Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 160 (8123 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-01-2014 9:49 PM
76 online now:
DrJones*, edge, NoNukes, Otto Tellick, Percy (Admin), petrophysics1 (6 members, 70 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Colbard
Upcoming Birthdays: Omnivorous
Post Volume:
Total: 735,097 Year: 20,938/28,606 Month: 25/1,410 Week: 43/275 Day: 25/18 Hour: 3/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
56
7
89
...
21NextFF
Author Topic:   Criticizing neo-Darwinism
extremophile
Member (Idle past 2009 days)
Posts: 53
Joined: 08-23-2003


Message 91 of 309 (303576)
04-12-2006 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by nwr
03-23-2006 11:24 PM


Re: gould vs dawkins *ding ding*
nwr writes:

My disagreement with the last Dawkins paragraph was particularly disagreement with:

Dawkins writes:

It will take time to undo the damage wrought by overblown rhetoric, but it will be undone. The theory of punctuated equilibrium will come to be seen in proportion, as an interesting but minor wrinkle on the surface of neo-Darwinian theory.

I agree (with Dawkins). Since PE incorporates or is icorporated by ND, and the ND part is which really explains the origin of adaptations and novelties. What PE says is more or less how and why it would be found in the fossil record.

The fact that species can exist as a sort of unit of selection, that may have been (I don´t know) proposed in PE, does not help much, or anything, in explaining the ultimate origin of adaptations.

Contingencies aside, it says that when two species adapted to the same niche, if inhabiting the same habitat, one is likely to go extinct (or else, less likely but yet possible, don' know if predicted by PE, but predictable anyway, one could divert adaptatively to another niche in same habitat).

Is more or less like comparing the day-by-day training of a pugilist, and the actual tournments, as an explanation for their fitness. The main cause of their fitness condition and abilities is not the real decisive fights (analogue to species selection), but the training, the workouts, which are analogue to evolution by NS / neodarwinism.

Maybe a better example would be the breeding of fighting dogs. Which are bred in two isolated populations, and eventually put into a fight. The fight itself did nothing for originating the traits of the winner/survivor, it only defined the survivor. The origin of the traits took place in the selection done within the populations.

And PE has yet more problems with contingencies than ND, when it comes to explain adaptation. While in ND, there is a large number of individuals being selected over generations, thus compensating for eventual lesser adapted individuals that got lucky, and for better adapted individuals that did not reprodue or reproduced less because of bad luck, with species selection is more like a single event, more prone to the disturbs of contingencies. If of two horse-like species, one survived in one habitat, it was not necessarely because the survival had the best adaptation for the niche, but could be that it brought a new disese to which the "residents" did not have resistance, while the invasors had more time to develop in their original habitat.

Not to mention that PE alone (somehow... because I do not think it can possibly be proposed anyway) would require much more time to develop a adaptation such as the camera-like eye.

So I think that it´s a matter of what one sees as major and minor points of evolution. I do see the origin of adaptation as a major point than distribution of species along the fossil record, transitionals and etc.

This message has been edited by extremophile, 04-12-2006 06:16 PM


"Science comits suicide when it adopts a creed."
Thomas H. Huxley
This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by nwr, posted 03-23-2006 11:24 PM nwr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Brad McFall, posted 04-13-2006 7:14 AM extremophile has responded
 Message 94 by nwr, posted 04-13-2006 7:47 PM extremophile has not yet responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 1447 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 92 of 309 (303783)
04-13-2006 7:14 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by extremophile
04-12-2006 3:04 PM


Re: gould vs dawkins *ding ding*
No one can actually forsee the future. Forcasting natural selection as opposed to artifical selection is even less forgone. Then if natural selection never existed in MAN (as Stove suggests
http://www.encounterbooks.com/books/dafa/dafa.html
) and there is still snake evolution, what part biogeography or Godel universers bear on potential changes that would have shown up some how in past changes is yet again more difficult to predict.

So aside from the issue of the relative frequency of PE, Dawkins, who was a target, in this thread, an example of a "strict Darwinian", can not really judge what this relative frequency will come to be in the total biological community. This was the actual point to which Gould was arguing for in his "Structure of Evolutionary Theory."
http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/GOUSTR.html
Yes, I agree he manages the critical part of his discussion by reference to "contingencies" but this could equally be used or not used by others. Let us keep the politics or national differneces out of it.

