|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
MartinV  Suspended Member (Idle past 5829 days) Posts: 502 From: Slovakia, Bratislava Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Mimicry and neodarwinism | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Belfry Member (Idle past 5086 days) Posts: 177 From: Ocala, FL Joined: |
MartinV writes:
I was so interested in your statements about bees that I didn't even see this until I read WK's response. Mushroom are really interesting, totally overlooked by darwinists.They did not exist for them. Please, please start a new thread about how mushrooms don't exist for evolutionary biology! Or, you save yourself the embarrassment and actually look it up. Try doing a search at scholar.google.com for "fungus evolution."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
You really just say whatever comes into your head don't you?
...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
You scold Jar for bringing up mimicry in vertebrates and now you want to talk mushrooms? Not all bright colors/patterns are examples of warning coloration. Propose a new topic if you wish to discuss it heh, I noticed that too. It's mimicry in action ... It's called restricting other information that invalidates the hypothesis on the pretense that it doens't focus on the issue, but then when more information starts to show the hypothesis really is invalid then introduce lots of new information to try to obscure the points being made. Ignoring all counter arguments is like that too (ie pepper moths show actual natural selection based on preferential predation due to differences in visibility of moth versus background). Edited by RAZD, : No reason given. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Yet I suppose that same predators should be present in same area to enable darwinian fancy to present its explanations as science. But do darwinian have enough fantasy to explain even origin of mimetism described by Poulton, when mimics and his model lived in different and distatnt areas? For instance Limenitis albomaculata lives in West China and their model - males Hypolimnas misippus - southeast Asia? Strona gwna | Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu Accueil | INRAE INSTIT If you had bothered to read your own link concerning Hypolimnas misippus, you would have read the following: "This species comes from the Old World, where females are mimics of the African Monarch, Danaus chrysippus (Linnaeus). It may have been introduced via the slave trade, H. misippus is probably not a permanent resident in all islands where it has been observed." You would also have found that it is present in "Guadeloupe and Martinique. Marie-Galante, les Saintes (Pinchon & Enrico). Antigua, Dominica, St-Lucia, Barbados, St-Vincent. Throughout the Greater Antilles, but rare. Guyanas, Venezuela, Florida. Tropical zones of the Old World." But not a damn word about it being found in southeast Asia. So your own link shows: (1) It is not found where you say it's found.(2) It is not the subject of mimicry, but a mimic. (3) The butterfly it mimics is not L. albomaculata (4) The butterfly it mimics is indeed found in its region of origin. How wrong can you get? Do creationists have some sort of competition over who can manage the most misinformation per sentence, or what? And why were you so wrong? I will do you the courtesy of supposing that you didn't just read your link and then decide to tell bare-faced lies about it ... so where did all this rubbish come from? Supplementary question: why can't you guys base your arguments on facts? (Hint: 'cos you're wrong.) Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Muhd Inactive Member |
Wow. My own personal editor. I'm flattered.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Muhd Inactive Member |
Read:
Darwinism does not account for the evidence, therefore it is not convincing. If Darwinism is not convincing, we shouldn't believe it (that's what Catholic Scientist said) Since Darwinsim is not convincing, we shouldn't believe it
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Muhd Inactive Member |
quote:Curses! We've been found out! Every Creationist for himself! Actually we're just here to talk some sense into you. Edited by Muhd, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Muhd Inactive Member |
quote:Well I don't know much about the subject of this thread so I would have to make that argument elsewhere. Edited by Muhd, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
This isn't much of an answer for very specific errors that were pointed out to you.
Are you agreeing with them or not?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MartinV  Suspended Member (Idle past 5829 days) Posts: 502 From: Slovakia, Bratislava Joined: |
Belfry writes:
I'd love to see these cryptic honeybees you're talking about!
According wikipedia there are 20,000 species of bees.I have no doubt, that there are some of them, that looks like aposematics. But the question remains - is there realy different selective pressure on them, that some of them are cryptic and some of them aposematic? These honeybees do seem anything but aposematic: File:Honeybee thermal defence01.jpg - Wikipedia Maybe we should use traditional method of some darwinists and glue dead specimens on different tree trunks, take picture of them and so corroborate respective arguments.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MartinV  Suspended Member (Idle past 5829 days) Posts: 502 From: Slovakia, Bratislava Joined: |
WoundedKing writes:
You really just say whatever comes into your head don't you? Do you have any evidence to back up this claim? All of your arguments from incredulity have had the ssame whiny complaint that neo-Darwinist's ignore this absolute nail in their coffin, and this seems to invariably turn out to be untrue, suggesting that you might be better employed looking into more recent literature to see what neo-Darwinist's actually do say.
