Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 76 (8908 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-21-2019 8:52 AM
19 online now:
edge, JonF, PaulK, Pressie, Stile (5 members, 14 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WeloTemo
Post Volume:
Total: 851,671 Year: 6,708/19,786 Month: 1,249/1,581 Week: 71/393 Day: 4/50 Hour: 2/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
Author Topic:   Is evolution of mammals finished?
MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3965 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 184 of 213 (392465)
03-31-2007 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by crashfrog
03-31-2007 3:08 PM


Re: Colors (var. fancy)

Mutation creates new alleles; this is well-known. Artificial selection then amplifies the frequency of those alleles until a population that reliably breeds true for the trait can be created.

Have you any link that can prove your claim that red color of radish was created during its breeding?


You might have noticed that almost all roots are white in the plant kingdom, because they contain no chloroplasts. So what color would they be, besides white, which is the absence of color?

I am not sure that white is absence of color (I would say it's the combination of them. Absenece of color would mean absence of light - you should see nothing. But its complicated problem and might be your opinion is correct as to mechanism of perceiving colors.)

But root vegetables we are speaking of have many colors, not only white:

quote:

Root colour and size depend on the genus or species grown. Generally carrots are orange, red or gold in colour. Swedes and turnips tend to be cream, white and pale gold, swedes tending to have dark skins. Beetroot are generally dark red but also come in yellow and white, some with rings of colour.

http://www.thompson-morgan.com/factsheet/root-vegetables/

I will repeat it if you don't underestand me - such coloration have probably no selective advantage, because no one see it.

Question is if colors that is seen (mushrooms, butterflies) can be ad hoc explained away as outcome of natural selection of vision oriented predators.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by crashfrog, posted 03-31-2007 3:08 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by crashfrog, posted 03-31-2007 4:40 PM MartinV has responded

MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3965 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 186 of 213 (392531)
04-01-2007 4:15 AM
Reply to: Message 185 by crashfrog
03-31-2007 4:40 PM


Re: Colors (var. fancy)

Again, you're talking about plants that humans have bred to have certain characteristics, including colors.

Again let me ask as layman this question: we eat red strawberries and forest strawberries which are much more smaller are red too. I suppose we have bred strawberries. Yet the red color was present in material we started with.

Do you have on mind that red color of radish, carot etc was not present in material people started to breed?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by crashfrog, posted 03-31-2007 4:40 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by crashfrog, posted 04-01-2007 2:11 PM MartinV has not yet responded

MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3965 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 189 of 213 (393355)
04-04-2007 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by PaulK
03-02-2007 4:55 PM


Bats evolution
This is an older post from PaulK (106):


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.

Evolution of bats is something that haven't been considered here yet.
Evolution of bats brings in the same problem as evolution of whales does. In the same time when bats evolved scientists had placed adaptive radiation of birds. So we probably see two competitors in the same "empty niches" - predecessors of birds and bats. Yet oddly enough bats have to hurdle all stages of development - be it arboreal or other cursorial mechanism invented by darwinists.

Yet the first known predecessors of bats possess echolocators. Same is valid for whale predecessors (Pakicetus, Ambulocetus). So we have to consider the possibility that evolution of echolocators preceded mammalian evolution in air/sea. They might have appeared "in advance" anticipating future use in environment the mammal headed to. Such phenomenon is explainable by orthogenesis very well and is very hard to account for using darwinism.

Many nocturnal birds do not possess echolocators and thrive as well.
Anyway it's curious to imagine how bats had been fully developed and only after then they were dislodged by birds into caves. It's as curious as to presume that terrestrial predecessor of bats had inhabited caves first and every night they went out to leap trees to catch insetcs flying down and evolved in such a way themselves into bats.

In other case darwinists should give some plausible explanation how echolocators coevolved with abilities to fly and what was the selective pressure that maintained and supported such mechanism in animals that had been neither terrestrial nor bats yet.

Some interesting facts of animals that should be considered as links between terrestrial-air mammals transition are in this material - it's in Russian language anyway:

www.macroevolution.narod.ru/popov_bats.htm

Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.

Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.

Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by PaulK, posted 03-02-2007 4:55 PM PaulK has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by Chiroptera, posted 04-04-2007 3:54 PM MartinV has not yet responded

MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3965 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 191 of 213 (393508)
04-05-2007 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by Omnivorous
03-31-2007 12:29 AM


Re: Colors (var. fancy)
Omnivorous writes:


Still, it seemed absurd to read a human being deny the existence of visual predators of mushrooms other than squirrels--and in Europe, of all places!

Probably you wouldn't believe me (untill a darwinistic student of mycology would agree with it before) but I have it again from "high authority" from Cetral Europe: mushroom eaters are not only squirrels and deers but also hedgehogs and even turtles.

So darwinists have a strong argument for selective pressure (do not forget slugs!) on mushrooms coloration from vision oriented mushrooms eaters!

