so when Doug made his comment I said the quote above to clarify for others that he was not talking about teleology.
... but I was talking about teleology. To be clear, functional adaptations are teleological: they are adaptations for a particular end. (E.g., in this case, camouflage). That is teleological.
No, Doug. The mutations are purely random and without any “for” at all. If a particular mutation happens to allow the life form to exist in its environment a little more effectively, one may look at it and say (incorrectly) that member of the species accomplished a functional adaptation.
You have to be careful in the use of “teleology”. In ethics (Utilitarianism) it may be used for evaluation of behavior, but in science it refers to motivation or purpose. No matter how much the camouflage helps the grasshopper, it wasn’t motivated to develop it.
I note that in a later post you stated that the grasshopper had no intention, but intention or purpose sort of goes along with the teleological explanation.