So, when Dawkins is refering to "minor wrinkle" he could be referring to a proposition or a concept. It is crucial which one. If Dawkins is just playing some extrameme game begging for time with words then whatever the interest is he would have found it to have had littl commerce but to quash some building block of creationist contingencies, in my reading so far. More evidence from Dawkins might change my mind but the case seems stronger on Gould's side to me. But this thread is about the part of criticizing neo-darwinism.

Given a contingency by accident then, that embryological development might not be contained wholly in current "evo-devo" by whatever proposition and knowing that Gould argues conceptually beyond a simple propositional formation, I dont think Dawkins' writing about the proportion ("proportion" is different than "relative frequency")... let's say that that "surface wrinkle" applies to Gould's terminological use of "fractal". That itself is interesting but minor in proportion to the whole of Darwinian or Neo-Darwinian theory. That could be one reading of Richard.

Now if the "fractal" that wrinkled the surface was simply a conceptual overlay for the bacterial wall and inverted vert/invert internal organ topology (in Gould's book) and Dawkins was not referring to a determined prediction of future agreed on relative frequencies, then Dawkins' quote does not carry the weight needed to do the work of discussion you, extremeophile, call on.

Now I doubt the "wrinkle" is a propostion of any form, but if it is then it matters not, that PE brings in additional heirarchical difficulties ONTO ND, as it overviews all previous strucutres of evolutionary theory, hence Dakwins ratioed evaluation at rest. The point of critcism of neo-Darwinism is that Darwinism by failing to heed the diversity of shapes themselves, failed to not class possible embryological changes, that were observed first and continue to be from looking at tissue and levels higher, no matter what the molecular evidence also brings forward.

The only sense of Dawkins' statment here, lightweight literature aside, is that he contends against any significant relative frequency. There are some who hold this. But this is not of such a ratio to issues you raise about relative importance of across time changes vs across space changes. Maybe Godel was correct and the world does not have "time"
http://www.complete-review.com/reviews/godelk/yourgp.htm
and even though Hawking wanted an ad hoc stay on interdiction of rotating Godel universes the same kind of reasoning would apply between motion to and fro habitats and niches (It would have to occurr both conceptualy in biology and propostionally)no matter what the period the fossil record records for the geologist.

For me to try to explain that would require there was no problem in your reading me to this last paragraph .

This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 04-13-2006 07:22 AM

This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 04-13-2006 07:26 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by extremophile, posted 04-12-2006 3:04 PM extremophile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by extremophile, posted 04-14-2006 2:34 AM Brad McFall has responded

    
nwr
Member
Posts: 5143
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 93 of 309 (304049)
04-13-2006 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by extremophile
04-12-2006 2:11 PM


Re: Why prejudge?
How come "biology" explains complexity apart from neodarwinism?

I am using "neodarwinism" to refer to a mathematical theory of change in population genetics. You can, in principle, see what is predicted in this theory without having to refer back to what is observed.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by extremophile, posted 04-12-2006 2:11 PM extremophile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by extremophile, posted 04-14-2006 1:07 AM nwr has responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5143
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 94 of 309 (304051)
04-13-2006 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by extremophile
04-12-2006 3:04 PM


Re: gould vs dawkins *ding ding*
And PE has yet more problems with contingencies than ND, when it comes to explain adaptation. While in ND, there is a large number of individuals being selected over generations, thus compensating for eventual lesser adapted individuals that got lucky, and for better adapted individuals that did not reprodue or reproduced less because of bad luck, with species selection is more like a single event, more prone to the disturbs of contingencies.

I have not been suggesting group selection (species selection). I'm a bit surprised to see you suggest that group selection is part of PE.

Not to mention that PE alone (somehow... because I do not think it can possibly be proposed anyway) would require much more time to develop a adaptation such as the camera-like eye.

I don't understand that comment at all. Moreover, I don't consider the mammalian eye to be camera-like.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by extremophile, posted 04-12-2006 3:04 PM extremophile has not yet responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 1447 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 95 of 309 (304054)
04-13-2006 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by berberry
04-10-2006 5:42 PM


Re:a different perspective on the running issue with Darwinians
Dear Berberry,

I have finally got a chance to look into how Stove treats Darwin. It comes out on page 75 when Stove had,

quote:
“It may nevertheless still be true (as I have already said in earlier essays) that Malthus’s principle does hold good for all non-human species, or nearly enough hold good, to make that principle a vital clue to the understanding of their evolution.”
If I can show that Stove’s reasoning about Fisher develops out of the different mathematical declinations of Wright and Fisher then it might be ALSO that this is NOT the vital clue. I would have a hard time doing this if it is true what Will Provine has said, “ that there is actually no difference between the maths of Fisher and Wright” but I can notice a possible path in the effect on fertility via temperature dependent sex determination. It might be that Newton’s view of life (like an Earth) is the further geneticization of the actual phenotypic variations Mendel-wise that a Darwin-Mathus principle can no longer even artificially support. Such an idea would revolutionize evolutionary theory however, and I am not anywhere near drawing the crucial geometrical vs algebraic difference required of such a design.

