|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
MartinV  Suspended Member (Idle past 5859 days) Posts: 502 From: Slovakia, Bratislava Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Mimicry and neodarwinism | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Muhd Inactive Member |
quote:Right. So Evolution should be disregarded as a valid theory because it only accounts for a very small part of the evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5225 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
MartinV,
Post 44, please. Thanks, Mark There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Right. So Evolution should be disregarded as a valid theory because it only accounts for a very small part of the evidence. No. What was said to you was "Not believing should be the default position until the theory is convincing." This is not the same thing as "Evolution should be disregarded as a valid theory because it only accounts for a very small part of the evidence." You know how you can tell that these two statements are not the same? Because the only words they have in common are "should", "be", and "the". Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
quote:Right. So Evolution should be disregarded as a valid theory because it only accounts for a very small part of the evidence. Well, if thats how your logic works then I can understand why you disbelieve evolution. Here, let me fix the errors you made in that statement.
quote: Now you're starting to make some sense Science fails to recognize the single most potent element of human existence. Letting the reigns go to the unfolding is faith, faith, faith, faith. Science has failed our world. Science has failed our Mother Earth. -System of a Down, "Science"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MartinV  Suspended Member (Idle past 5859 days) Posts: 502 From: Slovakia, Bratislava Joined: |
WoundedKing writes:
I don't think these two are neccessarily contradictory. An environment which is monotonous in terms of colour may still be visually complex in terms of form with multiple layers of overlapping foliage. You are assuming that visually complex means multi-coloured but I'm not sure that that neccessarily follows.
Anyway I see difference. But when you mentioned layers of overlapping foliage: do you have any explanation of differenet shapes of leaves of trees? Because when we observe trees in forest we can notice, that every species of trees have them different -often are of very complicated and characterized forms. Yet I do not see any selective pressure to form this. Maybe it is only creative forces of nature that want represent itself. Maybe darwinism is so popular in liberal british-american countries where philosophy "to eat or be eaten" is more acute then in more social states (communist Russia was other example - darwinism there was in 50ties strongly criticized.) Because to see everywhere only chance and struggle and therefore everything as outcome of these forces can hardly explains not only mimetics phenomenons but also exuberance of shapes and forms of leaves. Because what do ruminata prefer: long leaves or round leaves with sligth intendation on edges?
Also lets not forget that the point of the mimicry in these cases is to look conspicuous rather than inconspicuous, this is not leaf mimicry after all but mimicry of an aposematic signal.
May you explain your proposition? Because to look conspicuous in these cases of Helioconus means, that unpalatable species (as this is the thread of Heliconius and therefore of Mullerian mimicry) "want" to look like another unpalatable aposematic species. Whats the point? Couldnot birds remember the original colour pattern of mimic as aposematic pattern too? They are unpalatable. Or taste birds occassionaly both of them - then I do not know, if the signal is aposematic, if it does not protect before tasting.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
May you explain your proposition? Because to look conspicuous in these cases of Helioconus means, that unpalatable species (as this is the thread of Heliconius and therefore of Mullerian mimicry) "want" to look like another unpalatable aposematic species. Whats the point? Couldnot birds remember the original colour pattern of mimic as aposematic pattern too? They are unpalatable. Or taste birds occassionaly both of them - then I do not know, if the signal is aposematic, if it does not protect before tasting. Please see Message 3 for a discussion of just that issue. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MartinV  Suspended Member (Idle past 5859 days) Posts: 502 From: Slovakia, Bratislava Joined: |
Jar, I would rather stay at butterflies like Monarch, Heliconius or Papilio Dardanus and not skip into vertebrata.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: It is quite simple if you think about it. Fewer patterns to learn and remember means fewer insects get eaten. Instead of learning each species individually the predator will learn the pattern from both species. Thus if two species use the same pattern their losses to predation will be - on average - halved.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5063 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
Multiple green layers isnt a problem for me. I have an idea for the shapes of leaves but it need not necessarily be a creationist pre-spective while it might always be one "eductively". It would be off topic here (tropical Africa only looked like multiple green layers not some hugely different looking biodiversity to me).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Maybe you can find some opposite information to support your view - I would like read it ... You of course should realize by now that the peppered moths are just such an example of the effect of predation by birds on the selection of moths that blend better with their prevaling environment -- whether sooty or clean.
... butterflies are not at all easy to catch. They are erratic fliers ... And that moths are even harder for birds to catch in flight when they fly mostly at night, but that birds have no trouble catching and eating moths when they are at rest. Of course the erratic flight would be another selected behavior due to it's survival value ...
... birds as a whole, the evidence indicates that most simply don’t go after butterflies. As Jar pointed out the logical fallacy of {SOME} for {ALL} fails to be sufficient evidence that it can't happen. There are also birds that eat insects at certain times of the year and not at others - such as when getting ready to migrate (extra protein), or when feeding young - so the reluctance to eat butterflies during parts of the year doesn't mean a total reluctance to eat butterflies. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : added feeding young we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MartinV  Suspended Member (Idle past 5859 days) Posts: 502 From: Slovakia, Bratislava Joined: |
Then I do not see any meaninng of word "aposematic". Every unpalateble creature accroding this assumtion is aposematic, even if it is green.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Since "aposematic" specifically refers to the use of bold and easily recognisable colours as a warning it is hard to see how two unplalatable creatures using the same warning pattern could undermine the definition. The definition does not claim that it is limited to a specific species and explicitly excludes colours that ae not easily seen.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
Would "Aposematic" have been a better post title, PaulK?
Edited by AdminNosy, : correct author
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MartinV  Suspended Member (Idle past 5859 days) Posts: 502 From: Slovakia, Bratislava Joined: |
Yet we see, that insects with same "weapons" looks different. Wasps
(hornets) and bees have stings. Wasps (hornets) are aposematics, bees are cryptic. Yet both groups serves as models for their own mimics (bees have their mimimcs in group of flies Eristalis, that copy even their buzz frequency). So sometimes it is better with stings look like aposematic and sometimes more cryptic, but why? Again omnipotent selection?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MartinV  Suspended Member (Idle past 5859 days) Posts: 502 From: Slovakia, Bratislava Joined: |
Brad McFall writes:
I have an idea for the shapes of leaves but it need not necessarily be a creationist pre-spective while it might always be one "eductively". Do you have any explanation for mushrooms? As far as I have read, there is no selective pressure on them from vision oriented animals (except squirells) yet the shapes and colours are astonishing. Is there any darwinistic explanation of this at all? palatable fly agaric:http://www.nahuby.sk/sk/sources/atlas_detail.php?id=285&o... deadly one: http://www.nahuby.sk/sk/sources/obrazok_detail.php?id=41370 other shapes and colours from many: http://www.nahuby.sk/sk/sources/obrazok_detail.php?id=8583 http://www.nahuby.sk/sk/sources/obrazok_detail.php?id=16149
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024