Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-23-2019 4:20 AM
19 online now:
Dr Adequate, Heathen, PaulK, Tangle (4 members, 15 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,107 Year: 5,144/19,786 Month: 1,266/873 Week: 162/460 Day: 7/97 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
89
10
1112
...
15Next
Author Topic:   Is evolution of mammals finished?
MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3937 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 136 of 213 (389086)
03-10-2007 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by RAZD
03-10-2007 2:57 PM


Re: Mobbing

The fact is that your position was refuted on the other thread, so failing to link to it shows you don't want that known.

Not that you admit it to yourself.

Enjoy

I will keep admin reccomendation: if this reply of you is not spam intended to choke ongoing discussion of animals (swans) coloration, what is it? Does it mean that it really takes 5 days for you to write this two sentences to my post dated 5.3.? Anyway keep choking unpleasant
anti-darwinistic thoughts if you like.

Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.

Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by RAZD, posted 03-10-2007 2:57 PM RAZD has not yet responded

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 585 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 137 of 213 (389088)
03-10-2007 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by MartinV
03-10-2007 2:42 PM


Re: Mobbing
MartinV writes:

It means that color of swans have no survival advantage - they can be white or black as well. Color of their plumage was not selected by "Natural selection" so in this case "Natural selection" is meaningless. It support thesis that "Natural selection" in many cases is no relevant explanation of coloration of species. Consequently "Natural selection" as explanation of evolution is in many cases only darwinistic fancy.

Modern evolutionary theory does not explain everything by natural selection. Neutral evolution (via genetic drift) also happens. The swan colours could well have been the result of natural selection (the ancestors of the northern whites and southern blacks would have evolved in different environments and in relation to different predators) but it could also be the product of genetic drift. If there's no significant advantage/disadvantage in any particular colour, entire population groups could still become entirely white, or black, or piebald.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by MartinV, posted 03-10-2007 2:42 PM MartinV has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by MartinV, posted 03-10-2007 3:45 PM bluegenes has responded

MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3937 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 138 of 213 (389090)
03-10-2007 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by bluegenes
03-10-2007 3:27 PM


Re: Mobbing

Modern evolutionary theory does not explain everything by natural selection. Neutral evolution (via genetic drift) also happens. The swan colours could well have been the result of natural selection (the ancestors of the northern whites and southern blacks would have evolved in different environments and in relation to different predators) but it could also be the product of genetic drift. If there's no significant advantage/disadvantage in any particular colour, entire population groups could still become entirely white, or black, or piebald.

There are two questions:
1) do predators of white (black) swans in North hemisphere (South) still exist? What species they are? If they are extinct - do we know something about them?

2) If coloration of swans is "product of genetic drift" without any "advantage/disatvantage" - in how many species do we see such "genetic drift"? Let say we see it in 99% of extant species (give another number if you like). Does in such case play "Natural selection" significant role in coloration of species? If not we should reject selection as driving force of coloration of species.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by bluegenes, posted 03-10-2007 3:27 PM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by bluegenes, posted 03-10-2007 5:58 PM MartinV has not yet responded

AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3862
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 6.4


Message 139 of 213 (389096)
03-10-2007 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by MartinV
03-10-2007 2:42 PM


Re: Mobbing
It means that color of swans have no survival advantage - they can be white or black as well. Color of their plumage was not selected by "Natural selection" so in this case "Natural selection" is meaningless. It support thesis that "Natural selection" in many cases is no relevant explanation of coloration of species. Consequently "Natural selection" as explanation of evolution is in many cases only darwinistic fancy.

You are really reaching here aren’t you Marty? You are so bent on defeating Natural Selection you have become strung out on the insistence that every facet of Natural Selection is an all-or-nothing item and must be the same for all life kind. Rather stilted, actually.

Natural Selection is reason enough for every attribute in existence for all modes of life. It is by far the best explanation for species attributes we have seen. Your reaching for some metaphysical explanation to account for the observed attributes is sorely lacking in comparison to Natural Selection.

What you miss, I think willingly, is the degree to which selective pressures (say for coloration) differ among species. Bluegenes has already alluded to the other attributes of Swans that make protective coloration less important to their survival. In other species, like Humans, protective coloration was not a major survival factor either. And just because coloration may not be a strong vector of Natural Selection in some species does not mean that Natural Selection is not a strong determiner of other attributes of that species. It is whole that must be viewed.

