Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8937 total)
21 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Post Volume: Total: 861,865 Year: 16,901/19,786 Month: 1,026/2,598 Week: 272/251 Day: 0/43 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is evolution of mammals finished?
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15393
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 106 of 213 (387778)
03-02-2007 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by MartinV
03-02-2007 4:38 PM


Re: Mobbing
quote:

So we should suppose that predators prefer somehow bats instead of other diurnal birds. Otherwise diurnal birds would became nocturnal animals too. Using darwinistic logic.

You mean using MartinV logic rather than actually considering all the relevant factors. I'd point out that bats are adapted to a nocturnal lifestyle and are thus better able to take advantag eof flyign at night to avoid daytime predators.

quote:

My point is this - humans do not like bats. It's old medieval tradition that bats were nailed on entry-doors down heads (only bats, no birds). This hatred has some psychological reason. I


Maybe it does. But it seems silly to invent the idea that birds have some strange antipathy to bats - in defiance of the evidence that they do not - to try and explain human behaviour. I guess that's more MartinV logic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by MartinV, posted 03-02-2007 4:38 PM MartinV has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by MartinV, posted 03-02-2007 5:16 PM PaulK has responded
 Message 189 by MartinV, posted 04-04-2007 3:23 PM PaulK has not yet responded

  
MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4088 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 107 of 213 (387780)
03-02-2007 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by PaulK
03-02-2007 4:55 PM


Re: Mobbing
quote:

I guess that's more MartinV logic.

It's not only my logic. It's a logic of many scientists too. One of the most famous who took into consideration "psychological" motives of animals is former professor of zoology and head of Basel University evolutionary anti-darwinist professor Adolf Portmann (friend of C.G.Jung). See - if you like - my posts to professor John Davison on Brainstorm:

http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000370-p-32.html


This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by PaulK, posted 03-02-2007 4:55 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Chiroptera, posted 03-02-2007 5:24 PM MartinV has responded
 Message 110 by PaulK, posted 03-02-2007 5:59 PM MartinV has not yet responded

Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6800
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 7.2


Message 108 of 213 (387781)
03-02-2007 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by MartinV
03-02-2007 5:16 PM


Bingo!
quote:
...friend of C.G.Jung...

I was thinking that this nutty idea had a familiar nuttiness about it.


Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by MartinV, posted 03-02-2007 5:16 PM MartinV has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by MartinV, posted 03-02-2007 5:39 PM Chiroptera has responded

MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4088 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 109 of 213 (387788)
03-02-2007 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Chiroptera
03-02-2007 5:24 PM


Re: Bingo!
quote:

I was thinking that this nutty idea had a familiar nuttiness about it.

Jung said that he had to accept independent "soul" as driving force in human behaviour. Maybe Dawkins with his "climbing mount improbable" and "selfish gene" is more successful in treating mental diseases as Jung's school.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Chiroptera, posted 03-02-2007 5:24 PM Chiroptera has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Chiroptera, posted 03-02-2007 5:59 PM MartinV has not yet responded
 Message 193 by Larni, posted 04-10-2007 6:53 AM MartinV has not yet responded

PaulK
Member
Posts: 15393
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 110 of 213 (387793)
03-02-2007 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by MartinV
03-02-2007 5:16 PM


Re: Mobbing
SO he really said that you should pretend animals frequently engage in bhaviours that they very rarely engage in so that you can invent psychological motives for it ? If so then I can't see that his qualifications make the idea any less silly. If not, then of course he didn't engage in the MartinV logic I referred to.

Obviously you are no fan of Adolf Portmann or you wouldn't attribute such foolish thinking to him.

(Of coruse the part you quoted wasn't about psychology at all - it was about assumign that there are no explanations simply because you lack the imagination to think of even obvious possiblities. Again behaviour that cannot be justified by attributing it to something else0>


This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by MartinV, posted 03-02-2007 5:16 PM MartinV has not yet responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6800
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 7.2


Message 111 of 213 (387794)
03-02-2007 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by MartinV
03-02-2007 5:39 PM


Re: Bingo!
quote:
Maybe Dawkins with his "climbing mount improbable" and "selfish gene" is more successful in treating mental diseases as Jung's school.

Maybe it is. I don't know.


Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by MartinV, posted 03-02-2007 5:39 PM MartinV has not yet responded

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 4131 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 112 of 213 (387799)
03-02-2007 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by MartinV
03-02-2007 4:08 PM


Re: Mobbing
It helps if you respond to the post directly, rather than to yourself. I almost missed this one as well.

