Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Mimicry and neodarwinism
MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5828 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 144 of 188 (364758)
11-19-2006 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by Wounded King
11-06-2006 5:30 PM


Strange case of Papilio Dardanus
So where are the 14 neccessary origins of dominance?
Thank for your response - it inspired me to look at given article "Polymorphic mimicry in Papilio dardanus" more closely.
What I found surprised me - should these assumptions full of phantasy really be the modern scientific neodarwinistic theory to explain Papilio d. mimicry?
We should be aware that as many as six of the female morphs may occurs together in a given population! So there is strong dominance in these cases - I suppose, even if I overestimate it on beggining as you noticed.
Yet there are 14 different morphs but according Nijhout only 11 alleles responsible for it.
The form ochracea appears to be controlled by the same allele (Hc) as
cenea
.
hippocoon is probably controlled by the same allele (h) as
hippocoonides.
.
lamborni in Kenya may be controlled by the same allele (HT) as the more
widespread form trophonius.
He claims that these alleles make up patterns. Colors should be created by genetic backrounds. In pictures I see different colors on distal parts of ochracea vs. cenea.
But what is most interesting is these issues:
1)
The niobe phenotype can be obtained with the niobe allele of the mimicry locus (Hni) but also as a heterozygote between the planemoides and trophonius alleles (Hpl/HT), yielding the so-called synthetic niobe (Clarke and Sheppard 1960a).
I would say that color on back wings of niobe is distinctly different from that of plamenoides and trophonius. So from where this color came from?
2)
Our studies on the correlated variation of pattern elements revealed a substantial amount of phenotypic variability in the various forms of P. dardanus. Assuming a similar mutation load, patterns that are subject to strong selection should exhibit less genetic and phenotypic variability than patterns that are under weaker selection.
.
.
The absence of correlated variation among pattern elements in mimicking forms stands in contrast to the neighbor and regional correlations observed in the nonmimetic patterns.
Again I would say - studying neodarwinian explanation of Batesian mimicry - that mimics should be protected against any shift of patterns and colors that would anyhow diminish its resemblance to distasteful model. I would also say that no such constrains would exist in nonmimetic patterns, while there I see no protection and subsequntly no selective pressure to look same. Yet the measured values for Papilio d. are exactly opposite to this consideration.
3)
There is accepted theory that even if males of P.d. look same throughout species its patterns and colors are not ancestral form - probably as I assume it would be complicated for neodarwinists to explain initial mutation from these ancestor to others mimic morphs. Instead according Nijhout archaic patterns look like P.phorcas. There should be than only 6 mutations that changed patterns on forewing - author probably forget on hindwings and colors - but even these 6 mutations occuring simultaneously from 12 measured patterns give probability 1/3.000.000.
What is more interesting is that supposed ancestor of P.d. morphs have 2 female morphs that are eatable so question aroses how it comes that these two morphs exists when there is no selective pressure? Neodarwinists do not lack phantasy at all:
The polymorphic female form of P. phorcas is believed to have originated as a male-mimicking ””transvestitism’’ from a primitively sexually dimorphic color pattern (Vane-Wright 1976; Clarke et al. 1985).
If you never heard about transvestite evolution than again:
This suggests that the species may initially have
been sexually dimorphic (with brown/yellow females and
black/green males) and that a so-called transvestite evolutionary
step (Vane-Wright 1976; Clarke et al. 1985) produced
male-like females and was the origin of the female color
So that is the modern, "scientific" neodarwinistic account for Papilio dardanus polymorphism - resting partly upon "transvestite evolutionary step" with subsequent "genetic effect of large magnitude".
Page not found | Department of Neurobiology and Behavior
Batesian mimicry in Papilio dardanus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Wounded King, posted 11-06-2006 5:30 PM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by Wounded King, posted 11-19-2006 5:52 PM MartinV has not replied
 Message 146 by Wounded King, posted 11-20-2006 7:16 AM MartinV has replied

MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5828 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 147 of 188 (365190)
11-21-2006 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by Wounded King
11-20-2006 7:16 AM


