Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

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


Message 49 of 241 (419732)
09-04-2007 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Vacate
09-02-2007 4:01 AM


What is "darwinian" mimicry in fact?
I am still unclear of your position.
- Do you think that there are no mimics?
- There are mimics but predators are not fooled?
- If there are 600 species of moth one should be colored/shaped like a wasp simply based on variety? Does this apply to all species that number 600 or greater?
- Is the wasp example fundementally the same idea you would use to explain the leaf mimicing insects?
- Why do we call them leaf mimics if not for being fooled? Do you think this could be some type of advantage to them?
I re-read all your posts on this thread and I simply cannot understand your position.
Many people are unaware what mimicry actually means. I was one of them. I don't know the modern definition, but I somehow agree with Heikertinger - every mimicry has to have three floors:
1) there is a reseblance to other species.
2) This resemblance give some advantage to species.
3) This resemblance aroused due Natural selection.
Because I sometimes challenge first, second or third part in the given case of supposedly mimic phenomenon it may seems messy.
Obviously a resemblance without giving a protective value is no mimicry.
Protective value of mimicry which evolved due some transformations
and not due natural selection is problem for itself (as is the previous case of so called imperfect wasp mimicry).
My position is that natural selection play no role in mimicry and no role in the evolution.
Every "mimicry" should be closely studied as Heikertinger did it. Because he described in detail also wasp and leaf mimicry and challenged it I hope I will give you answer about leaf mimicry soon.
If you know German I will post you a link to Heikertinger work about ladybugs. Heikertinger checked darwinists experiments with ladybugs with other beetles. Selectionists observed that some beetles in presence of ladybugs died (secrets of ladybugs should be poisonous for them). Heikertinger observed the opposite phenomenon - ladybugs were mercilessly eaten by those beetles.
Because ladybugs are very colorfull darwinists need some explanation of it. Of course they have only one explanation - ladybugs are aposematic because they are poisonous. Bur theory is theory and facts are facts. Facts are science, not preconcieved armchair theories of Darwin, Bates, Wallace and Dawkins - those men who tried to explain so-called mimicry via natural selection.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Vacate, posted 09-02-2007 4:01 AM Vacate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-04-2007 2:43 PM MartinV has not replied
 Message 51 by Nuggin, posted 09-04-2007 3:05 PM MartinV has not replied

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


Message 53 of 241 (419758)
09-04-2007 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by crashfrog
09-04-2007 3:27 PM


Re: What is "darwinian" mimicry in fact?
quote:
I bow before you.
Don't ridicule yourself please. Dr. Adequate represents darwian aggresive ignorance sufficiently. You are on a higher level.
Wallace and Bates invented explanation of mimicry from the table. Wallace described Papilio butterflies flight as slow and weak and "we can make conlusion they posses some protection"... "Drusilla are common and have slow flight...it seems having some protection..." He had never been experimentally proved the phenomenon.
Bates 1861: "The reason of mimicry CANNOT be other as natural selection..."
Darwin adressed the problem of mimicry only from Bates. According Darwin only Belt "proved" it. Belt had made som experiments with apes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by crashfrog, posted 09-04-2007 3:27 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by crashfrog, posted 09-04-2007 4:44 PM MartinV has replied
 Message 58 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-15-2007 1:54 AM MartinV has not replied

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


Message 55 of 241 (419841)
09-05-2007 1:07 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by crashfrog
09-04-2007 4:44 PM


Re: What is "darwinian" mimicry in fact?
If you dont underestand any of the post I have written here just tell me. I would write it more precisely to meet the standards of English.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by crashfrog, posted 09-04-2007 4:44 PM crashfrog has not replied

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


Message 56 of 241 (421912)
09-15-2007 12:32 AM


Ladybirds and neodarwinian "natural selection"
According neodarwinian teaching for coloration of ladybirds is responsible natural selection. But you have to believe in natural selection and know nothing about ladybirds and their predators to accept such explanation.
Some of these ladybirds are presented as models for mimicry for other species. It is obviously nonsense. "Aposematic" ladybirds are eaten by birds and by other predators as other beetles are. Birds don't know anything about supposedly poisonous qualities of ladybirds:
quote:
The defensive mechanisms which protect ladybird beetles (Coccinellidae) against predators are reviewed. Besides behavioural mechanisms, such as thanatosis and reflex bleeding, chemical defence mechanisms are playing a prevalent role.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/q466422173wh8457/
I am afraid no visualy oriented predator is scared by "reflex bleeding".
Franz Heikertinger discussed the "aposematic" issue of ladybirds
in Biologiscen Zentralblatt 1932 under the name "Die Concinelliden, ihr "Ekelblut", ihre Warntracht und ihre Feinde". Available at inet
http://www.zin.ru/animalia/Coleoptera/rus/ukropbib.htm
He adressed there all darwinian fantasies about ladybirds:
1) their poisonous defence (giving examples where a poison play no role for predators, even though we think it should).
2) their various coloration and patterns which obviously cannot be explained away ad hoc by natural selection.
3) giving results of his own experiments and list of all birds predators in which stomachs many rests of ladybirds had been found.
1
2
3
4
5
Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-15-2007 1:14 AM MartinV has replied
 Message 59 by Nuggin, posted 09-15-2007 1:58 AM MartinV has not replied
 Message 61 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-15-2007 2:20 AM MartinV has not replied

