from eating them
>but also the prey dies from being eaten
>but there are no predators exclusively of poisonous prey, obviously
>so some predators die but the poison gives the prey zero advantage

Same goes if the poison isn't lethal. Evety new generation of predator has to learn which prey is and is not poisonous by trial and error. The poisonous prey gets no real advantage.

>>2305748
Mushrooms are a really, REALLY bad example.
There's all kinds of brightly colored or patterned mushrooms that are harmless, and tons of lethal ones that are entirely drab.

>>2304812
hahahah yes, he brought up many good points. It's like when a child says " why do we bring a tree in the house during christmas" and it makes your whole life turn upside down

>>2305746
oohh so it's like they already knew not to eat it so it could turn whatever color it wanted.

>>2304138
>why not just be camouflage and then if you get ate eventually youll learn that you shouldnt eat this animal because everyone that eats it dies
The more shocking the colors, the more quickly its predators learn.
There are also theories saying that those animals take advantage of their dislike of certain "unnatural" colours when it comes to food (for instance, we normally would reject or at least look weird to blue food, at least until Powerade and other similar drinks appeared)

>Also wouldnt every animal be bright colors if animals are instinctively scared of bright colored prey?
Say hello to Batesian mimicry. Why doesn't every animal practise it? Different ways to solve a same problem I guess, both seem to work.

>>2304174
Yes, which is why some camouflages are just shit to hide against humans and we would assume they don't have that strategy.

File: DeadTeenagers.jpg.jpg (137KB, 800x534px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 800x534px

>>2305801
Mycologist here.
Very true. Most of the deadly ones are actually pretty drab. Pic related. This one often gets mixed up with Psilocybe cyanescens, a hallucinogen. Teenagers die all the time from seeing any old brown mushroom growing in woodchips and thinking they can munch on it. One of these babies will have you knocked flat with liver/kidney failure within two weeks.

File: FloatingTeenagers.jpg.jpg (155KB, 750x500px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 750x500px

>>2306246
Pic is Psilocybe.

File: Yummy.jpg (63KB, 564x569px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 564x569px

>>2306249
And this one is a tasty edible. Mushrooms certainly do not follow the warning color logic.