Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Instinct - evolved or better answer?
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 61 of 73 (402075)
05-24-2007 3:18 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by MartinV
05-23-2007 3:22 PM


Re: Goddists have no answer?
It would mean that that parasites possess some magic spell
Not really. It wouldn't be the first time parasites have been shown to influence behaviour of their hosts. Some parasitic worms cause the host to scratch themselves and spread the eggs around. Viruses can cause the host to sneeze, be afraid of water, the list goes on.
Now we laugh at such ideas. Yet an idea that complex of proteins that influence behaviour of caterpillars arose via random mutation of DNA parasites seems to be somehow perfect scientific explanation nowadays.
Given that the idea proposes mechanisms which we have observed, can understand, test and even manipulate....it's not so crazy. I don't know if this particular parasitic interaction has been the subject of molecular study so I can't tell you what the actual cause of the behavioural change is.
However, I can tell you - based on the pool of knowledge collected about other parasite/host interactions - what might be going on in this specific case. I'm using what I do know to draw some educated guesses about something I don't know about.
Reading some of the literature I find that these caterpillars eat toxic plants anyway. For example
quote:
We experimentally demonstrate that the value of enemy-reduced space supersedes that of food quality in determining the diet and host preference of the polyphagous woolly bear caterpillar Grammia geneura (Lepidoptera: Arctiidae). Caterpillars sacrificed superior growth efficiency in choosing a mixed diet that included toxic host plants and provided resistance against parasitoids. The resistance of individual caterpillars was associated with the relative amount of defensive plants eaten as well as with the sequestration of pyrrolizidine alkaloids from one such plant (Senecio longilobus).
I see you have yet to draw upon the body of knowledge to explain how PEH might explain the phenomenon.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by MartinV, posted 05-23-2007 3:22 PM MartinV has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 62 of 73 (402076)
05-24-2007 3:20 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by MartinV
05-23-2007 3:22 PM


Re: Goddists have no answer?
Ctrl-N->Submit Post leads to double posting. Naughty me.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by MartinV, posted 05-23-2007 3:22 PM MartinV has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 73 (402882)
05-30-2007 2:37 PM


bump for MartinV
Did you read Message 59?

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by MartinV, posted 06-01-2007 5:12 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5828 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 64 of 73 (403280)
06-01-2007 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by New Cat's Eye
05-30-2007 2:37 PM


Re: bump for MartinV
Yet other species of worms are sometimes infected too. They do not eat poisonous leaves to get rid of the parasites but neverthenless they thrive as well. Natural selection seems to be very fond of the other worm species.
Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.
Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-30-2007 2:37 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-05-2007 2:53 PM MartinV has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 73 (403865)
06-05-2007 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by MartinV
06-01-2007 5:12 PM


Re: bump for MartinV
Yet other species of worms are sometimes infected too. They do not eat poisonous leaves to get rid of the parasites but neverthenless they thrive as well.
Well, like you said, they are other species of worms! I'm sure all kinds of different things happen to them. What's your point?
Natural selection seems to be very fond of the other worm species.
So what?
What the hell are you typing about?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by MartinV, posted 06-01-2007 5:12 PM MartinV has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by MartinV, posted 06-09-2007 4:38 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5828 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 66 of 73 (404758)
06-09-2007 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by New Cat's Eye
06-05-2007 2:53 PM


Re: bump for MartinV
Well, like you said, they are other species of worms! I'm sure all kinds of different things happen to them. What's your point?
What do you mean by "different things happen to them"? Please let us know what "different things happen" to larvae of Pheosia tremula, Drymonia ruficornis, Panaxia dominula, Nymphalis polychloros, Nymphalis antiopia? What different things happen to butterflies of them that they have different coloration and patterns of wings?
Or better: If you want I can find you examples of different larvae eating the same plants and having not only different "look" but also different wing patterns of adult stage as butterflies.
You only suppose that behind each behaviour (like eating poisonous leaves) is random mutation and natural selection as source of it.
I suspect you that you even in blue spots on the wings margin of butterflies Nymphalis antiopa sees "natural selection".
What the hell are you typing about?
Calm down. Just some examples from the Nature where obviously darwinian mantras of "random mutation" and "natural selection" as source of the phenomena is funny enough to everyone.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-05-2007 2:53 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-09-2007 5:34 PM MartinV has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 67 of 73 (404766)
06-09-2007 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by MartinV
06-09-2007 4:38 PM


