|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
MartinV  Suspended Member (Idle past 5819 days) Posts: 502 From: Slovakia, Bratislava Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is evolution of mammals finished? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MartinV  Suspended Member (Idle past 5819 days) Posts: 502 From: Slovakia, Bratislava Joined: |
You seem to be pretty nervous from mushroom coloration. You are right that topic is animal evolution. Yet there was discussion if darwinism is able to account of it. Coloration of mammals are of course a part of darwinistic story of evolution. But nobody can verify darwinistic stories why is coloration of girrafes, zebras, tigers etc. as we see it. Darwin's supporters in this thread don't know why are swans white or black - yet they know how to explain white color of polar bears very well.
Zebras and swans coloration is another topic. My point is that coloration in 99% of animals has no selective advantage/disadvantage. So there are other forces why coloration evolve as allmighty darwinistic dyade of random mutation and natural selection. Mushrooms are very good example that can be perhaps extrapolated to mammalian kingdom very well. Palatable, unpalatable and poisonous mushrooms are very colorful. Without any neodarwinistic explanation as far as I know - we should check such explanation much more easier btw. It's not so easy I suppose to use darwinistic dialectic wit here as it is in the case of mammalian coloration that nobody can verify. Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1457 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Why isn't random mutation a sufficient explanation?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2160 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: No kidding? So, can you give several examples of species where coloration does confer a selection advantage, and explain what that advantage is?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alan Fox Member (Idle past 1972 days) Posts: 32 From: France Joined: |
quote: It seems reasonable that those poisonous fruiting bodies that were easier to identify as such would have more chance of spreading spores and thus over time the genes for "warning colour" would dominate in the particular species. It also seems reasonable that species with palatable fruiting bodies could be colour selected, as those with mutations causing similar colours to genuinely poisonous ones are likely to be avoided by predators using visual clues.
quote: Are you still claiming that Davison's front-loading hypothesis and that "the environment had nothing to do with it" etc. is a better explanation than modern evolutionary theory?
quote: Selection has costs and benefits. Pigment production has a cost element. Organisms that have become adapted to a cave environment lack pigmentation, and thus save the energy in making it.
quote: See my hypothesis above.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MartinV  Suspended Member (Idle past 5819 days) Posts: 502 From: Slovakia, Bratislava Joined: |
It seems reasonable that those poisonous fruiting bodies that were easier to identify as such would have more chance of spreading spores and thus over time the genes for "warning colour" would dominate in the particular species.
Your "reasonable" explanation is nice example of darwinistic approach to complex phenomenons in Nature we antidarwinists should be aware of. Darwinists use such approach also to explain mimicry. Yet they haven't research to support their stories of origin of coloration. Of course such explanation as your has no scientific background. It's only a story and matter of orthodox darwinistic belief.
quote: Explaining Dioscorides' Double Difference: Why Are Some Mushrooms Poisonous, and Do They Signal Their Unprofitability? | The American Naturalist: Vol 166, No 6 Perhaps instaed of common darwinistic fairy-tales it would move discussion forward when somebody give example of vision-oriented mushroom eaters (squirrels, deers, or even slugs?).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: Which are just you and Davison? Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MartinV  Suspended Member (Idle past 5819 days) Posts: 502 From: Slovakia, Bratislava Joined: |
I am waiting for some response as to vision-oriented mushroom eaters. You seem to be pretty nervous here while your explanation of mushroom coloration is unexplainable via natural selection (and what's more - it's even funny considering slugs as vision-oriented mushroom-eaters). And whats worse, you cannot in this case obscure it with another darwinistic mantra - "sexual selection"!
(There is no such thing as "sexual selection" in mushrooms kingdom, so you cannot use dialectical alchemical mix of "natutal selection" and "sexual selection" as you use it so creatively in explanation of the long neck of Giraffe etc...) So your responses looks like this one:
quote: or this one:
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1457 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
And whats worse, you cannot in this case obscure it with another darwinistic mantra - "sexual selection"! If you dispute that sexual selection occurs, then why do male peacocks have bright displays, but the females do not? And why didn't you respond to my earlier remarks on the subject? You're acting like glib responses are the only thing you're getting, but that's simply because you're ignoring more substantial replies. Are you here to debate or to take potshots?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2160 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Martin, I'd hate for you to miss my message 153.