And your follow-on message indicates that you think Sexual Selection somehow is in conflict with Natural Selection. Again, one or the other, all or nothing thinking.

Your blinders, made of your emotional compunction for the metaphysical without reasoning, are your fancy…your crutch. Fortunately, your fancies and crutches do not belie the facts of Natural Selection and Evolution.

That Davison, Broom have declared Evolution dead and Goldschmidt, Grasse, et al, lend some support, is just an impassioned attempt to open a place for a metaphysical (not so)IDer. Davison’s logic is as twisted as Behe’s and the examples in his “manifesto” are as blind as his logic.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by MartinV, posted 03-10-2007 2:42 PM MartinV has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by MartinV, posted 03-10-2007 5:08 PM AZPaul3 has responded

MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3937 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 140 of 213 (389101)
03-10-2007 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by AZPaul3
03-10-2007 4:51 PM


Re: Mobbing

And just because coloration may not be a strong vector of Natural Selection in some species does not mean that Natural Selection is not a strong determiner of other attributes of that species.

What do you mean by "some species"? Give us a number. I have already given it - my estimation is around 99%. 99% species - survival of which has nothing to do with their coloration - they can be black or white (as swans), they can be mimic or not in the same area as is the case of polymorphic species of butterfly of Papilio Dardanus.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by AZPaul3, posted 03-10-2007 4:51 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by AZPaul3, posted 03-10-2007 5:55 PM MartinV has not yet responded

AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3862
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 6.4


Message 141 of 213 (389103)
03-10-2007 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by MartinV
03-10-2007 5:08 PM


Re: Mobbing
What do you mean by "some species"? Give us a number. I have already given it - my estimation is around 99%. 99% species - survival of which has nothing to do with their coloration - they can be black or white (as swans), they can be mimic or not in the same area as is the case of polymorphic species of butterfly of Papilio Dardanus.

All attributes are naturally determined and subject to the rigors of Natural Selection, some more strongly than others. Coloration is a naturally determined attribute of all living things. My estimate is therefore 100% vis-à-vis coloration. Body plan is a naturally determined attribute of all living things. My estimate is therefore 100% vis-à-vis body plan. Altruism is a naturally determined attribute of all living things. My estimate is therefore 100% vis-à-vis altruism. Length, width, height, number of hairs, spines, spikes, shoe size and aesthetic temperament are all naturally determined attributes of all living things. My estimate is therefore 100% vis-à-vis length, width, height, number of hairs, spines, spikes, shoe size and aesthetic temperament. Shall I go on?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by MartinV, posted 03-10-2007 5:08 PM MartinV has not yet responded

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 585 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 142 of 213 (389104)
03-10-2007 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by MartinV
03-10-2007 3:45 PM


Re: Mobbing
MartinV writes:


There are two questions:
1) do predators of white (black) swans in North hemisphere (South) still exist? What species they are? If they are extinct - do we know something about them?

My guess is that preditors on their eggs and their young were more likely to have been of importance. They mate for life, so you have two large aggressive birds to defend the nest. I doubt if they made regular prey for anything as adults. A large bird which can swim and fly is not an easy target. They are certainly capable of attacking mammals as large as us if we approach their nests or young. That's an example of a behavioral characteristic which would certainly have been driven by natural selection, for reasons that should be obvious to you.

2) If coloration of swans is "product of genetic drift" without any "advantage/disatvantage" - in how many species do we see such "genetic drift"? Let say we see it in 99% of extant species (give another number if you like). Does in such case play "Natural selection" significant role in coloration of species? If not we should reject selection as driving force of coloration of species.

Of course natural selection can play a significant role in the colouration of species. Obvious examples are animals (and birds) that are clearly well camouflaged. Sexual selection also plays a role, which is why we get such weird and wonderful birds as peacocks, and so can genetic drift. Sometimes the reason for an animal's colour scheme may not seem obvious to us, but it must be remembered that we do not have the same vision as the animal's preditors, nor that of the animal itself. The zebra's stripes may be confusing to the eyes of the cat family, for example.

If you observe the colour of a species and it appears to have no advantage to that species, then it could mean that genetic drift is the story, but it could also mean that the colour had an advantage to the species' ancestors in very different circumstances.

Genetic drift characteristics are common, and you can see them in our own species. The whole point about natural selection is that it acts to eliminate disadvantageous characteristics and to promote advantageous characteristics. It does not act on neutral trivia, and it's possible that the swans' colouring is largely that.