I quote the fact that 85% of marine Orders survived K/T extinction. I am not any expert, but I give you an example. If nowadays meteorite kills 95% of mammalian species and yet 85% of mammalian Orders survive I will say nothing happened.

Which is precisely what occurred during the KT extinction. 75-85% of all terrestrial vertebrate species were wiped out. Only 15% of terrestrial vertebrate orders went extinct. As I also noted in my previous post, some 60-70% of all marine species went extinct, but only 50% of all marine genera did so. You appear to be confusing taxonomic levels somehow. The "percent extinction" goes down the higher up the taxonomic ladder you go. However, a number of orders DID go extinct - entire taxa went missing.

It means this - there will be still some living bat species, some living whale species, some living rodent species, some living carnivora species, some living primates etc...

Except if we're still talking about the KT event, bats, whales, primates, carnivora, etc hadn't yet evolved - so obviously they couldn't have gone extinct.

There will be very great diversity of animals (even if 95% of species died and each Order preserved only 2 species instead of 180) that should occupy emptied niches.

Not really. One of the striking factors about mass extinction events is that the resulting biodiversity is highly impoverished. You may have a few representatives of different orders, say, but not many. Most of the fossil record immediately following such an event is dominated by only a few species.

Because there are still left some aquatic mammals, some flying mammals, some predators, some ungulates etc...

Well, again, none of these even existed prior to the KT event. These are the result of evolution since.

All basic "body plans" that are characteristic for Order survived.

Assuming anything in the order survived, then yes. However, this may represent vastly different organisms adapted to vastly different environments - and with vastly different chances for survival, radiation, and contribution to the biotic recovery.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by MartinV, posted 03-02-2007 4:08 PM MartinV has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 20119
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 113 of 213 (387808)
03-02-2007 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Omnivorous
03-02-2007 4:27 PM


Re: Mobbing
I've also been attacked by female tree swallow that had taken over a bluebird house. Dive bombing at the head. I've also seen this behavior relative to cats. Hummingbirds can be devastating, quick and sharp.

Fun in the field eh?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Omnivorous, posted 03-02-2007 4:27 PM Omnivorous has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Quetzal, posted 03-08-2007 7:49 AM RAZD has not yet responded

MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4088 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 114 of 213 (388092)
03-04-2007 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Wounded King
03-02-2007 2:46 AM


Re: Mobbing
quote:

This isn't like mimicry where there is a whole lot of genetics available for us to explore, this is a complex behaviour requiring a sizable population of birds which about which we know little in the way of behavioural genetics and small potential in terms of manipulability of those genetics.

It's just like mimicry. It doesn't matter if we know genetics behind the phenomenon or not. Genetics explains nothing. If we know that behind developmnet of "eyspots" on butterfly wings is nucleotide chain of C-C-C-G-U-T-A-A...or if it is chain T-T-T-U-C-G-C-G...or it is C-A-T-C-U-G-G-G-... who cares? What we percieve are often perfect patterns, artifical ones. We percieve structure, forms, often beauty. Of course there are pigments, refraction of light etc... There are also genes (A-C-T-U-...) in which information is stored.

If we listen music the mechanism how music is coded on CD doesn't explain the beauty of music at all.

--------------------
More in article on Portmann:

Transcending Darwinism in the Spirit of Goethe's Science:
A Philosophical Perspective on the Works of Adolf Portmann.

http://www.ifgene.org/hegge.htm


This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Wounded King, posted 03-02-2007 2:46 AM Wounded King has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by AZPaul3, posted 03-04-2007 4:58 PM MartinV has responded

AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4512
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 115 of 213 (388108)
03-04-2007 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by MartinV
03-04-2007 3:43 PM


Re: Mobbing
It's just like mimicry. It doesn't matter if we know genetics behind the phenomenon or not. Genetics explains nothing. If we know that behind developmnet of "eyspots" on butterfly wings is nucleotide chain of C-C-C-G-U-T-A-A...or if it is chain T-T-T-U-C-G-C-G...or it is C-A-T-C-U-G-G-G-... who cares? What we percieve are often perfect patterns, artifical ones. We percieve structure, forms, often beauty. Of course there are pigments, refraction of light etc... There are also genes (A-C-T-U-...) in which information is stored.

