Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Mimicry: Please help me understand how
Shtop
Junior Member (Idle past 2326 days)
Posts: 30
Joined: 07-19-2007


Message 5 of 241 (411136)
07-19-2007 1:31 AM


quote:
How can appearing EVER SO SLIGHTLY like bird droppings be advantageous?
Although at this stage the creature looks nothing like bird droppings yet, it will look ever so slightly LESS like the original form that the predator is hunting for, which will increase its survivability.

  
Shtop
Junior Member (Idle past 2326 days)
Posts: 30
Joined: 07-19-2007


Message 35 of 241 (417669)
08-23-2007 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by MartinV
08-23-2007 3:35 PM


Re: mimicry isn't the problem, then
MartinV writes:
Birds are sometimes not mislead by mimics
That is true. But sometimes, birds ARE mislead by mimics.
You seem to believe that darwinists think that mimicry provides immunity from predators. This is obviously not the case.
I have not studied the matter in any detail at all, so I am at great risk of oversimplifying this, but to me it seems very obvious.
I'm not sure exactly what your problem with mimicry is. Do you not believe it works? Of course there will be examples of mimicry not always protecting a specimen, but that doesn't mean it never works. Even if it only works 1% of the time, there will be positive selection pressure.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by MartinV, posted 08-23-2007 3:35 PM MartinV has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by MartinV, posted 08-24-2007 12:21 AM Shtop has replied

  
Shtop
Junior Member (Idle past 2326 days)
Posts: 30
Joined: 07-19-2007


Message 37 of 241 (417753)
08-24-2007 12:42 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by MartinV
08-24-2007 12:21 AM


Re: mimicry isn't the problem, then
MartinV writes:
So why imperfect mimics are not improved by natural selection even more?
Well, a simple answer would be "because the selection pressure isn't big enough". But more to the point, what makes you say mimics aren't being improved? For all we know some species are well on their way to achieving perfect mimicry, they simply haven't got there yet.
I must admit I haven't had time to read the article properly yet. It's 42 pages so I will need time to sit down properly (plus I'm pretty unfamiliar with a lot of the jargon).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by MartinV, posted 08-24-2007 12:21 AM MartinV has not replied

  
Shtop
Junior Member (Idle past 2326 days)
Posts: 30
Joined: 07-19-2007


Message 74 of 241 (423260)
09-20-2007 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by MartinV
09-20-2007 1:57 PM


Mimicry
So what are you trying to say, ladybirds are not poisonous to other insects? What does this have to do with mimicry?
I don't know how many times we need to explain this to you, but finding examples of where mimicry has failed to protect a specimen is NOT proof that mimicry does not provide any protection at all.
Here's a few statements. Could you please indicate which ones (if any) you don't agree with?
  1. Creatures pass on characteristics to their offspring.
  2. Creatures that live longer will have more opportunity to produce offspring.
  3. If creature A is more successful at evading predators than creature B, chances are that creature A will live longer, and will produce more offspring.
  4. If a predator knows (by instinct or experience) that eating creature C will make him sick, he will tend to leave creature C alone.
  5. A predator sees creature A and creature B. He notices the similarity of creature A to creature C, which he knows will make him sick, so he eats creature B instead. Creature A has survived because he resembles creature C.
  6. Creature A's descendants will have a better chance of survival than creature B's descendants, because of their resemblance to creature C.
  7. Mimicry exists only in the minds of evil neodarwinists (trick question!!)
What do you think is a plausible explanation for mimicry, if not evolution and natural selection?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by MartinV, posted 09-20-2007 1:57 PM MartinV has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by MartinV, posted 09-24-2007 2:24 PM Shtop has replied

  
Shtop
Junior Member (Idle past 2326 days)
Posts: 30
Joined: 07-19-2007


Message 77 of 241 (424021)
09-25-2007 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by MartinV
09-24-2007 2:24 PM


Re: Mimicry
A predator sees creature A and creature B. He notices the similarity of creature A to creature C, which he knows will make him sick, so he eats creature B instead. Creature A has survived because he resembles creature C.
You suppose creature C to be poisonous or unpalatable. You should prove it first.
I clearly stated in point 4: the predator knows, by instinct or experience, that eating creature C will make him sick. Isn't that proof? Try again.
There is no better evidence than contents of stomach of free living birds. But such information do not prove darwinian claim that birds avoid eating "unpalatable" aposematics (wasps, ladybirds).
If you find an "unpalatable" aposematic (or a mimic) in a birds stomach, you have found proof that aposematism (or mimicry) does not provide immunity to predators. But, as was said over and over again, this is not what darwinists claim.
No matter how many birds stomach contents you study, you will never find the remains of all the creatures the bird didn't eat. And the bird didn't eat these creatures because:
a. He didn't spot them because they looked like a leaf or a twig or some bird poo;
b. He decided not to eat them because he remembered eating one before and it made him sick;
c. He mistakenly identified them as a creature that he remembered eating before and it made him sick.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by MartinV, posted 09-24-2007 2:24 PM MartinV has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by MartinV, posted 09-25-2007 3:24 PM Shtop has not replied

  
Shtop
Junior Member (Idle past 2326 days)
Posts: 30
Joined: 07-19-2007


Message 151 of 241 (434504)
11-16-2007 3:10 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by MartinV
11-16-2007 2:31 AM


quote:
But there are also mammals that eat wasps so that "terrrible taste" wouldn't be so terrible as darwinists would like us to believe.
  —MartinV
I had a bad cough when I was a kid. Doc gave me this medicine that tasted so terrible I was almost literally sick. But my mom made me take it every day until the cough went away. Does that prove it didn't taste that terrible? No. It proves I wasn't given a choice.
If an animal is faced with two options: 1. Eating something that tastes bad or 2. Going hungry, that is not really a choice, is it.
I think you are the one with the memory problems here. No matter how many times you say that the neodarwinistic selection model doesn't work because some animals eat wasps, you forget that you can never find evidence for succesful mimicry in an animals stomach.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by MartinV, posted 11-16-2007 2:31 AM MartinV has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024