Re: bump for MartinV
Well, like you said, they are other species of worms! I'm sure all kinds of different things happen to them. What's your point?
What do you mean by "different things happen to them"?
things happen to them = phenotype
Here’s what I said in Message 59:
quote:
Random mutation in DNA caused that worms having such mutation and being infected to do various things, supposedly.
You only suppose that behind each behaviour (like eating poisonous leaves) is random mutation and natural selection as source of it.
I suppose, yes.
Here’s what you supposed in Message 59:
Random mutation in DNA caused that worms having such mutation and being infected start to seek and eat the given kind of plants. Am I right?
You make it seem like the mutation finds the need for the behavior. Actually, mutations are capable of causing all kinds of random phenotypes. The phenotypes that are not exhibiting the needed behavior die, leaving only the ones that are. Afterwards, it kinda looks like the mutation found the need. I can see why you’ve misunderstood and was trying to help. You even asked if you were right.
You're not totally wrong, because ultimately the mutation is responsible for the behavior, but like I said in Message 59:
quote:
You're kinda looking at it backwards, IMHO.
I suspect you that you even in blue spots on the wings margin of butterflies Nymphalis antiopa sees "natural selection".
Don’t tell me what I would think and then ridicule it, ass.
Please let us know what "different things happen" to larvae of Pheosia tremula, Drymonia ruficornis, Panaxia dominula, Nymphalis polychloros, Nymphalis antiopia?
I’m not familiar with those species but that doesn’t really matter for what I’m trying to say.
What different things happen to butterflies of them that they have different coloration and patterns of wings?
The inheritance of different genotypes causes different phenotypes.
Or better: If you want I can find you examples of different larvae eating the same plants and having not only different "look" but also different wing patterns of adult stage as butterflies.
If you think it will help, bring it on. I’m failing to see the relevance.
What the hell are you typing about?
Calm down. Just some examples from the Nature where obviously darwinian mantras of "random mutation" and "natural selection" as source of the phenomena is funny enough to everyone.
Its funny to you because you’ve misunderstood it or are 'looking at it backwards'.
You asked if you were right when I thought you weren't, and I’m just trying explain it.
Everyone else just kinda ignored you. With the condescending tone, and the irrelevant stuff, I can see why. You're kinda mean.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by MartinV, posted 06-09-2007 4:38 PM MartinV has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by RAZD, posted 06-09-2007 6:04 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 69 by MartinV, posted 06-09-2007 6:23 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 68 of 73 (404772)
06-09-2007 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by New Cat's Eye
06-09-2007 5:34 PM


Re: bump for MartinV
Everyone else just kinda ignored you. With the condescending tone, and the irrelevant stuff, I can see why. You're kinda mean.
Don't lose you cool. MartinV is - if nothing else - extremely obtuse when it comes to logic and evidence. Stubborn willfull ignorance is like that. The fact that he is still making the same arguments as the first day he posted here should be a clue.
Message 69
In case of butterflies and mushrooms there is no sexual selection responsible for coloration (in the second case it is obvious - in the first case: butterflies do not have generally good vision).
Case in point.
Edited by RAZD, : added example.
Edited by RAZD, : format

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-09-2007 5:34 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5828 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 69 of 73 (404778)
06-09-2007 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by New Cat's Eye
06-09-2007 5:34 PM


Re: bump for MartinV
Don’t tell me what I would think and then ridicule it, ass.
You have to think so - tertium non datur. In case of butterflies and mushrooms there is no sexual selection responsible for coloration (in the second case it is obvious - in the first case: butterflies do not have generally good vision). So if a darwinist cannot obscure the problem with "sexual selection" I can tell pretty well what a darwinian explanation is, ass.
I’m not familiar with those species but that doesn’t really matter for what I’m trying to say.
It matters. You obviously don't want to see examples that contradict you darwinian explanation. The problem is this one: if natural selection is so strong that it modifies behaviour/coloring of a species how is it possible that on the same area and at the same time coexist many similar species (larvae or butterfiles) with different behaviour and different color patterns and yet obviously with the same set of predators?
One species of larvae eat poisonous leaves to get rid of parasites and many others kind of larvae do not eat such leaves, do have parasites, died and yet thrive as well.
Go to meadow and see butterflies - there are some colorfull with eye spots on wings, some species are blue and other species are white. They fly and seat on the same places. Some species even mimic wasps or bees. Yet all these species coexist and thrive. Do you see there any "natural selection" in action?
Its funny to you because you’ve misunderstood it or are 'looking at it backwards'.
I can assure you that it is funny to some experts too, or at least weird - I quoted them elsewhere.
Afterwards, it kinda looks like the mutation found the need. I can see why you’ve misunderstood and was trying to help. You even asked if you were right.
Random mutation has nothing to do with evolution. All mutations we observe destroy genetic information. All genetic human diseases are good examples. That sequence of "benign" random mutation can ad hoc create new phenotype is a darwinian fancy never observed and never proved experimantally.
Everyone else just kinda ignored you. With the condescending tone, and the irrelevant stuff, I can see why. You're kinda mean.
Yeah, irrelevant stuff... No darwinian explanation: consequently stuff is irrelevant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-09-2007 5:34 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by molbiogirl, posted 06-09-2007 9:39 PM MartinV has not replied
 Message 71 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-13-2007 5:42 PM MartinV has replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 70 of 73 (404808)
06-09-2007 9:39 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by MartinV
06-09-2007 6:23 PM


