From the article:
> Amanda Melin of the University of Calgary recently showed that lions and hyenas can’t even make out the stripes unless they get very close.
Sounds like it could still influence hunting as the predators have to get very close to make a kill
This nitpick is brought up each time someone makes an interesting observation. I can only image it is because people are trying to preempt intelligent design nonsense.
You are ofc right, it had no purpose when you talk generation to generation, the gradual tiny mutation each time did indeed serve no purpose.
But when you talk about the end product, the striped zebra, it is ok to say zebras (as the product of those millions of tiny iterations) might have evolved to discourage biting flies. Of course it could have been some other reason altogether, or a mixture of reasons but there is nothing wrong with the vocabulary, imo.
Evolution selects for traits correlated with successful reproduction. Correlation doesn't imply causation. All evolution can do is say "hey, things with this trait worked better, let's build more of these."
Flies would be messing with the zebras ability to pass on their genes in some for for this trait to be selected for.
" By watching and filming the stable’s horses and zebras, the team confirmed that horseflies were much worse at alighting on the latter. The flies had no problem finding the zebras or approaching them, but couldn’t stick the landing. “You get a quarter as many landings,” Caro said. “The flies just can’t probe for a blood meal with the zebras.” "
I think the evolution angle relates to the question "Why did this trait evolve? What function does it serve?" with a potential Answer "It repels flies."
My critique was pointed at the wording. IMO it is not about why a trait evolved – there are many useless traits that envolved somewhere during special conditions and after these conditions change remain for a eternity or suddenly find a new usefulness in changed circumstances. This means pinpointing such a trait down to a single why is not a good representation of reality.
Are such observations valuable? For sure! Nature developed amazing strategies for all kind of things and not looking at these would be a waste.
I’d just be a bit more cautios with quick conclusions that involve meaning and answering why-questions, that’s all
Evolution doesn’t care and has no sense of meaning, like in genetic algrotihms it is just about which patterns survive, which die and which remain as a funny annecdote with no practical effect.