Evolution cares. If:

C-C-C-G-U-T-A-A = messy pre-proto-eyespot

T-T-T-U-C-G-C-G = discernable well-formed eye-spot

C-A-T-C-U-G-G-G = Beautiful fully-formed realistic eye-spot

…then natural selection through predatory action culls out a lot of the former two leaving a preponderance of the latter. Over millennia the result is an entire species of nice pretty and useful eye-spots.

If we listen music the mechanism how music is coded on CD doesn't explain the beauty of music at all.

Good analogy for the wrong reason. The mechanism of music encoding is all the same. But the specific coding itself is unique to each piece of music. Natural selection, through economic mechanisms, will favor a CD encoded with David Allen Coe singing "You Never Call Me By My Name" over one encoded with Tiny Tim singing "Tip-toe Through the Tulips." It did not take long for the Tiny Tim encoding, like the messy pre-proto eyespot, to be culled from the population. And beauty has nothing to do with either.

Edited by AZPaul3, : Felt like it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by MartinV, posted 03-04-2007 3:43 PM MartinV has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by MartinV, posted 03-05-2007 1:23 PM AZPaul3 has not yet responded

MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4088 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 116 of 213 (388268)
03-05-2007 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by AZPaul3
03-04-2007 4:58 PM


Re: Mobbing
quote:

…then natural selection through predatory action culls out a lot of the former two leaving a preponderance of the latter. Over millennia the result is an entire species of nice pretty and useful eye-spots.

This has been already discussed on mimicry thread. We know related species of butterflies of which one possess eyspots and other do not.We also know that on the same area live and thrive species with eyspots and without eyspots. Look around on meadow in summer - you will notice very different colourfull species on the same place. It's hardly to believe (for anti-darwinist like me) that all of these gay and bright patterns are outcome of merciless struggle of life. And that they are outcome of selection. And all of them have color patterns that are best adapted to given area - patterns are so different you know. We can discern them very well, not even vision-oriented birds. You can also read on "Mimicry and neodarwinism" summary of the research that eyspots have no aposematic effect on predators.

quote:

C-C-C-G-U-T-A-A = messy pre-proto-eyespot

T-T-T-U-C-G-C-G = discernable well-formed eye-spot

C-A-T-C-U-G-G-G = Beautiful fully-formed realistic eye-spot


There is no doubt that there are genes behind eyspots. But genes cannot explain us why eyspots exist and how other animals percieved them and what is their function. So the question if eyspots are developed using T-T-T-A-G... or C-A-T-C-U-... nucleotide sequences is irrelevant. The chain of these letters doesn't ellucidate the meaning and function of eyespots. Or is there any scientific rule that we may from chain C-T-C-T-A-... somehow a priori deduce that we have to do with eyspot code? - I suppose in each butterfly species these formula of eyespots is different. Even if such formula exists (I doubt about it) does it help us to underestand how eyspots are percieved by - let say birds? How it functions in given niche?
Such information is as useless as information that this my post is coded in ASCII by 0010101000100101001110.... You will read and underestand (I hope) my text because of words you see and not because some binary codes 100111... are behind them as their technical code. Such information wouldn't help you to underestand meaning of a written text at all.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by AZPaul3, posted 03-04-2007 4:58 PM AZPaul3 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by crashfrog, posted 03-05-2007 1:27 PM MartinV has responded
 Message 118 by Omnivorous, posted 03-05-2007 2:23 PM MartinV has responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 117 of 213 (388271)
03-05-2007 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by MartinV
03-05-2007 1:23 PM


Re: Mobbing
Or is there any scientific rule that we may from chain C-T-C-T-A-... somehow a priori deduce that we have to do with eyspot code?

Experimentation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by MartinV, posted 03-05-2007 1:23 PM MartinV has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by MartinV, posted 03-05-2007 2:25 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

Omnivorous
Member (Idle past 1227 days)
Posts: 3808
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005


Message 118 of 213 (388294)
03-05-2007 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by MartinV
03-05-2007 1:23 PM


Re: Mobbing
MartinV writes:

This has been already discussed on mimicry thread... You can also read on "Mimicry and neodarwinism" summary of the research that eyspots have no aposematic effect on predators.

If you have a rebuttal in another thread, you should link to that specific post: you are presenting your case here, and it is not my job to go chasing through your other posts, especially when the topic is mammals and your reference is to butterflies.