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


Message 60 of 241 (421931)
09-15-2007 2:15 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Dr Adequate
09-15-2007 1:14 AM


Re: Ladybirds and neodarwinian "natural selection"
MatinV, all the flatulent twaddle in the world won't get rid of the facts that:
(1) Ladybirds are poisonous.
Poisonous for whom? 1 gram of insect poison Cantharidin for instance is enough to kill 20.000 kg of people, but only 7 kg of hedgehog species. Insect eating hedgehogs, crabs, frogs etc are almost unsensitive to the poison. Eating a beetle with this poison can kill you.
Many species of birds are completely unsensitive to the poison (Otis tarda).
Predators avoid species with aposematic colouration.
It is only bold darwinian pressuposition.
The facts are following - ladybirds have many predators, especially birds. To those predators their coloration is very convenient signal I would say.
In the North America they are eaten by species of Muscivora, Myiarchus, Sayornis, Myiochanes and especially Empidonax. About E.minimus wrote Beal (1912) that in their stomach only three beetle species were more present. Chapin (1925) researched Virco-species nourisment and concluded that Coccinelidae make 1/12 of their food income. In Vireosylva philadelphica they make more than 1/5 of beetles they ate. By V.gilva more than 1/2 of eated beetles and 1/12 of food income...
Vireo Huttoni: 5/8 of eated beetles...
There were once a much more greater research of stomach contents of birds. Csiki on Hungary during 1905-1915 reserched more than 2.000 stomachs of birds. He found there suprisingly great number of "aposematics" like wasps, ladybirds etc... I am afraid darwinists do not continue in such research any more. In the thread of Mimicry and neodarwinism I quoted McAtee who observed the fact, that stomach of some bird conained more "poisonous" models of wasps as their harmful moth mimics.
Such researches undermine unproved hypothesis of warning coloration of wasps, ladybirds etc. The only experiments and observations which are valid and which reflect reality are those outdoors, in the countryside.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-15-2007 1:14 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Nuggin, posted 09-15-2007 2:21 AM MartinV has replied
 Message 63 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-15-2007 2:30 AM MartinV has replied

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


Message 64 of 241 (421941)
09-15-2007 2:52 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Nuggin
09-15-2007 2:21 AM


Re: That hedgehog is 100% dead!
This is your idea of evidence? Hedgehogs, BIG hedgehogs, weigh less that 1kg. So, 1/7th of a gram of cantharidin is enough to off 100% of the hedgehogs that injest it.
I don't see your point. 1 gram of Cantharidin kill 7 kg of hedgehogs or 20.000 kg of people. If hedgehog is 1 kg weighty, then it will kill 7 hedgehogs. If an average man is 70 kg weighty the same 1 gram of Cantharidin will kill almost 300 men.
So if we are speaking about a poison we should ask for whom it is poisonous. If the beetle is poisonous or smell badly for us it doesn't implicate that the same reaction or feeling will occur for birds. If darwinists perceive a ladybird as aposematic it doesn't mean the birds are of the same opinion. On the contrary, they feed on ladybirds heavily.
And ladybirds also do not observe the rule of advantage of aposematic Mullerian mimicry rings and are variously colored as I gave examples above.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Nuggin, posted 09-15-2007 2:21 AM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Nuggin, posted 09-15-2007 11:08 AM MartinV has replied

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


Message 65 of 241 (421943)
09-15-2007 3:09 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Dr Adequate
09-15-2007 2:30 AM


Re: Ladybirds and neodarwinian "natural selection"
Once it was a Darwinian presupposition. Then it was proved right. Are you beginning to notice a pattern here? Y'know, like how the facts always turn out to fit the theory perfectly in every detail?
It depends. Heikertinker did not believe in aposematism and poisionos qualities of ladybirds and all those experiments proving it. He made exactly the same experiments himself. He repeated the darwinian experiments with different kind of beetles closed together with ladybirds. The previous experiments proved that many kind of beetles do not survive more than 2 hours with ladybirds under the same glass (beeing poisoned by evaporation of dirty glass or what). Heikeringer observed opposite - ladybirds was readily eaten by many of those beetles (Dytiscus eated ladybirds more than 3 weeks and it died immediately after eating fresh pork meat).
All those experiments are described in details in his work the link I have given. There are also described all ladybirds predators.
Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-15-2007 2:30 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-15-2007 1:57 PM MartinV has replied