Maybe you can interpret what neo-Darwinist actually do say and where I was "invariably" wrong. Many of baffling mimicry desribed by Poulton, Heikertinger etc... are not to be found on Internet, so I restrict myself to send only those you can see on pictures at least. There is no interest to study them in Amazonia etc. any more as was the case untill WW2. It is better indulge in darwinian omnipotent all-explaining fancy of mimicry while sitting in armchair. Yet it is a fact, that many scientists had very different explanation of mimicry as darwinist at that time- Punnett, Heikertinger, Eimer, Portmann... I would like add, that my arguments have to do more with sober senses than with "whiny complaint ".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MartinV  Suspended Member (Idle past 5829 days) Posts: 502 From: Slovakia, Bratislava Joined: |
Belfry writes:
Or, you save yourself the embarrassment and actually look it up. Try doing a search at scholar.google.com for "fungus evolution."
There are 11 results for "fungus evolution" at scholar.google. Which one of them would you reccomend me? Which one of them give comprehensive neodarwinian account for astonishing shape/colour diversity of mushroom sporocarps? Thank you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MartinV  Suspended Member (Idle past 5829 days) Posts: 502 From: Slovakia, Bratislava Joined: |
Dr Adequate about Hypolimnas misippus writes:
...Venezuela, Florida. Tropical zones of the Old World"But not a damn word about it being found in southeast Asia. So your own link shows: (1) It is not found where you say it's found. (2) It is not the subject of mimicry, but a mimic. (3) The butterfly it mimics is not L. albomaculata (4) The butterfly it mimics is indeed found in its region of origin. How wrong can you get? Do creationists have some sort of competition over who can manage the most misinformation per sentence, or what? And why were you so wrong?
If you spend more time on internet, you could spare us reading of this totaly incompetent response. You could find that Hypolimnas misippus lives in south-east Asia as well as I wrote: The species occurs around the whole equatorial belt: Africa, south-east Asia, the northern half of Australia, the Pacific Islands, North and South America, and the West Indies, including : Error (404) - The University of Sydney If you had read more carefully my post, you could noticed, that this case of mimetism was described by Poulton. Poulton was prominent scientist who spent his time outside in nature and I dare say that no armchair google "scientist" can proved him as liar. Maybe Poulton wrote predominantly about south-east Asia H.m., because as convinced darwinist he wanted to explain, how is it possible, that Limenitis albomaculata mimics mentioned Hypolimnas misippus (and not opposite as is the claim in totaly incompetent and speculative response in point 3). And south-east Asia is not as far from west China as America is. What I was waiting for was some darwinian fairy-tail about migrating birds with archetypical idea of Hypolimnas misippus to which Limetis alb. accomodated or something like that. And not this incompenetent illogical response. ---remark: Btw. do you know, that "Old World" incorporate Asia too? Yet I do not see even if I was wrong a point. If H.m. does not live in south-east Asia is it better for a darwinist to explain mimicry when model and its mimic live far more distantly as previously assumed? Or even maybe there is only "superficial resemblance" between these species? Something, that Poulton missed, but armchair google researcher noticed immediately?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Belfry Member (Idle past 5086 days) Posts: 177 From: Ocala, FL Joined: |
MartinV writes:
Yes, but you said "honeybees."
According wikipedia there are 20,000 species of bees.MartinV writes:
Of course, every population of any type of organism will both experience both a different selective environment and have a different history of mutations for selection to act upon. Where's the big mystery?
I have no doubt, that there are some of them, that looks likeaposematics. But the question remains - is there realy different selective pressure on them, that some of them are cryptic and some of them aposematic? MartinV writes:
I disagree; that picture does not show off the aposematism very well, but it's still there. The fact that you found a picture of them in a relatively low-light situation against a brown background does not negate the fact that they have the yellow-and-black striped abdomen that is instantly recognizable by anyone. These honeybees do seem anything but aposematic:
File:Honeybee thermal defence01.jpg - Wikipedia And in any case, particularly by the standards you're using to evaluate honeybees, I could give many examples of wasps that are not aposematic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
are engulfed and beeing heated. I find the typo in the wiki article a bit amusing.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024