We know related species of butterflies of which one possess eyspots and other do not.We also know that on the same area live and thrive species with eyspots and without eyspots. Look around on meadow in summer - you will notice very different colourfull species on the same place. It's hardly to believe (for anti-darwinist like me) that all of these gay and bright patterns are outcome of merciless struggle of life. And that they are outcome of selection. And all of them have color patterns that are best adapted to given area - patterns are so different you know. We can discern them very well, not even vision-oriented birds.

Your incredulity is worthless here.

We know that predators and prey alike depend upon all varieties of camouflage and deceit to survive. Whatever studies you refer to show about the impact of eyespots on butterfly survival now, they do not address the situation that existed when the eyespots evolved: perhaps the predators who provided the selective pressure have evolved to compensate for the eyespots. Perhaps your studies are not sound--in this thread, so far, they are only unexamined assertions.

The genetic "code" is not useless in understanding the phenomenon because we know it determines the expression of features such as eyespots, we know it is inheritable, and we know it mutates. Things change, inside and out, and that is why claiming that a characteristic cannot have evolved because it does not currently impact survival begs the question--assuming that lack of impact has been demonstrated in the first place.

Even if such formula exists (I doubt about it) does it help us to underestand how eyspots are percieved by - let say birds? How it functions in given niche?

Such information is as useless as information that this my post is coded in ASCII by 0010101000100101001110.... You will read and underestand (I hope) my text because of words you see and not because some binary codes 100111... are behind them as their technical code. Such information wouldn't help you to underestand meaning of a written text at all.

Well, that's just a failure of imagination; perhaps that's why you have so much incredulity.

If I am attempting to decode a text of completely unknown origin, and I discover that a binary "technical code" is employed in its transmission, then I do indeed know something about the text and its author that I did not know before--I know that it comes from an author with a particular level of mathematical and technological accomplishment. I may then look for further clues to the meaning of the text by inspecting it for other mathematical characteristics.


Real things always push back.
-William James

Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------


This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by MartinV, posted 03-05-2007 1:23 PM MartinV has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by MartinV, posted 03-05-2007 3:27 PM Omnivorous has responded

  
MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4088 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 119 of 213 (388295)
03-05-2007 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by crashfrog
03-05-2007 1:27 PM


Re: Mobbing
Of course. But we should be aware also of wing patterns in "mimetic rings". These rings are made by models and their different mimimcs. So there will be the same butterfly wing patterns and many different coding chains in different species. Yet identifying these nucleotide sequences in different species wouldn't help us to explain why the mimetic ring originated.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by crashfrog, posted 03-05-2007 1:27 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4088 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 120 of 213 (388306)
03-05-2007 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Omnivorous
03-05-2007 2:23 PM


Re: Mobbing
quote:

If you have a rebuttal in another thread, you should link to that specific post: you are presenting your case here, and it is not my job to go chasing through your other posts, especially when the topic is mammals and your reference is to butterflies.

We discussed the issue more in details there. So it is not necessary to discuss it here in another examples. While coding in Nature are the same using A,G,C,T nucleotids it doesn´t matter if we discuss patterns on Zebra, Giraffe, Tiger or Butterflies. Darwinists see in each of these patterns selection. Yet other conception is self-representation (die Selbstdarstellung) of species. It is more credulous explanation, why we obviously do not observe any advantage/disatvantage of such color patterns. They are neutral as to survival as well as to mating choice. Clouding the problem by genetics have no sense. It doesn´t help us to underestand if patterns have cryptic/mimetic/no meaning. It have no sense to obfuscate discussion with claim that we do not know genetics behind the phenomenon of patterns. Even if we know it (A-G-C-G-T-...), it will not help us.


I know that it comes from an author with a particular level of mathematical and technological accomplishment.

A,G,C,T uses primitive cells as well as humans. It's same with writing here - all of us use here the same coding and same logic of let say XML. While all of us are using same de/ciphering to binary codes it wouldn't help to better underestand the meanining of the text if you study next the text also it's binary "0100101101" representation. So while "mathematical and technoligal accomplisjment" is the same throughout genes as well as internet texts it will not add any information.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Omnivorous, posted 03-05-2007 2:23 PM Omnivorous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Omnivorous, posted 03-05-2007 5:51 PM MartinV has responded
 Message 134 by RAZD, posted 03-10-2007 2:57 PM MartinV has responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019