Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-18-2019 10:35 AM
35 online now:
Diomedes, Hyroglyphx, jar, Percy (Admin), Tanypteryx, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (6 members, 29 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,004 Year: 9,040/19,786 Month: 1,462/2,119 Week: 222/576 Day: 25/98 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
45
6
78
...
17NextFF
Author Topic:   Mimicry: Please help me understand how
MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3993 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 76 of 241 (423835)
09-24-2007 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Shtop
09-20-2007 5:10 PM


Re: Mimicry

A predator sees creature A and creature B. He notices the similarity of creature A to creature C, which he knows will make him sick, so he eats creature B instead. Creature A has survived because he resembles creature C.

You suppose creature C to be poisonous or unpalatable. You should prove it first. There is no better evidence than contents of stomach of free living birds. But such information do not prove darwinian claim that birds avoid eating "unpalatable" aposematics (wasps, ladybirds).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Shtop, posted 09-20-2007 5:10 PM Shtop has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Shtop, posted 09-25-2007 8:42 AM MartinV has responded

  
Shtop
Junior Member (Idle past 490 days)
Posts: 30
Joined: 07-19-2007


Message 77 of 241 (424021)
09-25-2007 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by MartinV
09-24-2007 2:24 PM


Re: Mimicry
A predator sees creature A and creature B. He notices the similarity of creature A to creature C, which he knows will make him sick, so he eats creature B instead. Creature A has survived because he resembles creature C.

You suppose creature C to be poisonous or unpalatable. You should prove it first.

I clearly stated in point 4: the predator knows, by instinct or experience, that eating creature C will make him sick. Isn't that proof? Try again.

There is no better evidence than contents of stomach of free living birds. But such information do not prove darwinian claim that birds avoid eating "unpalatable" aposematics (wasps, ladybirds).

If you find an "unpalatable" aposematic (or a mimic) in a birds stomach, you have found proof that aposematism (or mimicry) does not provide immunity to predators. But, as was said over and over again, this is not what darwinists claim.

No matter how many birds stomach contents you study, you will never find the remains of all the creatures the bird didn't eat. And the bird didn't eat these creatures because:
a. He didn't spot them because they looked like a leaf or a twig or some bird poo;
b. He decided not to eat them because he remembered eating one before and it made him sick;
c. He mistakenly identified them as a creature that he remembered eating before and it made him sick.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by MartinV, posted 09-24-2007 2:24 PM MartinV has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by MartinV, posted 09-25-2007 3:24 PM Shtop has not yet responded

    
MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3993 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 78 of 241 (424099)
09-25-2007 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Shtop
09-25-2007 8:42 AM


Re: Mimicry

I clearly stated in point 4: the predator knows, by instinct or experience, that eating creature C will make him sick. Isn't that proof? Try again.

But predators obviously do not know what you would like them to know.I have already called your attention to ladybirds or wasps. They are aposematics - at least in darwinian heads. You suppose that predators know that they are "unpalatable" and after eating them they will got "sick". But this "unpalatability" and "got sick" occurs only in theory. Insectivores eat them readily and feel no problem. The facts contradict to any pressupositions about "aposematism". Wasps and ladybirds are readily eaten, as the contents of stomachs of many species of birds clearly show up.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Shtop, posted 09-25-2007 8:42 AM Shtop has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Wounded King, posted 09-25-2007 5:20 PM MartinV has responded

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2259 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 79 of 241 (424119)
09-25-2007 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by MartinV
09-25-2007 3:24 PM


Re: Mimicry
How many times does the same point have to be made before you get it. The 'unpalatability' does not need to extend to every potential predator of the organism in order for it to represent a selective advantage. Half a dozen* people seem to have pointed this out already.

TTFN,

WK

*This statement may have employed some hyperbole.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by MartinV, posted 09-25-2007 3:24 PM MartinV has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by MartinV, posted 09-26-2007 12:24 AM Wounded King has not yet responded

    
MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3993 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 80 of 241 (424172)
09-26-2007 12:24 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by Wounded King
09-25-2007 5:20 PM


Re: Mimicry
You are obviously missing the main point. "Unpalatability" is a concept conceived in selectionists heads to support their explanation of aposematism. No such phenomenon as unpalatability of wasps or ladybirds exists in reality (what's more there are predators specialised to mentioned insects).

To extend human perceived unpalatability of wasps/ladybirds to other animal species is utterly unscientific. It's pure anthropomorphism.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Wounded King, posted 09-25-2007 5:20 PM Wounded King has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Nuggin, posted 09-26-2007 2:07 AM MartinV has responded
 Message 82 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-26-2007 5:03 AM MartinV has responded
 Message 93 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-05-2007 3:57 PM MartinV has not yet responded

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 657 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 81 of 241 (424179)
09-26-2007 2:07 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by MartinV
09-26-2007 12:24 AM


Re: Mimicry
No such phenomenon as unpalatability of wasps or ladybirds exists in reality

So, is your hypothesis that animals don't have the ability to taste? Or that they are incapable of distinguishing between different tastes? Or that they can taste, but they treat all tastes equally?

Your talking and talking and talking and saying nothing. Make a statement which you can back up in fact.

Show me that my dog spits out liver for some reason other than taste.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by MartinV, posted 09-26-2007 12:24 AM MartinV has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by MartinV, posted 09-26-2007 1:41 PM Nuggin has responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16096
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 82 of 241 (424189)
09-26-2007 5:03 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by MartinV
09-26-2007 12:24 AM


Re: Mimicry
You are obviously missing the main point. "Unpalatability" is a concept conceived in selectionists heads to support their explanation of aposematism. No such phenomenon as unpalatability of wasps or ladybirds exists in reality ...