I have no doubt that something was amiss.

I do understand your question now to the point of “genius Darwin” vs “struggle for life theme”. The above paragraph would be towards answering it in the negative as the horses will always be running. I might change my mind but this is unlikely.

This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 04-13-2006 08:11 PM

This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 04-13-2006 08:14 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by berberry, posted 04-10-2006 5:42 PM berberry has not yet responded

    
extremophile
Member (Idle past 2009 days)
Posts: 53
Joined: 08-23-2003


Message 96 of 309 (304109)
04-14-2006 1:07 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by nwr
04-13-2006 7:42 PM


nwr writes:

I am using "neodarwinism" to refer to a mathematical theory of change in population genetics. You can, in principle, see what is predicted in this theory without having to refer back to what is observed.


I am not sure if I understood it. By this phrase solely, seems a bit that you mean that you are basically okay with natural selection being responsible for adaptations; but does not feel so secure about the mathematical description...?

But guessing a bit further (partly based on what I (may) remember from your posts in this thread), you are okay with the evolution of the traits per se (maybe by natural selection) but at the same time you have the impression that something entirely new is needed sometimes, rather than the more visible action of natural selection, that is the tuning of what is already there?

I have not been suggesting group selection (species selection). I'm a bit surprised to see you suggest that group selection is part of PE.

I do not suggested that you suggested or anything, I just mentioned because someone briefly mentioned something about species possibly being units of selection.

Now again I am not really sure, but I think that group selection and species selection are distinct types of selection, even though a species is a "group". Group/ selection, AFAIK, refers to smaller groups of more closely related individuals, with a distinction a bit blurred with kin selection. It can occur within species, among groups, more or less continuously. Species selection would be when one of two two distinct species, not even necessarily closely related, but adapted to a same niche, face extinction when they met in the same habitat.

Group selection is a lot more powerful to explain adaptation, because the selection of groups within a species probably is far more frequent than the extinction of a species resulting from the encounter of two species adaptad to the same niche in the same habitat.

http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/a-z/Species_selection.asp

This brief definition does not says quite what I said, but mentions at least that species selection should not be confused with group selection... if I understood what is there and other stuff I quickly searched to be sure that I was not confusing things, species selections also have to do with how a species is highly specialized or generalist; generalist ones tend to be "selected" over time. Which may be a bit different from what I said, I guess, since there´s no emphasis on the adaptation to a niche, unless it was implied but I did not get... but also may be the just the consequence of sucessive episodes like those I described...

I don't understand that comment at all.

I mean, the is much more likely to a adaptation (specially the complex ones) to evolve by the selection of individual traits than of species´ traits because all that takes to the gradual change and fixation of a trait within a population happens much more quickly than the extinction of species, that may not even be related to a very specific adaptation, but to the overall adaptation and eventualities such as population size.

In other words, the eyes are much more likely to have evolved due to differences in the proto-eye structures and what it represented for the fitness of individuals within a population or among sub-populations of the same species; rather than evolving because successive extinctions of species with less effective proto eye structures "against" species with a more effective structures, all the way to a actual eye.

Species selection seems to me that just says that the overall adaption of species will make those exist for more time, or that the more adapted species in the overall will be the parent species of lots of species with minor variations... but not explains how the specific adaptations of species evolved.

Moreover, I don't consider the mammalian eye to be camera-like.

It is not just the mammalian eye, but the vertebrate eye in general; and I think that is not a matter of individual opinion, but of consensual similarity of the structures that work very in the same way; light coming from the environment through a slit or small hole, projecting a image of that environment at a certain distance of that entrance; that is what "camera" means in this context, it´s a basically a eye made of a "chamber", but in some versions also presents even other similarities with photographic cameras.

This message has been edited by extremophile, 04-14-2006 03:09 AM


"Science comits suicide when it adopts a creed."
Thomas H. Huxley
This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by nwr, posted 04-13-2006 7:42 PM nwr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by nwr, posted 04-14-2006 8:17 PM extremophile has responded

  
extremophile
Member (Idle past 2009 days)
Posts: 53
Joined: 08-23-2003


Message 97 of 309 (304127)
04-14-2006 2:34 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by Brad McFall
04-13-2006 7:14 AM


Re: gould vs dawkins *ding ding*
...

