|
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 |
Junior Member (Idle past 6132 days) Posts: 2 From: Alabama, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Mimicry: Please help me understand how | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MartinV  Suspended Member (Idle past 5859 days) Posts: 502 From: Slovakia, Bratislava Joined: |
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).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Shtop Junior Member (Idle past 2356 days) Posts: 30 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MartinV  Suspended Member (Idle past 5859 days) Posts: 502 From: Slovakia, Bratislava Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
How many times does the same point have to be made before you get it. The 'unpalatability' does not need to extend to every potential predator of the organism in order for it to represent a selective advantage. Half a dozen* people seem to have pointed this out already.
TTFN, WK *This statement may have employed some hyperbole.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MartinV  Suspended Member (Idle past 5859 days) Posts: 502 From: Slovakia, Bratislava Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2523 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
No such phenomenon as unpalatability of wasps or ladybirds exists in reality So, is your hypothesis that animals don't have the ability to taste? Or that they are incapable of distinguishing between different tastes? Or that they can taste, but they treat all tastes equally? Your talking and talking and talking and saying nothing. Make a statement which you can back up in fact. Show me that my dog spits out liver for some reason other than taste.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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 ... Uh, yes it does. Pyrazine is indeed unpalatable to birds, and pyrazine odour makes visually conspicuous prey aversive. That's pyrazine, as in ladybirds. As for wasps, in reality, they really do sting. They really do. This is kindergarten stuff.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MartinV  Suspended Member (Idle past 5859 days) Posts: 502 From: Slovakia, Bratislava Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2523 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
I accept your apology.
Further, the fact that your dog eats "meat that smells me" is a bit of a nonseq but we've come to expect nothing less from you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MartinV  Suspended Member (Idle past 5859 days) Posts: 502 From: Slovakia, Bratislava Joined: |
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: Darinists are obviously lost, because stings are inneficient (or "secondary source of noxiousness" in their newspeak). But darwinian fantasy is still efficient:
quote: Yet, be carefull now! :
quote: Bingo! Or this one is a perfect experiment, unbelievable! :
quote: So not stings, but buzz! Would you believe it? You would, you are a darwinist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2507 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
MartinV writes: So not stings, but buzz! Would you believe it? You would, you are a darwinist. What on earth makes you think that the toads associating the buzz with noxiousness is a problem for Darwinists? What in the theory of evolution does this contradict? How would a sting being a secondary source of noxiousness make Darwinists be "lost"? Any advantageous characteristic would be selected for, both in the stinging organism and a mimic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MartinV  Suspended Member (Idle past 5859 days) Posts: 502 From: Slovakia, Bratislava Joined: |
All of you are like broken records here. So again: stings play no role
in aposematism. Again:
quote: Do not confuse armchair theories of aposematism with real facts please.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
All of you are like broken records here. So again: stings play no role OK, stings play no role:
quote: The reasons birds avoid eating bumblebees might be because they ate the venom, not because they get stung trying. It goes on to say
quote: And about wasps:
quote: The paper also states:
quote: Fascinating stuff. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MartinV  Suspended Member (Idle past 5859 days) Posts: 502 From: Slovakia, Bratislava Joined: |
Modulous,
as an unbiased man you probably see the difference between birds in countryside and birds held in cages. Stressed birds or birds full of unnatural meal in cages, birds that are often feeded in the same time and consequently do not prey, such birds have different feeding patterns as in free. Do you agree? The most important are experiments outdoors and from those are the most important studies of the content of stomachs of real birds. These experiments was done by Biological Survey Division of United States Department of Agriculture. They wanted to estimate harmfulness of birds. These results are neglected by selectionists, because they show something selectionists do not like - wasp, bees are readily eaten by birds. McAtee made statistics from these results and argue with Poulton about efecteveness of "warning coloration" of wasps, etc... The same study was done in Hungary 1905-1910 by Csiki, who studied contents of stomachs of almost 2.800 birds. The result corresponds with those done in USA. Heikertinger quoted results in his book refuting selectionists explanation of mimicry. ---
quote:
Page not Found ::
University Libraries | The University of New Mexico
quote: http://home.bluemarble.net/~pqn/ch21-30/titmouse.html
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
as an unbiased man you probably see the difference between birds in countryside and birds held in cages. Stressed birds or birds full of unnatural meal in cages, birds that are often feeded in the same time and consequently do not prey, such birds have different feeding patterns as in free. Do you agree? It is certainly feasible. I'd want to see studies that show the degree of difference before committing further. I'd also need to see the conditions the birds in the experiments mentioned were in to see if they would be subject to this phenomenon. That said, it is still an important observation that some birds do have the ability to discriminate when it comes to noxious insects (ie., if they eat the non-noxious mimic first, they tend to also attack the noxious model but if they eat the noxious model first, they tend to avoid the mimic). It would be odd to think that birds developed this specific behaviour as a result of captivity stress.
The most important are experiments outdoors and from those are the most important studies of the content of stomachs of real birds. They may be important. What they don't tell us, unfortunately, is whether birds learn to avoid certain prey over time (unless we tag them I guess - has that been done?).
These experiments was done by Biological Survey Division of United States Department of Agriculture. They wanted to estimate harmfulness of birds. These results are neglected by selectionists, because they show something selectionists do not like - wasp, bees are readily eaten by birds. I've not seen them, so I couldn't say either way.
All I see there that is conclusive is that some birds have a big impact on parasitic hymenoptera. They are the ones that don't have the yellow/black colouration hypothesized to be a warning. Perhaps you have more information on this paper?
Again, what species of wasp? Another point of note, is that some birds have been known to discriminate between wasp gender - which is yet another thing to keep in mind. The thing is, it is difficult to falsify the hypothesis by looking at a small number of species. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024