Sexual selection is the most likely reason, as you've been told.
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"?
Or do darwinists use "sexual selection" in cases where they cannot explain morphology by Natural selection only? Is sexual selection something like darwinistic crutch?
Or better question - can "sexual selection" lead to speciation? Are there any examples where "sexual selection" created new species, genera, family, order?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
I have picked up from your reply these sentences especially for darwinists on this thread:
So there is sexual selection, but it takes place at the chemical level, not the visual level. . Color isn't important at all in this; a scavenger that uses visual cues quickly recognizes the fungus as not being food when it arrives after having tracked the scent. . I can tell you with great certainty, though, that these important fungal exploiters do not seek their prey by visual cues.
As you maybe don't know I started discussion on mushrooms while I consider them as good anti-darwinistic example. There is great diversity in coloration of mushrooms and no darwnistic explanation of it. You have proved to the folks here what I had already known and what I had told them repeatedly - there were no vision-oriented mushroom eaters except squirrels. Consequently every attemt (Alan Fox) to explain such a color diversity as outcome of selective pressure is plasusible explanation only for hard-core believers of Natural selection as the source of evolution.
In answer to your question, then, we have to ask which fungi you're referring to, because Fungi is a kingdom with nearly as much diversity as that in animals and plants, so it's impossible to lump them all together.
I am talking mainly of mushrooms everybody can see in forest walking there - most famous - violet (as your mentioned Russula, Russula fragilis), - brown (Boletus reticulatus) - red (Amanita muscaria) - tigred (Amanita pantherina) - green (Russula virescens) - yellow (Cantharellus friesii) etc.
For example, many coral fungi (Ramaria) produce bad-tasting chemicals that, as a side effect of their presence, can result in colors ranging from brown to purple to scarlet.
It's another explanation - color as a side effect of development. No doubt there are chemicals responsible for coloration (pigments etc) but it should be shown that such pigments have also other role than "self-representation" of the given mushrooms. Otherwise its occurence is unexplainable via darwinism. (Adolf Portmann once - on my opinion very succesfull - criticed darwinistic view that geometrical figures on the skin of snakes are side effect of the snakes developmental proccess).
btw. I like most Macrolepiota procera prepared as schitzell or fillets. I have heard that in USA and Canada people don't go to forest to pick up mushrooms and don't eat them. Yet allegedly some people from here picked them in Canada for living and sell them to retaurants. So maybe good idea how to earn some extra money next to scientific research of mushrooms outdoors. I am on the other side - I use to go to forest to make delicious food from them.
Coloration is still an outcome of several selective pressures, just not one particular pressure.
You suppose colororation to be outcome of selective pressures. It's your starting point in consideration of whatever color you investgate. No wonder you find always some "selective pressure" be it this one:
Many of the colors we see in mushrooms are a reaction to that pressure; being brightly colored to white reflects light, preventing the fruiting bodies from drying out and/or spores from being damaged by radiation.
And many of them are not - on the same place we observe fruiting bodies (hats) of all colors - even brown, dark and some mushrooms are even black.
Remember, when you're looking at a mushroom, you're only looking at a very small part of the overall organism, much like a flower on a plant. The rest of the organism is in the substrate, and without microscopic and/or genetic examination or other specific tests, you can't tell one mycelium from another except by inducing fruiting.
But that's the most interesting part of the self-representation of the fungus body. Coloration - that's what should be most subjected to selective pressure according darwinism (supposing vision-oriented eaters of immobile mushrooms).
We see a trait expressed in a particular organ facing a particular pressure that isn't expressed in the rest of the organism — a very good sign of a response to selective pressure, in fact. What you're doing here would be analogous to stating that humans face no selective pressure to be able to metabolize dietary sugar because we don't produce insulin in our skin.
That's the problem of all coloration. There is no meaning to create color patterns inside abdomen - nobody can enjoy it. I suppose color is here, because organism in many cases want to express something. Something what has nothing to do with selection. My personal opinion is that living organism sometime can preserve coloration that has disadvantage to its survival.
I don't care for your "analogous" which are out off topic. I have already had discussion here on mimicry. There we also see many very different colored butterflies on the same meadow - and some of them are even mimics. It's like with mushrooms. There are many colors of palatable/unpalatable/poisonos mushrooms on the same place and I personally do not see your explanation sufficient to explain the breadth of the phenomenon. I see it's your common darwinistic conviction that behind colors are only selective pressures.