I´m sorry, but I understood infinitesimally close to nothing, if anything.

I think that if I try to "slice" your post and comment every slice it would look like if I was trying to make fun or something, because it would be successions of things like "I don´t know what you are talking about and how it have anything to do with what I said or relates with the topic at all"

The only part that I think I (supposedly) could grasp a bit was that:

[...]Now I doubt the "wrinkle" is a propostion of any form[...]

I did not divagated as much as you apparently did on what he meant by wrinckle... I just supposed it immediatelly as that PE is a minor detail, not something that really needs a revision of the basic mechanisms of natural selection... (but maybe I was inattentive and there was some context that would change it)

So, differently from what you apparently suggested (or maybe not), I think that PE does not brings any hierarchical or whatsoever difficult to NS. It complements the general aspects of evolution, but hardly has anything to do with the specific of how adaptations evolve, which is what NS at "classical" levels intends to explain.

The point of critcism of neo-Darwinism is that Darwinism by failing to heed the diversity of shapes themselves, failed to not class possible embryological changes, that were observed first and continue to be from looking at tissue and levels higher, no matter what the molecular evidence also brings forward.

I think (if I really understand that part; now I more safely I guess so) that it is not really a "failure" of the mathematical description of natural selection, even though I accept that it can not do it. I think it do not need to, and I profoundly doubt that could exist some general theory that would describe evolution in such entireness of information. It does not mean that this information above the simple mathematical concerns with frequencies of genes is worthless, I just think that it deals with to many possible specifics to be adressed in a general mathematical theory of evolution.

However, may be possible to insert this data, of a specific context, and study it within the mathematical framework of ND (or more properly modern synthesis, for sake of pedantic correctness).

I think that the "problem" of the simple notion of genetic frequencies varying due to selection does not gives us any immediate sense of how the specifics of a adaptation evolved "in the real world". For that we need to create some specific visual aids, or even "mini theories" dealing with what comes after the gene, what really "propels" these changes genetic frequencies.

This message has been edited by extremophile, 04-14-2006 04:36 AM


"Science comits suicide when it adopts a creed."
Thomas H. Huxley
This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Brad McFall, posted 04-13-2006 7:14 AM Brad McFall has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Brad McFall, posted 04-15-2006 7:00 PM extremophile has not yet responded
 Message 104 by fallacycop, posted 08-29-2006 7:16 AM extremophile has not yet responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5143
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 98 of 309 (304316)
04-14-2006 8:17 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by extremophile
04-14-2006 1:07 AM


I am not sure if I understood it. By this phrase solely, seems a bit that you mean that you are basically okay with natural selection being responsible for adaptations; but does not feel so secure about the mathematical description...?

Actually, I am critical of what I consider an over-emphasis on natural selection (sometime described as pan-selectionism).

But guessing a bit further (partly based on what I (may) remember from your posts in this thread), you are okay with the evolution of the traits per se (maybe by natural selection) but at the same time you have the impression that something entirely new is needed sometimes, rather than the more visible action of natural selection, that is the tuning of what is already there?

I'm okay with evolving of new traits. But I think neo-Darwinism doesn't adequately explain it.

Group selection is a lot more powerful to explain adaptation, because the selection of groups within a species probably is far more frequent than the extinction of a species resulting from the encounter of two species adaptad to the same niche in the same habitat.

There are several published articles that claim to debunk the idea of group selection.

I mean, the is much more likely to a adaptation (specially the complex ones) to evolve by the selection of individual traits than of species´ traits because all that takes to the gradual change and fixation of a trait within a population happens much more quickly than the extinction of species, that may not even be related to a very specific adaptation, but to the overall adaptation and eventualities such as population size.

Okay, I guess that explains the comment. I'm not sure why you see PE as involving the selection of "species' traits". It is my impression that PE advocates tend to downplay the role of selection, and instead look to the importance of environmental contingencies.

Moreover, I don't consider the mammalian eye to be camera-like.