Maybe selective pressure from vision oriented mushroom-eaters is much more higher in tropical forests - and supporting thus darwinistic story of coloration. At least Gerald Durell was very surprised by coloration of mushrooms in forests in Argentina - from wein-red to black, from yellow to to gray having phantasticall forms...Durell calls places full of mushrooms there as "Mackbeth's wizard country".

We should take into consideration facts not mentioned by Mike O Risal - there are lot of mushrooms that parasites on insects. For instance Septobasidium or even "predaceos mushrooms" - hymofycets.

The color of hat of very delicious mushroom Boletus edulis vary from brown to black - depending on vision oriented predators too?

----

I have read about animals trained to find out fungi by smell - dogs and pigs looking for tuber melanosporum (truffle?) - used in Italy from 15 century as well as in France. If you ever heard about trained vision-oriented animal searching for mushrooms let me know.

Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.

Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.

Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Omnivorous, posted 03-31-2007 12:29 AM Omnivorous has not yet responded

MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3965 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 192 of 213 (394075)
04-09-2007 2:43 PM


Most poisonous mushrooms
To the most poisonous mushrooms belong Amanita phalloides -responsible for 95% of the fatalities. One cap have enough poison to kill three people.

Anyway genus Amamita show as amazing coloration as shows mushrooms as whole. We know green, red, yellow-brown,grey-violett Amanita etc.

Going into the forest forget first darwinistic rule of thumb, that red one should be poisonous (aposematic) and those with green-hat one should be edible (cryptic). The opposite is true - those with green hats are mentioned poisonous Amanita phalloides. Those with red hats are either Amanita regalis (using by shamans etc..) or the pink - Amanita rubescens - which is very tasty and considered by some people as the most tasty mushroom at all. But do not taste red Amanita muscaria.

So darwinistic explanation of reason of coloration in living kingdom should be considered as only armchair excersise - do not follow rather darwinistic fancy explanation as to coloration in Nature - it can cost you a life.


Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by Omnivorous, posted 04-12-2007 11:10 PM MartinV has responded

MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3965 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 195 of 213 (394466)
04-11-2007 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by Zucadragon
04-11-2007 5:09 AM


Re: hmmm
Try to explain coloration of mushrooms if you have an idea (yet check my posts on it before trying please).
See also my previous post on poisonous species of Amanita genus.


We put that color in because in some cases it may "look" tastier and in some cases they are used as decoration.

Sometimes "decoration" aroused naturally, without breeding.
"Decoration" is something that is very near to Goethian "Gestaltungen" or Portmanns "Selbstdartellung". So "decoration" as such has neither selective advantage nor any survival advantage. Something origin of wich is unexplainable by darwinistic "random mutation & natural selection".

Thats why they dare to explain complicated coloration on butterflies wings or changing colors of cephalophodes - no one can check their fabulation here (they use millions of years of selection in past). Yet obviously much more simple phenomenon as white color of swans or above mentioned coloration of mushrooms - darwinists are lost, they stand mute. Using natural selection as explanation here - sounds weird even for them.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Zucadragon, posted 04-11-2007 5:09 AM Zucadragon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by Zucadragon, posted 04-11-2007 5:21 PM MartinV has not yet responded

MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3965 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 201 of 213 (396669)
04-21-2007 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by Omnivorous
04-12-2007 11:10 PM


Re: Most poisonous mushrooms

So why do chameleonic abilities appear so often in nature?

We cannot infer from it that coloration of mushrooms has the same function as it have in chameleons.

The topic should have its own thread but I would like to summarize:

1) Mushrooms coloration has no cryptic/aposematic meaning either.

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.

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

2) Production of poison in mushrooms is also hardly explainable by darwinistic mantra of "survival advantage".

I have never heard about wild animals poisoned by mushroom (as student of mycology claimed here some times ago):

quote:

Wild animals eat fungi, yet mushroom poisonings in nature are unknown.

www.springerlink.com/content/t772216861025u66

Even if darwinists try to explain presence of poison in mushrooms
via classical darwinistic explanation I would like see following explaination

quote:

The opossum Didelphis virginiana readily consumed the toxic mushroom Amanita muscaria, became ill, and then developed an aversion to the fungus.

to Lethal webcaps where the first symptoms often occurs after 3 weeks!
I suppose that even if oppossum survive it will hardly remeber what kind of mushrooms ate it 3 weeks ago.

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

So the only explanation nowadays of coloration and poisonous quality of mushrooms that darwinists offer is some mysterious side effects. Strange, isn't it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Omnivorous, posted 04-12-2007 11:10 PM Omnivorous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by Wounded King, posted 04-21-2007 6:10 PM MartinV has responded
 Message 203 by Omnivorous, posted 04-21-2007 9:43 PM MartinV has not yet responded

MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3965 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 204 of 213 (396841)
04-22-2007 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by Wounded King
04-21-2007 6:10 PM


Re: Most poisonous mushrooms

A mushroom whose poison kills those that ingest it is clearly not going to be showing similar survival strategies to one which induces unpleasant illness and has associated psychotropic effects.

