Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8946 total)
35 online now:
Newest Member: ski zawaski
Post Volume: Total: 865,962 Year: 20,998/19,786 Month: 1,395/2,023 Week: 346/557 Day: 39/47 Hour: 1/9


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is evolution of mammals finished?
MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4150 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 151 of 213 (391379)
03-24-2007 8:09 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by Alan Fox
03-24-2007 6:08 AM


Re: Colors (var. fancy)
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Alan Fox, posted 03-24-2007 6:08 AM Alan Fox has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by crashfrog, posted 03-24-2007 8:40 PM MartinV has not yet responded
 Message 153 by nator, posted 03-25-2007 7:47 AM MartinV has responded
 Message 154 by Alan Fox, posted 03-25-2007 7:57 AM MartinV has responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 152 of 213 (391386)
03-24-2007 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by MartinV
03-24-2007 8:09 PM


Re: Colors (var. fancy)
Why isn't random mutation a sufficient explanation?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by MartinV, posted 03-24-2007 8:09 PM MartinV has not yet responded

nator
Member (Idle past 491 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 153 of 213 (391469)
03-25-2007 7:47 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by MartinV
03-24-2007 8:09 PM


Re: Colors (var. fancy)
quote:
My point is that coloration in 99% of animals has no selective advantage/disadvantage.

No kidding?

So, can you give several examples of species where coloration does confer a selection advantage, and explain what that advantage is?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by MartinV, posted 03-24-2007 8:09 PM MartinV has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by MartinV, posted 03-26-2007 12:57 PM nator has responded

Alan Fox
Member (Idle past 304 days)
Posts: 32
From: France
Joined: 06-14-2006


Message 154 of 213 (391470)
03-25-2007 7:57 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by MartinV
03-24-2007 8:09 PM


Re: Colors (var. fancy)
quote:
You seem to be pretty nervous from mushroom coloration.

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:
You are right that topic is animal evolution.

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:
Zebras and swans coloration is another topic. My point is that coloration in 99% of animals has no selective advantage/disadvantage.

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:
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.

See my hypothesis above.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by MartinV, posted 03-24-2007 8:09 PM MartinV has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by MartinV, posted 03-25-2007 3:00 PM Alan Fox has not yet responded

MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4150 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 155 of 213 (391513)
03-25-2007 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by Alan Fox
03-25-2007 7:57 AM


Re: Colors (var. fancy)

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:

Poisonous mushrooms do not tend to be more colorful or aggregated than edible mushrooms, but they are more likely to exhibit distinctive odors even when phylogenetic relationships are accounted for. This raises the intriguing possibility that some poisonous species of mushrooms have evolved warning odors (and perhaps tastes) to enhance avoidance learning by fungivores.

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/resolve?id=doi:10.1086/497399

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?).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Alan Fox, posted 03-25-2007 7:57 AM Alan Fox has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by Chiroptera, posted 03-25-2007 3:06 PM MartinV has responded

Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6814
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 156 of 213 (391515)
03-25-2007 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by MartinV
03-25-2007 3:00 PM


Re: Colors (var. fancy)
quote:
...we antidarwinists...

Which are just you and Davison?


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by MartinV, posted 03-25-2007 3:00 PM MartinV has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by MartinV, posted 03-25-2007 3:57 PM Chiroptera has responded

MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4150 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 157 of 213 (391519)
03-25-2007 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by Chiroptera
03-25-2007 3:06 PM


Re: Colors (var. fancy)
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:

Which are just you and Davison?

or this one:

quote:

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Chiroptera, posted 03-25-2007 3:06 PM Chiroptera has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by crashfrog, posted 03-25-2007 4:03 PM MartinV has not yet responded
 Message 159 by nator, posted 03-25-2007 4:46 PM MartinV has not yet responded
 Message 160 by Chiroptera, posted 03-25-2007 4:59 PM MartinV has not yet responded
 Message 166 by Mike O Risal, posted 03-26-2007 8:43 PM MartinV has responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 158 of 213 (391520)
03-25-2007 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by MartinV
03-25-2007 3:57 PM


Re: Colors (var. fancy)
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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by MartinV, posted 03-25-2007 3:57 PM MartinV has not yet responded

nator
Member (Idle past 491 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 159 of 213 (391524)
03-25-2007 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by MartinV
03-25-2007 3:57 PM


Re: Colors (var. fancy)
Martin, I'd hate for you to miss my message 153.

Please don't neglect it.

Edited by nator, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by MartinV, posted 03-25-2007 3:57 PM MartinV has not yet responded

Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6814
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 160 of 213 (391528)
03-25-2007 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by MartinV
03-25-2007 3:57 PM


Re: Colors (var. fancy)
quote:
You seem to be pretty nervous here....

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by MartinV, posted 03-25-2007 3:57 PM MartinV has not yet responded

Trae
Member (Idle past 2628 days)
Posts: 442
From: Fremont, CA, USA
Joined: 06-18-2004


Message 161 of 213 (391537)
03-25-2007 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Quetzal
03-10-2007 7:47 AM


Re: Mobbing
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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Quetzal, posted 03-10-2007 7:47 AM Quetzal has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by Trae, posted 03-25-2007 8:12 PM Trae has acknowledged this reply
 Message 163 by Quetzal, posted 03-26-2007 9:29 AM Trae has responded

Trae
Member (Idle past 2628 days)
Posts: 442
From: Fremont, CA, USA
Joined: 06-18-2004


Message 162 of 213 (391552)
03-25-2007 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by Trae
03-25-2007 6:13 PM


Re: Mobbing
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Trae, posted 03-25-2007 6:13 PM Trae has acknowledged this reply

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 4194 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 163 of 213 (391577)
03-26-2007 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 161 by Trae
03-25-2007 6:13 PM


Re: Mobbing
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Trae, posted 03-25-2007 6:13 PM Trae has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Trae, posted 03-27-2007 12:26 AM Quetzal has responded

MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4150 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 164 of 213 (391604)
03-26-2007 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by nator
03-25-2007 7:47 AM


Re: Colors (var. fancy)
quote:

So, can you give several examples of species where coloration does confer a selection advantage, and explain what that advantage is?

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by nator, posted 03-25-2007 7:47 AM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by nator, posted 03-26-2007 6:24 PM MartinV has not yet responded

nator
Member (Idle past 491 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 165 of 213 (391667)
03-26-2007 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by MartinV
03-26-2007 12:57 PM


Re: Colors (var. fancy)
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:
My point is that coloration in 99% of animals has no selective advantage/disadvantage.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by MartinV, posted 03-26-2007 12:57 PM MartinV has not yet 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