Re: Strange case of Papilio Dardanus
Wounded King, I miss in Nijhout article one important point - (is he avoided it deliberately?) - do some mimetic and no-mimetic females live together in the same area? If yes I am not sure how neodarwinists could explain such an anomaly.
according THE GENETICS OF PAPILIO DARDANUS, BROWN. I.
RACE CENEA FROM SOUTH AFRICA C. A. CLARKE AND P. M. SHEPPARD
Departments of Medicine and Zoology, Uniuersity of Liverpool, Liverpool, England Received June 17, 1959
Papilio dardanus, race cenea: This race inhabits South Africa, northwards to Delagoa Bay. The males are monomorphic, yellow, tailed and nonmimetic as they are wherever the species is found (Figure 1). The female forms that have been studied by us are the nonmimetic f. leighi, f. natalica and f. salaami and the mimics f. hippocoonides, f. cenea, f, trophonius (Figures 2-7) and a modification of f. trophonius in which the large apical spot on the forewings is buff and not the normal white (for a description of the forms, their models and their distribution see FORD19 36 and CLARKaEn d SHEPPAR1D9 59a).
Secondly:
BulbNrose.com is for sale | HugeDomains
The situation is different in Abyssinia where, unlike that in South Africa, 80 per cent of the females are male-like while 20 per cent are entirely distinct from them, being polymorphic and mimetic.
How is it possible that non-mimetic females thrive so well that they even outnumbered mimetic form protected against selection?
According Darwin the phenomenon that males are rarely polymorphic as females are due the fact of sexual selection by females giving priority to ancestral males patterns. Because if females polymorphism is advatageous for females it should not represent disatvantage for males if it occurs in males too - at least to say. So sexual preferation is the darwinian explanation of the fact. I would say that Nijhout weird conception of ancestor looking like P.phorcas is in contradiction with Darwin explanation - we should ask, why is it possible, that female ale polymorphic and males no? Because both of them have to undergone patterns/color changes to their nowadays "look" and females sexual preferention did not hindern males to change color/patterns. So why females admitted such non-mimetic change of males but do not admitted mimetic males change? We know that also males mimic in butterfly realm exist as well.
Top Cash Earning Games in India 2022 | Best Online Games to earn real money
These question are of such importance that neodarwinists are forced use very untraditional explanations like "transvestite evolutionary step", "females to escape 'sexual harrasment' by males" and so on.
It is really hard work to defend darwinism in case of Papilio dardanus.
Unlike creationists and ID proponents people who actually do science to find things out rather than bolster some idee fixe are prepared for uncrtainty and tenuousness.
They should be than also prepare to accept fact that behind some curious phenomenon of mimicry are no random mutation/selection but until today some unknown internal factors.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Wounded King, posted 11-20-2006 7:16 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by Wounded King, posted 11-21-2006 6:16 PM MartinV has replied

MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5828 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 149 of 188 (366103)
11-26-2006 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by Wounded King
11-21-2006 6:16 PM


Re: Strange case of Papilio Dardanus
If P .phorcas can have dimorphic females why shouldn't dardanus?
Ill try explain it more comprehensible. First of all I do not doubt Nijhout proffesionality - my knowledges are only negligible fragments of his - yet it seems to me that his neodarwinian conception let him neglect the facts I would consider as interesting.
As to the dimorphic females of P. phorcas and polymorphic females of P.dardanus - I couldnot find Punnet article on Mimicry only just some neodarwinian critics of it. Punnet as promiment Mendelian expert noticed that mimetic morphs of the same species segregated according Mendelian rules without intermediates forms in given
race/population.
Unconsciously I hinted at this fact using my probability math. If I have express it now more comprehensibly it would be like this: If there are different morphs in given race that separate/segregate very clearly then there should inevitably be a switch-gene, that "decide" which complex of regulatory/normaly genes would express in heterozygous female. You should probably agree that such switch-gene couldnot arise after morphs were established. In other case morphs would intermingled and no mimics would exists. In Punnet opinion (if I deduced it correctly) such mendelian switch-gene should arise simultaneously with genes it regulated - and evolution of mimetic forms in such cases ran by saltus, by one step.
Neodarwinists argue that such switch-gene preceded evolution of morphs. It sounds logically if comparing switch-gene of sexes - it is supposed that such switch genes preceded evolution of sexual forms of a species.
Yet however I am not conviced it is true. First off all if such gene aroused then at beginning it had nothing to switch - or at least to switch between same possibilities of same patterns/colors of ancient females. There was no selective pressure to switch-gene to exist and consequently it should cease to exist. Or at least there was no selective advantage having it and to spread over Papilio dardanus population - it was neutral. Such switch-gene at the beginning (where only one morph exist)contradicts in my opinion even to purpose of diploidy. Because the swich gene blocks expressing genes from other set of chromosomes. Subsequently such switch-gene would diminish variability of wing color/patterns at the beggining when no mimetic forms exist.
So I would say no matter if mimetics forms are due to expression of supergene or due complicated regulatory and cascade connections between genes - on the top is always switch-gene that determine which morphs would be clearly segregated. And evolutionary explanation of arising such gene is one the most important in case of polymorphism I would say.
digital.library.adelaide.edu.au/dspace/bitstream/2440/15100/1/59.pdf