It is not just the mammalian eye, but the vertebrate eye in general; and I think that is not a matter of individual opinion, but of consensual similarity of the structures that work very in the same way;

Yes, I should have said "vertebrate eye". I guess I disagree with the consensus. The camera is a very precise piece of machinery. If it gets a little out of whack, it won't function properly. The eye is cruder, but far more robust - it doesn't need that degree of precise tuning. The camera uses a complex compound lens, designed to cancel out chromatic aberration and spherical aberration. The eye lens is of a simpler "bag of fluid" structure, and pretty likely results in both chromatic aberration and spherical aberration. If the eye were really forming an image on the retina, then these aberrations would cause poor vision. However, I think it better to see the retina as a matrix of sensory detectors that are inserted in the visual field, each able to analyze part of the received information somewhat independently of one another. The camera uses a shutter with short exposure time to avoid the blur in the image if there is too much motion while taking a picture. The eye appears to be based on motion, with the eyes moving in saccades to generate motion that is to be detected by the retinal sensors. There is nothing in a camera that corresponds to the visual cortex of the brain.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by extremophile, posted 04-14-2006 1:07 AM extremophile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by extremophile, posted 04-15-2006 7:55 PM nwr has acknowledged this reply

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 1447 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 99 of 309 (304490)
04-15-2006 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by extremophile
04-14-2006 2:34 AM


Re:intermission on gvd
Sorry ExP,

I was starting to work out a reply and suddenly realized how very difficult it is to understand me. For that I am sorry. I will get back with an answer that is more than simple claims about how "friction" really works in the biology of change. In trying to rephrase everything I wrote immediately above I could recoginze why Simon Levin said that what I was trying to do with development in biology was "too" philosophical. I guess I just didnt realize how much I take for granted the view of any given organism.

But since this is about gould vs dawkins it is requireing a little bit more than just me making clear to myself what I think. I'll be back but it might be a week or so, dont hold your horses, if you can.

There is a hierarchy problem. I will write it. BEst, brad.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by extremophile, posted 04-14-2006 2:34 AM extremophile has not yet responded

    
extremophile
Member (Idle past 2009 days)
Posts: 53
Joined: 08-23-2003


Message 100 of 309 (304496)
04-15-2006 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by nwr
04-14-2006 8:17 PM


nwr writes:

Actually, I am critical of what I consider an over-emphasis on natural selection (sometime described as pan-selectionism).


Ah, okay. I am also critical of that, which I think that is in most of time something resulting from bad media coverage of science, or even sloppy and hurry assumptions of some scientists (when speaking to media)...

I'm okay with evolving of new traits. But I think neo-Darwinism doesn't adequately explain it.

...mmm from what I remember of the whole thread I can´t figure exactly what would be the problem yet... I´ll reread it eventually...

There are several published articles that claim to debunk the idea of group selection.

Probably there are, and there are those who defend it too. However, I was not deffending the existence of GS in this sentence, but was more in the sense that if it works, would be more significative to the generation of adaptations than species selection.

I'm not sure why you see PE as involving the selection of "species' traits". It is my impression that PE advocates tend to downplay the role of selection, and instead look to the importance of environmental contingencies.

Actually I do not know much about PE, except that is the opposition to phyletic gradualism. I started mentioning species selection in relation with PE because someone did it earlier; my point was supposed to be that PE is still compatible with natural selection in levels below of the species, and those are far more reasonable to produce adaptation. So there´s no reason to make case of PE against natural selection or neodarwinism. Does not make sense putting PE against conventional NS because is this what would create the adaptations even in PE; and does not make sense opposing PE with neodarwinism because they´re not quite opposites in a specific aspect; modern synthesis itself is already "against" neodarwinism (as MS acknowledges drift and etc), even if PE is not taken in consideration.

Yes, I should have said "vertebrate eye".[...]

Okay, I was speaking of camera-like in a much less strict viewt than this.

This message has been edited by extremophile, 04-15-2006 09:58 PM


"Science comits suicide when it adopts a creed."
Thomas H. Huxley
This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by nwr, posted 04-14-2006 8:17 PM nwr has acknowledged this reply

  
MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2242 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 101 of 309 (344607)
08-29-2006 4:25 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by nwr
03-20-2006 8:58 PM


Mimicry as suppressed phenomenon
According Davison there is no doubt, that evolution is a fact, but neodarwinism is incapable to account for it.

I am much impressed by Davisons Evolutionary manifesto - one of the most concise critics of darwinism - which was in turn here very criticized.

In discussions and threads here in EVC lot of opponents claim that Davison cited Grasse and much more older scientists, who are nowadays out of date.
Even there was a remark, that Grasse himself cited some outdated source from 1901!
And yet to cite Darwins teaching from midst of 19 c. is still
up to date and scientifically correct.