Interestingly, you seemed to think that you had some point about swans being white that backed up your arguments in some way, but when I pointed out that they are not all white, then that seems to become something that backs up your arguments.

I doubt if I'm the only one who finds that amusing.;)

Edited by bluegenes, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by MartinV, posted 03-10-2007 3:45 PM MartinV has not yet responded

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 3980 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 143 of 213 (389154)
03-11-2007 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by MartinV
03-10-2007 2:50 PM


Re: Mobbing
So the motor of evolution is not "Random mutation and Natural selection" but "Sexual selection" instead? Does it mean that reason why ancient fish became feathered eagle is only due to "sexual selection"?

In the first place, sexual selection is a mechanism of natural selection/random mutation. Obviously, variation has to occur for sexual selection to operate. Basically, the selection pressure, rather than being some other biotic or abiotic factor in the environment, is mate choice and "success" is measured by differential reproductive rate rather than survival. There is one additional (and I use that word advisedly) component of sexual selection relating to the direct feedback between different genders in sexually dimorphic species (c.f., Muller's ratchet). In other words, the mechanism of sexual selection explains the male peacock's tail, but not why there are peacocks.

Or better question - can "sexual selection" lead to speciation? Are there any examples where "sexual selection" created new species, genera, family, order?

While to the best of my knowledge no speciation event has been directly attributable to sexual selection alone (I'm open to correction here), studies of many species indicate that sexually selected characteristics do serve as reproductive barriers between populations of genetically closely-related species (see, for example, Ritchie MG et al, 2005, Patterns of speciation in endemic Mexican Goodeid fish: sexual conflict or early radiation?, Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 18:922-929). In this case, the variation in the family Goodeinae is based almost solely on selection for male coloration and other characteristics. In addition, there are a number of bird families and amphibian complexes where genetics and range are similar, and the only apparent difference is behavior or some male characteristic.

As an example, in the Physalaemus spp. complex (family Leptodactylidae) of Central and South America the different species' ranges overlap to a great extent and their genetics are closely related (to the point where allozyme differences are practically non-existent). However, each species can be distinguished by its particular call. Close studies have shown that females almost invariably respond only to the calls of conspecific males - even though there is no obvious genetic barrier preventing interbreeding (see, for example, Ryan MJ, Rand, AS, 1993, Sexual selection and signal evolution - the ghost of biases past, Philosophical Transactions:Biology of the Royal Society, 340:187-195).

The evidence for sexual selection of certain species (to the point of speciation) is compelling and based on two major lines of observations:

1) sexually selected characteristics act as barriers to interbreeding

2) high species richness in many taxa in which sexual selection appears to be intense and diverse (Futuyma DJ, 1998, Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer, pg. 490). In my opinion, sexual selection is a good candidate as an explanation for sympatric speciation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by MartinV, posted 03-10-2007 2:50 PM MartinV has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by MartinV, posted 03-13-2007 3:55 PM Quetzal has responded

inkorrekt
Member (Idle past 4190 days)
Posts: 382
From: Westminster,CO, USA
Joined: 02-04-2006


Message 144 of 213 (389204)
03-11-2007 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by MartinV
02-09-2007 12:37 PM


Re: Robert Broom
This is very interesting. The Mormon Church believes that man will undergo a spiritual evolution and man will become God. Hindus also believe that man continuosly evolves. Is this a continuous process? Going backwards with the evolutionary chain, we find that all life processes began from a single celled organism. It is logical to extrapolate the next step in the evolutionary process. What will man become? A Superman with Computer chip in his brain? Monster with extraordinary abilities?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by MartinV, posted 02-09-2007 12:37 PM MartinV has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by AZPaul3, posted 03-11-2007 10:32 PM inkorrekt has not yet responded

AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3862
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 6.4


Message 145 of 213 (389229)
03-11-2007 10:32 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by inkorrekt
03-11-2007 7:20 PM


Re: Robert Broom
What will man become? A Superman with Computer chip in his brain? Monster with extraordinary abilities?