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Wounded King, posted 11-21-2006 6:16 PM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by Wounded King, posted 11-27-2006 10:57 AM MartinV has replied

MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5828 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 151 of 188 (367159)
11-30-2006 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by Wounded King
11-27-2006 10:57 AM


Re: Strange case of Papilio Dardanus
Thanks for answer WoundedKing. Discussion helps me to clarify some basic concepts of genetics and force me to read great deal more on "evolutionary explanation" of wing patterns.
I don't see how this necessitates switch-genes and the genes downstream of the switch having to arise simultaneously unless the 'switch' gene has no other function. If the switch gene also has a function largely independent of mimetic pattern then it can easily arise well before the downstream elements which effect the mimetic patterning of the wing.
Anyway I found article on Heliconius in nature.com from 2006 and it seems to be accepted fact that phenotypic morphs are regulted by "switch gene" as proposed by antiselectionist Punnett.
From an evo-devo perspective, the major interest lies in linking the loci underlying pattern change in Heliconius, the so-called switch genes, with the pathways involved in wing pattern development.
It seems to be accepted fact that switch gene exist and you seems to propose that such switch-gene aroused before all cascade and genetic pathways of new phenotyp morphs aroused. It neccesitates but the possibility that such phenotyp aroused without exposing itself to natural selection somewhere hidden in genome as mutation? Mutation that happens somehow hit into wing patterns and colors of another distatesful species? And was then exposed tu natural selection as phenotyp when switch-gene started to do its job?
Because if existence of switch gene preceded cascades it "switch on" question stands like this: when this switch gene started to regulate/switch cascades of new phenotypic (mimetic) morph?
Whats more interesting authors of the article somehow accept Punnett hypothesis of macromutation to explain existence of morphs in a given butterly species:
Thus, evolution of the H. numata supergene could have involved elements of both the 'macromutationist'and the 'gradualist' positions in this historical debate.
---------------
Sorry I forget link:
Heliconius wing patterns: an evo-devo model for understanding phenotypic diversity | Heredity
btw. according P. Graham, J. K. M. Penn, and P. Schedl. Masters change, slaves remain. BioEssays 25:1-4 2002:
"The result of this paper support the idea that genetic hierarchies evolve from "bottom up" as proposed by Wilkins".
Edited by MartinV, : links

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Wounded King, posted 11-27-2006 10:57 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Wounded King, posted 12-01-2006 4:48 PM MartinV has not replied

MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5828 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 152 of 188 (367298)
12-01-2006 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by Brad McFall
11-18-2006 7:50 PM


Re: Regarding the difference of Davison and Brad
Brad.
I tried to improve babelfish translation of Fridriech Nietzsches thoughts on darwinism from German. There is also word "mimicry" so I put it here. It may probably be interesting:
Anti-Darwin: What concerns the famous struggle for life, then it seems to me meanwhile more stated than proved. It occurs, but as exception; general aspect of life is not dearthe, hunger or starvation but abundance, sumptuousness, even absurd wasting, lavishing - where fight occurs there one fights for power... One should not confound Malthus with nature. - Let us assume however, that this fight happens - and it really happens - then it runs out unfortunately in reverse as the school Darwin's wishes, when perhaps one might wish with it: indeed to detriment of the strong ones, the privileged, the lucky exceptions. The kinds do not grow in the perfection: the weak ones become again and again the masters of strong ones, - they have large numbers, they are also more intelligent... Darwin forgot the spirit (- that is english! ), the weak ones have more spirit... One must to have need for spirit, in order to get spirit, - one loses him, if one does not need him any more. Who has the strength, get rid himself of spirit (- "go away! one thinks today in Germany - wee must keep the Reich"...). I understand as spitit the caution, the patience, the ruse, the adjustment, the large self-control and everything what mimicry is (to the latter a large part of the so-called virtue belongs).
Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Brad McFall, posted 11-18-2006 7:50 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by Brad McFall, posted 12-01-2006 4:53 PM MartinV has replied

MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5828 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 155 of 188 (367666)
12-04-2006 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by Brad McFall
12-01-2006 4:53 PM


Nabokov on mimicry
Kantinian antidarwinistic view on mimicry from the pen of Nabokov - may be of some interest also for you:
Nabokov writes:
The mysteries of mimicry had a special attraction for me. Its phenomena showed an artistic perfection usually associated with man-wrought things. Consider the imitation of oozing poison by bubblelike macules on a wing (complete with pseudo-refraction) or by glossy yellow knobs on a chrysalis ("Don't eat me - I have already been squashed, sampled and rejected"). Consider the tricks of an acrobatic caterpillar (of the Lobster Moth) which in infancy looks like bird's dung, but after moulting develops scrabbly hymenopteroid appendages and baroque characteristics, allowing the extraordinary fellow to play two parts at once . that of a writhing larva and that of a big ant seemingly harrowing it. When a certain moth resembles a certain wasp in shape and color, it also walks and moves its antennae in a waspish, unmothlike manner. When a butterfly has to look like a leaf, not only are all the details of a leaf beautifully rendered but markings mimicking grub-bored holes are generously thrown in. "Natural selection," in the Darwinian sense, could not explain the miraculous coincidence of imitative aspect and imitative behavior, nor could one appeal to the theory of "the struggle for life" when a protective device was carried to a point of mimetic subtlety, exuberance, and luxury far in excess of a predator's power of appreciation. I discovered in nature the non-utilitarian delights that I sought in art. Both were a form of magic, both were a game of intricate enchantment and deception. (Nabokov's Butterflies 85-86)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Brad McFall, posted 12-01-2006 4:53 PM Brad McFall has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by AZPaul3, posted 12-04-2006 3:15 PM MartinV has not replied

MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5828 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 158 of 188 (370047)
12-15-2006 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by Brad McFall
12-01-2006 4:53 PM


Re: Regarding the difference of Davison and Brad
Brad you like Kantian views. I put it on ISCID forum. Anyway professor of Prague Charles Univeristy Zdenek Neubauer as the greatest living Czech scientist oppose darwinism:
Purpose & comp. belong to the category of inner relationships to the whole (innere Beziehungen zur Ganzheit in German, vnitní vztahy k celkovosti in Czech): primarily, they refer to the subject-being of such relations”an organism, an individual life, an evolving species, a language. The subject-matter of its purpose, meaning, and intention is a particular expression of a being, or rather of its being”being one, good, true”that is: of 'being itself' an actualization of its 'self'.
Having related 'fitness' to 'purpose' by referring to its original, ecological meaning, we might restore the meaning of another Darwinian term”'natural selection'”and make it more meaningful. A living being is not only the result of natural selection, but at the same time, the selecting agent itself.
More on:
Homepage Centra pro teoretick studia - Centrum pro teoretick studia
Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Brad McFall, posted 12-01-2006 4:53 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by Brad McFall, posted 12-15-2006 8:54 PM MartinV has replied

MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5828 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 160 of 188 (371433)
12-21-2006 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by Brad McFall
12-15-2006 8:54 PM


Re: Regarding the difference of Davison and Brad
Brad,
you inspired me and I am now in the half of Kants "Prolegomena" - it will take at least one month to it read at all. As far as I can judge now the notion of "likeness" is an apriori judgment of the reason. So I am not sure if mimic predators have also notion of "likeness" and if predators can make synthetic judgment of it.
(especially if the mimic does not looks exactly as the model during initial small gradual steps of darwinistic "process" of explanation of advantage of "likeness" of mimicry).
Especially using Kants thoughts on judgment I am not so sure birds can be mislead by mimic (Franfurkter structuralism school too?) . Btw we should be aware of the fact that perception of colors are no way function of light spectrum entering the eye but of complicated process of the brain that can see color even if the color frequency is not present in the light entering into the eye (the fact observed first by Goethe and Schopenhauer - and neglected by science - was really observed only some 15 - 25 years ago).
Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.
Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.
Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Brad McFall, posted 12-15-2006 8:54 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by Brad McFall, posted 12-21-2006 5:51 PM MartinV has replied

MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5828 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 162 of 188 (374072)
01-03-2007 4:07 PM