Please don't neglect it. Edited by nator, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: Me? I don't know why you'd think I was nervous. Personally, I don't really care whether natural selection is or is not the driving mechanism of evolution. What does interest me is the lack of logic in your claims. You seem to think that your own inability to understand natural selection is "proof" against it. What is more, I note that you have been unable to give any positive evidence of any other mechanism. You have mention "spirit forces", but have given no evidence that such "spirit forces" exist beyond an assertion that natural selection must be wrong. Until you can give some sort of positive evidence in favor of your preferred hypothesis, your hypothesis will remain nuts. How do you like them apples? Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trae Member (Idle past 4297 days) Posts: 442 From: Fremont, CA, USA Joined: |
I am a bit confused, is it not the case that a mutation can be passed where it is not beneficial? In the cases of blue beaks does not the ToE permit that the swan’s ancestor was selected for reasons apart of beak color and it just simply was the case that the blue beaks became dominate for reasons apart of beak color?
Let us ignore the (C. Cygnus) for the time being as it may be understood that is was actually specifically selected for some reason and I am not so much interested in that specific animal as the implication I see in the thread that the ToE requires that every mutation is specifically selected directly. I guess what I am asking, is does the ToE not make provision for a species simply acquiring traits that are neutral to natural selection? By omission, some seem to be suggesting that every single attribute of a species has to further natural selection, while it seems to me that neutral traits could be propagated though a species as long as they weren’t sufficiently detrimental and as long as those traits did not prohibit mating. Seems to me Creationists spend a lot of time trying to trip up biologists for explanations of traits as if the lack of an explanation from some specific trait somehow disproves ToE. Isn’t an answer that simply sometimes variations within an acceptable range can be insignificant to the overall natural selection process?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trae Member (Idle past 4297 days) Posts: 442 From: Fremont, CA, USA Joined: |
It seems that some posts after mine may be addressing this with the phrase "Genetic Drift" it still seems to me that implied concepts such as purpose and intent seem to be overly creeping into the subtext here.
Edited by Trae, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5862 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
I am a bit confused, is it not the case that a mutation can be passed where it is not beneficial? In the cases of blue beaks does not the ToE permit that the swan’s ancestor was selected for reasons apart of beak color and it just simply was the case that the blue beaks became dominate for reasons apart of beak color? You're not confused, you're absolutely correct. Any number of traits - provided they have no fitness implication - can be passed down generations simply because they happen to exist in an organism that is being selected for some other trait. I don't know if you bothered to wade through the current thread What is Natural Selection... (if you did - more power to you, if not - you didn't miss anything), but it did briefly cover the difference between selected for and selected of. The analogy was a bunch of colored marbles being selected for size, while color was selected of the set of marbles (i.e., all the littlest marbles were also red). In the case of the Cygnus species, the various colors were discussed in the context of sexual selection, although the specific post you responded to was an answer to one of MartinV's typical "nyah nyah" type questions ("Why are swans white?"). The rejoinder was intended to convey the ridiculousness of the question by noting that, in fact, not all swans are white.
I guess what I am asking, is does the ToE not make provision for a species simply acquiring traits that are neutral to natural selection? Indeed it does, although I'm not sure "acquiring" is the right word. Posessing neutral traits is certainly expected under the ToE.
Seems to me Creationists spend a lot of time trying to trip up biologists for explanations of traits as if the lack of an explanation from some specific trait somehow disproves ToE. Isn’t an answer that simply sometimes variations within an acceptable range can be insignificant to the overall natural selection process? Yep. It's one of their irritating little habits. Like I said above, they like to come up with an endless stream of "nyah nyah" questions as though that was going to disprove ~150 years of scientific inquiry.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MartinV  Suspended Member (Idle past 5819 days) Posts: 502 From: Slovakia, Bratislava Joined: |
quote: This is question that is hard to response to. See thread on mimicry and thread on peppered moths. It seems to me that we overestimate our ability to judge what is cryptic and what is aposematic - perception of animals are different from ours. Something that we percieve as cryptic might be conspicuous for birds - there is a link in peppered moth discussion to a picture on moth resting on one kind of lichens. Picture was taken in UV light (part of light that birds have receptors to see) and moth was in UV light conspicuous. The other question is what is the reason of cryptic/aposematic coloration. Probably cryptic coloration has cryptic function but I don't agree as to the source of it - random mutation. It's not only my opinion -Adolf Portmann who I cited elsewhere agreed with mimicry as advantage and yet he disputed its darwinistic explanation as to its origin. Same Andreas Suchantke etc.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2160 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
So, am I reading you correctly?
Do you believe the peppered moth is one species where coloration does confer a selection advantage, or not? Remember, you made the claim:
quote: If what you say is true, then you should be able to list several species where there is solid evidence that coloration does, indeed, confer a selection advantage.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024