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


Message 69 of 241 (422022)
09-15-2007 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Nuggin
09-15-2007 11:08 AM


Re: That hedgehog is 100% dead!
I didn't say the insect contain enough poison to kill a hedgehog. Hedgegogs eat them regularly btw. You maybe drink Whiskey (Brandy or whatever). I suppose it taste you and you like it. But if you drink let say 5 liters at evening it surely will kill you. But it doesn't mean that alcohol is a poison.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Nuggin, posted 09-15-2007 11:08 AM Nuggin has not replied

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


Message 70 of 241 (422027)
09-15-2007 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Dr Adequate
09-15-2007 1:57 PM


Re: Ladybirds and neodarwinian "natural selection"
Which one?
Heikertinger Franz, 1932
Die Coccinelliden, ihr "Ekelblut", ihre Warntracht und ihre Feinde (6,28 MB) //
Biologischen Zentralblatt, 52 Band, Heft 2, Verlag, Leipzig, P. 65-102.
(Concillidae, their "poisonous blood", their warning coloration and their enemies).
You can find it here:
http://www.zin.ru/animalia/Coleoptera/rus/ukropbib.htm
As you can see it has almost 40 pages.
But be carfull, it has 6,2 MB, it is in German and it takes a time to load it. Heikertinger doesn't spare selectionists there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-15-2007 1:57 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by AdminNosy, posted 09-15-2007 3:43 PM MartinV has replied

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


Message 72 of 241 (423247)
09-20-2007 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by AdminNosy
09-15-2007 3:43 PM


Re: Use of Links
Please, copy the relevant parts in the original German and supply a translation.
You are wellcome. Anyway I cannot copy it because it is a photocopy, but see the pages 75-77. The link itself is in my previous post.
Heikertinger often ridiculed methods and thinking of scientists who considered hypothesis of "natural selection" as the valid explanation of coloration of insects. He called them often as "Hypothetiker".
As to ladybirds he quoted experiments of "Hypothetker" who observed supposedly poisonous qualities of ladybirds.
A darwinist Meissner made these observations:
Dytiscus circumcintus killed and ate Coccinella septempunctata and after then it died. The beetle was "poisoned".
The robust beetle Spondylis buorestoides had been given into a bottle where small ladybirds Adalia bipunctata were present. The next day the beetle was dead. Many Dipteria and Rhapidia were killed through ladybirds poison. Also grasshoppers did not like the evaporation of the poison (but I don't know if they died).
So Heikertinger made some experiments too:
Dytiscus marginalis caught on 14.May was held in a glass.
21.May it obtain 2 living 7-punct. ladybirds. Both of them are dead the next day, the one of them is half-eaten.
24.May the beetle ate the whole ladybird.
27.May it again ate the whole ladybird
4.Juny again...
The beetle died 5.Juni 2 hours after eating fresh pork meat. Strangely enough "poisonous" ladybirds did't kill it, but fresh meat...
The second experiment:
In an experiment there were held together in a glass 2 Concinella 7-punct., 4 Adalia bipunctata,1 Halyzia 22-punct, 1 Harpalus, 1 Amara, 1 Paederus, 1 Aphodius, 1 Athous, 2 ants, 1 Tipulide, 2 Pyrrhocoris, 1 Thyreorcoris. The glass is hermeticaly closed.After 28 hours Tulipide was motionless. Then there was made a small canal for the fresh air. After 8 days still lived - 1 Coccinella, 4 Adalia, 1 Harpalus, 1 Amara, 1 Paederus, 1 Athous, 1 Thyreocoris...
The list of bird enemies of ladybirds I have given already in one of my previous posts. Heikertinger appreciate very the research of content of birds stomachs, because it reflects the reality.
I supposed that Dr.Adeuate can read German. At least his haughty bahaviour and his denigrations of me here (which are tolerated) made an impression that Dr.Adequate must be an well-educated person who has no problem to address also material in German. Or am I dealing with a moron who solves all problems after 5 minutes of using Google?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by AdminNosy, posted 09-15-2007 3:43 PM AdminNosy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by AdminNosy, posted 09-20-2007 2:25 PM MartinV has not replied
 Message 74 by Shtop, posted 09-20-2007 5:10 PM MartinV has replied
 Message 75 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-22-2007 5:32 AM MartinV has not replied

