Mimicry and neodarwinism

quote:

---

Not believing should be the default position until the theory is convincing.

---

Right. So Evolution should be disregarded as a valid theory because it only accounts for a very small part of the evidence.

MartinV, Post 44, please.Thanks,Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

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.

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:

---

Evolution should be disregarded as a valid theory because it only accounts for a very small part of the evidence.

​

Evolution should be regarded as a valid theory because it accounts for the evidence.(ie it is convincing)

---

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"

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? 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

Jar, I would rather stay at butterflies like Monarch, Heliconius or Papilio Dardanus and not skip into vertebrata.

quote:

---

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.

---

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.

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).

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. 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 ... 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

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

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.

Then I do not see any meaninng of word "aposematic". Every unpalateble creature accroding this assumtion is aposematic, even if it is green.

quote:

---

Then I do not see any meaninng of word "aposematic". Every unpalateble creature accroding this assumtion is aposematic, even if it is green.

---

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.

Would "Aposematic" have been a better post title, PaulK?Edited by AdminNosy, : correct author

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?

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=41370other shapes and colours from many:http://www.nahuby.sk/sk/sources/obrazok_detail.php?id=8583http://www.nahuby.sk/sk/sources/obrazok_detail.php?id=16149