Re: bump for MartinV
Random mutation has nothing to do with evolution. All mutations we observe destroy genetic information.
We're back here again?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by MartinV, posted 06-09-2007 6:23 PM MartinV has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 71 of 73 (405566)
06-13-2007 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by MartinV
06-09-2007 6:23 PM


Re: bump for MartinV
You have to think so - tertium non datur.
No, I don't have to think anything.
So if a darwinist cannot obscure the problem with "sexual selection" I can tell pretty well what a darwinian explanation is, ass.
You're acting like an ass because you're labelling me as a darwinist, whatever that is, and then telling me that I must think like other darwinists.
Even a Creationist could explain to you your misunderstanding of the Theory of Evolution. Would you tell them that they must think those things too?
I’m not familiar with those species but that doesn’t really matter for what I’m trying to say.
It matters.
It doesn't matter because all I'm trying to do is explain to you your misunderstandings on what the Theory of Evolution says. It doesn't matter if the Theory is correct or not to show that you're misunderstanding the theory (be it true or false).
how is it possible that on the same area and at the same time coexist many similar species (larvae or butterfiles) with different behaviour and different color patterns and yet obviously with the same set of predators?
They have different genotypes.
Do you see there any "natural selection" in action?
Its not always easy to "see" the natural selection. I'm sure it gets pretty complicated.
Its funny to you because you’ve misunderstood it or are 'looking at it backwards'.
I can assure you that it is funny to some experts too, or at least weird - I quoted them elsewhere
Fuck your experts, I'm typing to you.
Random mutation has nothing to do with evolution.
But we are typing about your misunderstanding of the Theory of Evolution, of which, random mutation has very much to do with.
All mutations we observe destroy genetic information.
But that is just false.
I don't even want to get into it with you. You seem to have a motive against the ToE and I doubt you would even listen. Besides, I've seen your posts before and "you aint havin any of it".
What is your motive against the ToE and why do you have it?
Are you a creationist? An IDist? What's your problem with it?
No darwinian explanation: consequently stuff is irrelevant.
Bullshit. You just wish that was true so you can maintain your motive. That's intellectually dishonest.
You want to not accept the ToE. Why is that?
And why refer to it as darwinian? Hasn't the theory changed since him?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by MartinV, posted 06-09-2007 6:23 PM MartinV has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by MartinV, posted 06-13-2007 6:07 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5828 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 72 of 73 (405572)
06-13-2007 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by New Cat's Eye
06-13-2007 5:42 PM


Re: bump for MartinV
It doesn't matter if the Theory is correct or not to show that you're misunderstanding the theory (be it true or false).
I wasted a lot of time with marxism many years ago. They also pointed out that all the others had misunderstood marxism. You know they have the omnipotent law of the unity of opposites and the struggle between them. Darwinists have random mutation and natural selection as the core of mechanism of evolution from a common ancestor. They refined the hypothesis with mendelism, sexual selection, neutral drift, neutral draft, mutation bias, molecular drive, with evolutionary constraints and now people like you think that they possess some kind of esoteric teaching.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-13-2007 5:42 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-13-2007 6:19 PM MartinV has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 73 of 73 (405574)
06-13-2007 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by MartinV
06-13-2007 6:07 PM


Re: bump for MartinV
What does your reply have anything to do with the majority of my post?
now people like you think that they possess some kind of esoteric teaching.
If it is so esoteric then how do people like me understand it?
You only misunderstand it because you have some kind of problem with it before you even begin to try and understand it. Your an opponent before you start reading, it seems. Why is that?
They refined the hypothesis with mendelism, sexual selection, neutral drift, neutral draft, mutation bias, molecular drive, with evolutionary constraints
Its good that the theory is refined. That shows that we are learning more and being intellectually HONEST.
At least you've finally seemed to admit that you might have misunderstood the theory. Even if you still had to do it with insults to darwinists.
I wasted a lot of time with marxism many years ago.
Fucking MARXISM!!, man you've got a hell of a curveball.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by MartinV, posted 06-13-2007 6:07 PM MartinV has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024