What I am trying to explain here is that mushrooms coloration (and now even their toxicity) has nothing to do with darwinistic "survival strategies". According darwinism if something is poisonous it should tend to show it up using bright coloration. That's why the research I mentioned above claims in its abstract:

quote:

One possibility is that poisons have evolved in some mushroom species to deter their consumption by would-be fungivores before spore dispersal. If this is so, then one might expect poisonous mushrooms to signal their unprofitability in some way.

As you can see their expectations contradicts your own opinion:


If your poision is strong enough to kill something that eats you (or even just part of you), it really doesn't matter if they remember what you look like.

Yet they confirmed what I stated from the beginning:

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.

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=13478541


Martin why say something and then put up a link which shows how radically you are spinning it. The Wiki article says 'symptoms usually don't appear until 2-3 days after ingestion' but can 'in some cases' take as long as 3 weeks. Can you see how simply saying 'often occurs after 3 weeks' is a complete twisting of this?

I have given the link because there is general data about the mushroom. If you like scientific link supporting my claim more precisely:

quote:

Case Report: A 46-year-old man was admitted with nausea, vomiting and acute anuria 9 days after he had eaten Cortinarius speciocissimus.

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=17431991

or guy twisting facts like me:

quote:

Unfortunately, instead of excreting the toxin in the urine, the kidneys return the poison to the blood, enduring an unnoticeably small amount of damage that doesn't manifest itself for several weeks, when kidney failure ensues!

http://www.econetwork.net/~wildmansteve/Mushrooms.Folder/Cortinarius.html

Again - I do not see any darwinistic "survival strategy" of poison that take effect after so many days that animal cannot remember what could be the source of its nuisance. Of course I have to admit I am not sure if animals react to orellanine the same way as men do.

Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Wounded King, posted 04-21-2007 6:10 PM Wounded King has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by Wounded King, posted 04-22-2007 6:25 PM MartinV has not yet responded
 Message 206 by Cthulhu, posted 04-27-2007 4:48 PM MartinV has responded

MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3965 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 207 of 213 (397770)
04-27-2007 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by Cthulhu
04-27-2007 4:48 PM


Re: Most poisonous mushrooms

Now, since mushrooms don't die if they get part of their body eaten, displaying their toxicity is not a survival advantage.

Are you sure that only PART of body of mushroom is eaten by wild animals? Maybe they are eaten as whole and all mushrooms under a tree is eaten as well. Anyway there is - as far as I know and as I cited a research in my previous post - not known case of poisoned wild animals due eating mushrooms.


If anything, it'd be a slight disadvantage, since producing the pigments requires energy.

One of the most poisonous mushroom Amanita phalloides has its cap mostly green. The color could be - I dare say - in grass and forest perceived as cryptic. Poison take effect after many hours and not instantly. Any darwinstic explanation of "survival advantage"?
- consider the fact that most mushorooms are eatable, tasty and yet have often more conspicuos coloration (they "wanted" to be eaten and A. phalloides don't?).

Edited by MartinV, : "poisoned wild animals" instead of "poisoned animals". There are cases of poisoned pets.

Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.

Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Cthulhu, posted 04-27-2007 4:48 PM Cthulhu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by Cthulhu, posted 04-27-2007 5:22 PM MartinV has responded

MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3965 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 209 of 213 (397781)
04-27-2007 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by Cthulhu
04-27-2007 5:22 PM


Re: Most poisonous mushrooms

Is it claiming that no wild animal has ever been killed by a poisonous mushroom? Because that's bullshit.

quote:

Wild animals eat fungi, yet mushroom poisonings in nature are unknown

www.springerlink.com/content/t772216861025u66


If it is eaten, the fungus will likely survive.

Fungus will survive if its mushrooms (its reproductive organs so to say) is eaten or not.

(Might be my grasp of english is not good enough - and mushroom and fungus is the same word? How we than call the part of fungus that is in the earth and have symbiotic relationship with the tree roots?)

Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Cthulhu, posted 04-27-2007 5:22 PM Cthulhu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by Wounded King, posted 04-27-2007 5:49 PM MartinV has responded
 Message 212 by Cthulhu, posted 04-27-2007 7:50 PM MartinV has not yet responded

MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3965 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 211 of 213 (397791)
04-27-2007 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by Wounded King
04-27-2007 5:49 PM


Re: Most poisonous mushrooms
You are right of course, thank you. I am discussing here only mushrooms as " fruiting body" which are visible. If there is any other term I will use it instead of "mushroom" or "fungus". The problem is btw. very similar in common use in unscientific Slovak/Czech language -"huba" for "fruiting body" as well as for "fungus".

Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Wounded King, posted 04-27-2007 5:49 PM Wounded King has not yet responded

Prev1234
5
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019