For example, Cantharellus, Boletus and Amanita are in an entirely different orders! Again, we'd still have to ask "Which fungi?" The three have very significant physiological differences and slightly different solutions to environmental pressures, including predation
I am still talking about colors. I don't see what's your point. Carnivora also predate mammals from different mammalian orders and what? It means that I should consider color of hare as something different from color of deer or wild-pig? What should count is environment according darwinism. I other case we are on the same ship and you might agree with me that coloration is aspect of phyla or species that is unrelated to environment and selective advantage/disatvantage. It would mean that mushroom from one order can have totally different color from mushroom from other order and yet they can coexist in the same area having the same vision-oriented eaters.
I gave you at least one in my previous reply (being unpalatable), and now a second one (protection from solar radiation).
Anyway it's not much but far more better as other darwinistic atempts here (especially Alan Fox who applicated ad hoc darwinistc rule of thumb - aposematism as explanation of colors of poisonous mushrooms).
...note that macrofungi that produce fruiting bodies below ground (e.g., Gasteromycetes) never produce colorful fruiting bodies, because they face neither pressures from solar radiation nor from predators;...
So why is carrot red? If it is due carotene I have another example - something that is white inside and red outside - radish. I have spread Goethian-Portmann's ideas of independence of evolution of colors at Pharyngula. You can refute my (and not only my) ideas of coloration of mushrooms there too on Myers pages - if he didn't deleted them (I am banned there as Martin (under pretext me to be evolutionary antidarwinist John Davison, you know, hehe):
Goethe's conception of color perception seems to be proved from 1980. We (humans) are able to see color that is no way present in spectrum entering into our eyes at all.
There are also scientists (Frankfurter school of structuralism) who claimed that animals are unable to see mimicry.
The problem of coloration seems to be very difficult one and cannot be reduced to "natural selection". Anyway I am still somehow influenced by your idea that different orders of mushromms have different colors. That is something I can somehow agree with wholeheartedly. Do you know some mushrooms from different orders (let say) that looks very similar? Such an example of mimicry (especially of palatable mushrooms which look like poisonous ones. Or poisonous that looks like another poisonous ones? ) would plays into darwinistic concept of Batesian (Mullerian) mimicry very well I dare say.
In fact, there's now a yellow variant of Pleurotus ostreatus that didn't exist a scant 50 years ago. It still lives in the same habitat as white Pleurotus, but it appears to be less susceptible to infestation by certain flies which are a major problem for its white counterpart.
How do you know that it didn't exist? Weren't genes for it present there at all? Is it really new "mutation", do you have some research supporting your claim?
I deleted all my cookies in order to get access at Pharyngula - I am banned there you know. There is an interesting thread on coloration of animals. Deleting cookies helped. Oddly enough PZ Myers has responded to my post - yet he knew very well who I am. He deleted the same post of mine (as VMartin) repeatedly and force me to use another name.
But I forgot password to EvC and you had sent me this name and password - so I have used it now as newbie. If you send me password to MartinV I will use it again.
Also bred that way. You might be interested to know that Japanese radishes are completely white.
I know very well white radish. We eat them as well es we eat red ones. But your answer as usually doesn't explain coloration neither of them (by breeding you donn't create new allele).
Till today have darwinists presented these "theories" of white coloration of animal kingdom here:
1) selective advantage of polar bear 2) protection from heating of mushrooms. 3) we dont need to explain white color of swans because we know also black swans (and this seems to me the most curious explanation indeed. It looks like darwinists possess some secret teaching - "oh there are black swans on southern hemisfere? That explain very well why swans on northern hemesfere are white!) 4) white color as side effect of development.
Michael claimed that there is no need for color for underground species so I have put forward red radish. Of cours we know also white radish and also spicy white horseradish, garlic, leeks which are somehow white too. I don't know whats the neo-darwinian explanation of the white color of them, becuase I do not see any vision oriented predators and protection from heating. So there will remain - I guess - for neodarwinists only some mysterious and unproven "pigmentation as a secondary effect". Something that is much more closed to "internal forces", conception that are darwinists afraid of.