Bird predation of butterflies
One of the most crucial point dawinistic explanation of mimicry rest upon is bird predation. If birds are not main butterfly predators or they do not react on aposematics warning colors or are not mislead by mimetic cryptic colors that neodarwinistic explanation will be wrong. Because if there is not selective pressure to look "aposematic" or to look like "mimic" some other forces had to be present that drove evolution of these forms.
One of the distinguished American ornitologist who disputed with Poulton about this issue was McAtee from Biological Survey Division from United States Department of Agriculture. He made great researches on this field and he came to the conclusion that birds eat same proportion of aposematics and mimetics species as are they proportions among insects. McAtee therefore thought that such aposematic/mimic colororation are inefficient.
I have no access to his research but one of his other small research can be found on internet:
Food.--The 186 stomachs of the tufted titmouse examined by Professor Beal (Beal, McAtee, and Kalmbach, 1916) were irregularly distributed throughout the year and were considered by him too few "to afford more than an approximation of the bird's economic worth." However, the results show that, so far as his investigation goes, the bird is beneficial and has no bad food habits to offset the good it does.
The food consisted of 66.57 percent animal matter and 33.43 percent vegetable. He says that the food "includes one item, caterpillars, which form more than half the animal food, and two items, caterpillars and wasps, which are more than half of the whole food." Beetles make up 7.06 percent, of which only one-tenth of 1 percent are useful species; the cotton-boll weevil was found in four stomachs. Ants are eaten occasionally, and other hymenopterous food, bees, wasps, and sawfly larvae, amounted to 12.5 percent. Other items include stink bugs, treehoppers, scales, only one fly, eggs of katydids, egg cases of cockroaches, spiders (found in 40 stomachs examined in May, 12.67 percent, only a trace in June, and in 3 stomachs in July, 16.33 percent, evidently a makeshift food), and a few snails. Caterpillars are the largest item, 38.31 percent of the whole food for the year. No grasshoppers or crickets were found.
http://home.bluemarble.net/~pqn/ch21-30/titmouse.html
It is not only interesting that butterflies are not mentioned explicitly but I find a most surprising fact that bees and wasps were detected.
Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by RAZD, posted 01-04-2007 12:20 AM MartinV has replied

MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5828 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 164 of 188 (374771)
01-05-2007 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by RAZD
01-04-2007 12:20 AM


Re: Bird predation of butterflies
Yet they eat bees and wasps. If they eat wasps I do not see meaning of aposematic colors. Its consequently also doubtful if coloration of alleged mimic hornet moths have any selective advantage and what selective pressure led to such coloration of moths.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by RAZD, posted 01-04-2007 12:20 AM RAZD has not replied

MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5828 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 165 of 188 (374789)
01-05-2007 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by Brad McFall
12-21-2006 5:51 PM


Re: Regarding the difference of Davison and Brad
Brad,
I noticed you often cited Gould. Had his opinions any relevance to evolution that you cited him so often?
Btw. I finished Kants Prolegomena. One of the most interesting thoughts- and I suspect Carl Gustav Jung was inspired by them -is that some idea can influnce us so much that we can realise it. Interesting is that the idea have never been realised yet. So we cannot deduce its influence from material reality. It means that past is not influencing us but future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Brad McFall, posted 12-21-2006 5:51 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by Brad McFall, posted 01-06-2007 9:44 PM MartinV has replied

MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5828 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 167 of 188 (375128)
01-07-2007 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by Brad McFall
01-06-2007 9:44 PM


Re: Regarding the difference of Davison and Brad
Brad.
To be honest I do not see your point still. Do you propose that there are some other forces behind evolution that escaped our attention? For instance "beauty" or forces innate to organisms that shaped them as to represent some physics laws? These notions were accepted many hunderds years ago when people saw in living organisms often symbols or warnings etc...
Anyway such interconnections to have meaning suppose observer to exist. As far as I know Goulds conception of man is darwinistic one. He considered - as Davison claims - man to be drunkard who happens to possess some inteligentsia.
As to the Kants conception of idea (photo you sended) it is interesting indeed. It reminds us that type of knowledge and experience (even of native language we use I dare say) can lead us to different conclusion in our judgment of reality.
Let say preoccupation with neodarwinistic examples of mimicry can lead his bearer to wrong conclusions as to meaning of eye spots on butterfly wings. It was Alan Fox who send a link to scientific article that deal with it - there was no observed effect on predators compared with species that have not such eye spots. While eye spots occurs througout animal kingdom and are not restricted to insect we should probably reconsider their meaning.
We should also remember that preoccupations and much knowledges can somehow hindern us to accept new views. This was the situation of modern physiscs. As far as I know even Einstein did not accept many ideas of quantum physiscs even if they proved to be correct after many years later.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Brad McFall, posted 01-06-2007 9:44 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by Brad McFall, posted 01-07-2007 4:40 PM MartinV has replied

MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5828 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 169 of 188 (375249)
01-08-2007 3:15 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by Brad McFall
01-07-2007 4:40 PM


Re: Regarding the difference of Davison and Brad
I am not much more wiser from Gladyshev theory. Let say chromatographic columns are used to study composition of unknown chemicals. Distribution of them in column depend on their velocity in environment etc. so we obtain at the end some result as to their composition.
I do not see connection of this with evolution. Such process can we see also in rainbow - light are separated into spectrum colors.
Is it possible to explain it somehow more comprihensible? As far as I can deduce chromatographic columns only separate unknown chemicals into their parts - in evolution on the contrary new complicated entities arises during time. So process seem to me be reverse as in chr. columns.
I suppose you do not have on your mind something like geological columns where organisms show equlibria with short transitional period without traces. Such similarity with chr. colums would induce an idea that geological columns did not arised via deposition of layers but via rearrangement of organisms that were present from the beginning by process similar of separation in chr. columns.
It seems to me from your citation that there is no new theory of evolution that refute darwinism but refinement and tuning it with some thermodynamics and other constraints?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Brad McFall, posted 01-07-2007 4:40 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by Brad McFall, posted 01-09-2007 7:55 PM MartinV has replied

MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5828 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 171 of 188 (377402)
01-16-2007 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by Brad McFall
01-09-2007 7:55 PM


Re: Regarding the difference of Davison and Brad
It will take time to go into depth of your MV document - I have only skimmed it just now. What seems to me of interest at first glance is this sentence about Gould:
For instance he seems to have substituted a morphological description for a morphogenic trajectory.
Just yesterday I read some pages from Ernest Cassirer and it seems that exactly same problem occured in analyzing of "evolution" of human languages. Linguists came to the conclusion in the end that without very descriptive analysis of extant languages there is no way to study their history.
-----
I have also some idea that it might be possible that our knowledge is predetermined by our language and it is impossible to go far beyond that. For instance without introduction of arabic digits its hardly conceivable to define or invent Fourier sequels etc (using Romans digits). So it might be that indo-european languages and thinking based upon them are unable to resolve some mysteries of life. Some tribes in Amazonia do not know species "parrot" even if they have many words for many types of them.
But thats just some thougts with only obscure connection with main topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Brad McFall, posted 01-09-2007 7:55 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by Brad McFall, posted 01-16-2007 8:56 PM MartinV has replied

MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5828 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 173 of 188 (382426)
02-04-2007 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by Brad McFall
01-16-2007 8:56 PM


Re: Regarding the difference of Davison and Brad
I read your paper discussing the problem repeatedly but I must admitt
my English is not sufficient to comprehend it. So what I will express now is more intuition than grasping your point of view.
First of all it seems to me that your concept is still referring to some unknown force which is material even if complicated and dynamicaly complex (sorry if I am wrong here). Yet that's something I am not looking for - as you can imagine I am still looking for spiritual essence or let say transcedentalism. I am a kind of creationist even though I accept evolution as the fact - Davison's views supported by ideas of former Russian religious philosophers like V.Solovjov and S.Bulgakov are my favourite.
It means that in evolution plays Natural Selection no role and organisms are created according some plans that pre-existed. I would say that they pre-existed as pure platonic ideas and these ideas is their substantiality. Such ideas could not be reached by abstract reason - reason can only bring us somehow near to them. It was also my remark if math using arabic numbers do not mislead us in deeper underestanding of our world. Certainly modern math is unconcievable without arabic numbers. Yet extraordinary savants show us that even the best matematicians cannot keep pace with them. They do not use numbers in their computations as we comprehend them but see numbers as complicated "shapes" or "forms" which somehow pour together giving correct results.
In this connection I see mimicry. It represents puzzle because different species use the same patterns (at least as we humans recognise them) and in this phenomenon is perhaps coded some deeper meaning that should be deciphered.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Brad McFall, posted 01-16-2007 8:56 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by Brad McFall, posted 02-09-2007 5:28 PM MartinV has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024