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


Message 76 of 241 (423835)
09-24-2007 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Shtop
09-20-2007 5:10 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. 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).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Shtop, posted 09-20-2007 5:10 PM Shtop has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Shtop, posted 09-25-2007 8:42 AM MartinV has replied

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


Message 78 of 241 (424099)
09-25-2007 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Shtop
09-25-2007 8:42 AM


Re: Mimicry
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.
But predators obviously do not know what you would like them to know.I have already called your attention to ladybirds or wasps. They are aposematics - at least in darwinian heads. You suppose that predators know that they are "unpalatable" and after eating them they will got "sick". But this "unpalatability" and "got sick" occurs only in theory. Insectivores eat them readily and feel no problem. The facts contradict to any pressupositions about "aposematism". Wasps and ladybirds are readily eaten, as the contents of stomachs of many species of birds clearly show up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Shtop, posted 09-25-2007 8:42 AM Shtop has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Wounded King, posted 09-25-2007 5:20 PM MartinV has replied

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


Message 80 of 241 (424172)
09-26-2007 12:24 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by Wounded King
09-25-2007 5:20 PM


Re: Mimicry
You are obviously missing the main point. "Unpalatability" is a concept conceived in selectionists heads to support their explanation of aposematism. No such phenomenon as unpalatability of wasps or ladybirds exists in reality (what's more there are predators specialised to mentioned insects).
To extend human perceived unpalatability of wasps/ladybirds to other animal species is utterly unscientific. It's pure anthropomorphism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Wounded King, posted 09-25-2007 5:20 PM Wounded King has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Nuggin, posted 09-26-2007 2:07 AM MartinV has replied
 Message 82 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-26-2007 5:03 AM MartinV has replied
 Message 93 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-05-2007 3:57 PM MartinV has not replied

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


Message 83 of 241 (424304)
09-26-2007 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Nuggin
09-26-2007 2:07 AM


Re: Mimicry
Show me that my dog spits out liver for some reason other than taste.
That's interesting. My dog eats meat that smells me and that I appraise as unpalatable. Obviously my dog hasn't read armchair treatises about unpalatability yet. German shepards often snaps wasps too. Obviously they haven't read armchair treatises about aposematism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Nuggin, posted 09-26-2007 2:07 AM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Nuggin, posted 09-26-2007 1:46 PM MartinV has not replied

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


Message 85 of 241 (424310)
09-26-2007 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Dr Adequate
09-26-2007 5:03 AM


Re: Mimicry
Uh, yes it does.
Pyrazine is indeed unpalatable to birds, and pyrazine odour makes visually conspicuous prey aversive.
That's pyrazine, as in ladybirds.
Yes, I like these "experiments" done by neodarwinists. These "experiments" always support armchair preconceptions of warning coloration, but somehow predators in free do not read about such experiments or what - they eat ladybirds and wasps the same as they eat other insects.
As for wasps, in reality, they really do sting. They really do. This is kindergarten stuff.
Maybe they sting sometimes children in kindergarten. But it is only armchair preconception that the same occurs in free. I have given you already link to neodarwinian article about mimicry&aposematism. Why didn't you read it and why you continue spread your ignorant ideas instead?
Facts are these:
quote:
From these studies it seems clear that although having a dramatic effect when used, birds only rarely get stung by wasps, and therefore the sting cannot be the primary source of wasp noxiousness.
Darinists are obviously lost, because stings are inneficient (or "secondary source of noxiousness" in their newspeak). But darwinian fantasy is still efficient:
quote:
Mostler considered the unpalatability of the abdomen to be the major source of noxiousness for wasps, and the sting was only secondary: subsequently Liepelt (1963) found that venom-free abdominal tissue evoked none of the typical unpalatability reactions. It is the terrible taste that the venom imparts to the abdomen that is the main deterrent for birds.
Yet, be carefull now! :
quote:
The basis of the ”noxiousness’ of a model need not be unpalatability or stings, despite the fact that most discussions about mimicry have focused upon these elements.
Bingo!
Or this one is a perfect experiment, unbelievable! :
quote:
In Brower & Brower’s (1965) experiments with toads feeding on honeybees and their Palpada mimics, for example, producing a buzz with the wings caused a 38% drop in predation, whereas the use of the sting caused only a 21% decrease in the mortality of the mimic. Thus sound seems to be a very important component of the signal that toads associate with noxiousness
So not stings, but buzz! Would you believe it? You would, you are a darwinist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-26-2007 5:03 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by bluegenes, posted 09-26-2007 10:34 PM MartinV has replied
 Message 95 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-05-2007 4:06 PM 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