It does not matter how old some resource is, because darwinist scientists ignore all facts that do not conform to the neodarwinistic schema. One of these phenomenons are mimicry. Mimetism (or mimicry) was studied very intesive before WW2, yet on
the talkorigins there are no mention of it. Davison cited for instance Punnet, who studied butterflies mimicry and came to the conclusion, that selection is no sufficient explanation to the phenomenon, and to the same conclusion came Heikertinger
(who wrotes plenty books on development of insects and whose corresponding with Erich Wasmann on mimicry was once followed by all biological community in Europe.
But just try to find something more about Heikertinger on internet. Btw, Heikertinger too dismissed darwinian selection, which according him just remove extremities.)

There are plenty of books on mimicry, yet no relaible source of explanation of it.

For instance: there are 14 females distinct morphs of African Mocker Swallowtail, Papilio dardanus (males look identical). Most of these female morphs represent Batesian mimicry
of distasteful species of Danidae and Acraeidae.

Some of them are here:
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/taxome/jim/Mim2/dardanus.html

According to Nijhout (2003) these represents one of the most puzzling cases of evolution in animal world.

What is most interesting is his - Nijhout - darwinian explanation of this phenomenon: big initial mutation and subsequent refinement of these mutations.
"Initial step in the evolution of mimicry is likely to have been due to a genetic effect of large magnitude".

Does not sound this explanation like saltationism, macroevolution?

http://www.nbb.cornell.edu/neurobio/BioNB420/Dardanus2003.pdf

This is very good example, because there is no doubt of same colour patterns on wings of different species of butterfflies and neo-darwinists cannot claims that the likeness is "superficial" (as is the case in the likeness of skeleton (skull) of europian and marsupial wolves mentioned in Manifesto).

There is no mention of Swallowtail on talkorigin and no satisfactory explanation of this phenomenon yet, even though the phenomenon is known and cited more than 150 years!

******************
Post is now under new topic as "Mimicry and neodarwism", please
put any responses there.

Edited by MartinV, : There is new thread for this phenomenon - Mimicry and darwinism.

Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by nwr, posted 03-20-2006 8:58 PM nwr has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by AdminWounded, posted 08-29-2006 4:47 AM MartinV has responded

  
AdminWounded
Inactive Member


Message 102 of 309 (344612)
08-29-2006 4:47 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by MartinV
08-29-2006 4:25 AM


Re: Mimicry as suppressed phenomenon
Hi MartinV,

This is some interesting research and probably deserves to be a thread in its own right. Could you perhaps repost it as a Proposed New Topic?

This thread has been dormant for several months and I'm not sure that your post really reflects the thrust of NWR's opening post.

TTFN,

AW


This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by MartinV, posted 08-29-2006 4:25 AM MartinV has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by MartinV, posted 08-29-2006 7:03 AM AdminWounded has not yet responded

  
MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2242 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 103 of 309 (344623)
08-29-2006 7:03 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by AdminWounded
08-29-2006 4:47 AM



Hi AdminWounded,

thank you - I put the message to proposed topics under name "Mimicry and neodarwinism".

Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by AdminWounded, posted 08-29-2006 4:47 AM AdminWounded has not yet responded

  
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 1934 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 104 of 309 (344625)
08-29-2006 7:16 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by extremophile
04-14-2006 2:34 AM


Re: gould vs dawkins *ding ding*
I´m sorry, but I understood infinitesimally close to nothing, if anything.
No reason to worry. I don't think anybody else understands Brad either (may be he himself does)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by extremophile, posted 04-14-2006 2:34 AM extremophile has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Brad McFall, posted 08-29-2006 8:10 AM fallacycop has not yet responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 1447 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 105 of 309 (344636)
08-29-2006 8:10 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by fallacycop
08-29-2006 7:16 AM


back to NWR
It seems NWR had had a thought, which I did, where Williams named potential inadequAcy-

Click to enlarge

quote:
Adaptation and Natural Selection by G C Williams

JAD wanted to exclude the environment a posterioriwhen not already, from ontongeny. Though this might be possible for a creationist it was not pre-lined or meditatied by me (in a past-time) and thus it is harder for me to imagine. I still do not, instead:

Click to enlarge

But as for my own ideas y'll have to wait while I think more about the representation of 1-D patterns;


Click to enlarge

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by fallacycop, posted 08-29-2006 7:16 AM fallacycop has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by nwr, posted 08-29-2006 6:09 PM Brad McFall has responded

    
Prev1
...
56
7
89
...
21NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014