Extinct.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by inkorrekt, posted 03-11-2007 7:20 PM inkorrekt has not yet responded

MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3937 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 146 of 213 (389440)
03-13-2007 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by Quetzal
03-11-2007 10:32 AM


Colors
Do you have also some explanation of coloration of mushrooms? There is no sexual selection at all. Natural selection I fail to see also - mushrooms are sometimes very colored. Many color exist in great and colorful realm of mushrooms. Yet some of mushrooms are very poisonous, some of them are palatable and some unpalatable. I have also read opinion that there are (at least in Central Europe) no vision-oriented mushrooms eaters - except squirrels.
So what's the reason of such coloration when sexual selection is excluded and for natural selection there are probably no reasonable arguments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mushroom


This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Quetzal, posted 03-11-2007 10:32 AM Quetzal has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by Quetzal, posted 03-13-2007 6:16 PM MartinV has not yet responded
 Message 148 by Omnivorous, posted 03-13-2007 9:51 PM MartinV has responded

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 3980 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 147 of 213 (389463)
03-13-2007 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by MartinV
03-13-2007 3:55 PM


Re: Colors
This has what to do with your misunderstanding of sexual selection, exactly? Is there anything in any part of my post that claimed fungal coloration had anything to do with sexual selection? I have absolutely no idea why fungus have different colors. I've never studied them.

ABE: Now please address the substance of my post.

Edited by Quetzal, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by MartinV, posted 03-13-2007 3:55 PM MartinV has not yet responded

Omnivorous
Member (Idle past 1076 days)
Posts: 3808
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005


Message 148 of 213 (389501)
03-13-2007 9:51 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by MartinV
03-13-2007 3:55 PM


Re: Colors (var. fancy)
I have it on high authority that there are, in fact, many vision-oriented mushroom eaters in Central Europe.

:D

True, some of them are a bit squirrely, but aren't we all?

We return you now to your regularly programmed MartinV (for eVasive) replies.


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 146 by MartinV, posted 03-13-2007 3:55 PM MartinV has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by MartinV, posted 03-22-2007 4:34 PM Omnivorous has not yet responded

  
MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3937 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 149 of 213 (390940)
03-22-2007 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by Omnivorous
03-13-2007 9:51 PM


Re: Colors (var. fancy)

True, some of them are a bit squirrely, but aren't we all?

Apparently you suppose a common ancestor of squirrel and human. Or do you suppose convergence as explanation? I don't know if John Davison would agree with you. Might be Ruggles R. Gates wouldn't agree with your "common ancestor" darwinistic story too. While the discussion should be on mammals, let me quote him:

quote:

The abundance of convergent types also involves recognition of the fact that groups, such as mammals, which are now regarded as uniform [i.e., descended from a single ancestor] have had polyphyletic (i.e., independent) origin.

I also don't know if phylogeny based on chemistry would have help explain convergence:

quote:

Sanger has shown that the insulin composition of sperm whales is identical with that of pigs and quite different from that of sei whales! To be sure, a sequence of only three amino acids is involved, and both differences and resemblances could be accidental without even true convergence, but the lesson is there." (33)

My point is that even "environment" can trigger evolution, but evolution governed by law. In such process random mutation and natural selection play no role while process of evolution is predetermined.

Many unrelated founder-species should be considered as source of primary evolution as Davison claims.

http://www.custance.org/Library/Volume4/Part_III/Chapter2.html
---

Mushrooms are no evasion. It's only example that darwinism is uncapable to explain coloration of living organisms. There is no selective pressure on mushrooms coloration.

As to the "sexual selection" that somehow put the finishing touch to darwinistic "natural selection" - that's the darwinistic Evasion! Darwinists use "sexual selection" in frame of "natural selection" to explain weird facts as ptolemanians once used "epicycles" at rotating spheres to explain weird movement of planents.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Omnivorous, posted 03-13-2007 9:51 PM Omnivorous has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by Alan Fox, posted 03-24-2007 6:08 AM MartinV has responded

Alan Fox
Member (Idle past 90 days)
Posts: 32
From: France
Joined: 06-14-2006


Message 150 of 213 (391263)
03-24-2007 6:08 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by MartinV
03-22-2007 4:34 PM


Re: Colors (var. fancy)
Just curious*
quote:
Mushrooms are no evasion.

What has the colour of fungal fruiting bodies have to do with whether Robert Broom believed and/or was right to believe that evolution of mammals is finished?

Also,

I am getting the feeling that you think evolution's "goal" was to create humankind in the image of god. I think there are theistic evolutionists that believe this, but this is a philosophical viewpoint that science does not address.

{*example of rhetorical question, MartinV}


This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by MartinV, posted 03-22-2007 4:34 PM MartinV has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by MartinV, posted 03-24-2007 8:09 PM Alan Fox has responded

Prev1
...
89
10
1112
...
15Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019