Uh, yes it does.

Pyrazine is indeed unpalatable to birds, and pyrazine odour makes visually conspicuous prey aversive.

That's pyrazine, as in ladybirds.

As for wasps, in reality, they really do sting. They really do. This is kindergarten stuff.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by MartinV, posted 09-26-2007 12:24 AM MartinV has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by MartinV, posted 09-26-2007 2:06 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3993 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 83 of 241 (424304)
09-26-2007 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Nuggin
09-26-2007 2:07 AM


Re: Mimicry

Show me that my dog spits out liver for some reason other than taste.

That's interesting. My dog eats meat that smells me and that I appraise as unpalatable. Obviously my dog hasn't read armchair treatises about unpalatability yet. German shepards often snaps wasps too. Obviously they haven't read armchair treatises about aposematism.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Nuggin, posted 09-26-2007 2:07 AM Nuggin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Nuggin, posted 09-26-2007 1:46 PM MartinV has not yet responded

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 657 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 84 of 241 (424305)
09-26-2007 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by MartinV
09-26-2007 1:41 PM


Re: Mimicry
I accept your apology.

Further, the fact that your dog eats "meat that smells me" is a bit of a nonseq but we've come to expect nothing less from you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by MartinV, posted 09-26-2007 1:41 PM MartinV has not yet responded

    
MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3993 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 85 of 241 (424310)
09-26-2007 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Dr Adequate
09-26-2007 5:03 AM


Re: Mimicry

Uh, yes it does.

Pyrazine is indeed unpalatable to birds, and pyrazine odour makes visually conspicuous prey aversive.

That's pyrazine, as in ladybirds.

Yes, I like these "experiments" done by neodarwinists. These "experiments" always support armchair preconceptions of warning coloration, but somehow predators in free do not read about such experiments or what - they eat ladybirds and wasps the same as they eat other insects.


As for wasps, in reality, they really do sting. They really do. This is kindergarten stuff.

Maybe they sting sometimes children in kindergarten. But it is only armchair preconception that the same occurs in free. I have given you already link to neodarwinian article about mimicry&aposematism. Why didn't you read it and why you continue spread your ignorant ideas instead?

Facts are these:

quote:

From these studies it seems clear that although having a dramatic effect when used, birds only rarely get stung by wasps, and therefore the sting cannot be the primary source of wasp noxiousness.

Darinists are obviously lost, because stings are inneficient (or "secondary source of noxiousness" in their newspeak). But darwinian fantasy is still efficient:

quote:

Mostler considered the unpalatability of the abdomen to be the major source of noxiousness for wasps, and the sting was only secondary: subsequently Liepelt (1963) found that venom-free abdominal tissue evoked none of the typical unpalatability reactions. It is the terrible taste that the venom imparts to the abdomen that is the main deterrent for birds.

Yet, be carefull now! :

quote:

The basis of the ‘noxiousness’ of a model need not be unpalatability or stings, despite the fact that most discussions about mimicry have focused upon these elements.

Bingo!

Or this one is a perfect experiment, unbelievable! :

quote:

In Brower & Brower’s (1965) experiments with toads feeding on honeybees and their Palpada mimics, for example, producing a buzz with the wings caused a 38% drop in predation, whereas the use of the sting caused only a 21% decrease in the mortality of the mimic. Thus sound seems to be a very important component of the signal that toads associate with noxiousness

So not stings, but buzz! Would you believe it? You would, you are a darwinist.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-26-2007 5:03 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by bluegenes, posted 09-26-2007 10:34 PM MartinV has responded
 Message 95 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-05-2007 4:06 PM MartinV has not yet responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 642 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 86 of 241 (424430)
09-26-2007 10:34 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by MartinV
09-26-2007 2:06 PM


Re: Mimicry
MartinV writes:

So not stings, but buzz! Would you believe it? You would, you are a darwinist.

What on earth makes you think that the toads associating the buzz with noxiousness is a problem for Darwinists?

What in the theory of evolution does this contradict?

How would a sting being a secondary source of noxiousness make Darwinists be "lost"?

Any advantageous characteristic would be selected for, both in the stinging organism and a mimic.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by MartinV, posted 09-26-2007 2:06 PM MartinV has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by MartinV, posted 09-27-2007 1:14 PM bluegenes has not yet responded

  
MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3993 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 87 of 241 (424563)
09-27-2007 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by bluegenes
09-26-2007 10:34 PM


Re: Mimicry
All of you are like broken records here. So again: stings play no role
in aposematism.

Again:

quote:

...birds only rarely get stung by wasps, and therefore the sting cannot be the primary source of wasp noxiousness.

Do not confuse armchair theories of aposematism with real facts please.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by bluegenes, posted 09-26-2007 10:34 PM bluegenes has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Modulous, posted 09-27-2007 2:18 PM MartinV has responded
 Message 92 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-05-2007 3:54 PM MartinV has responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 269 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 88 of 241 (424580)
09-27-2007 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by MartinV
09-27-2007 1:14 PM


stings and the taste of venom
All of you are like broken records here. So again: stings play no role

OK, stings play no role:

quote:
Only two of their birds were stung; the others avoided eating bumblebees only after having eaten the “middle segments of the abdomen”, presumably with the venom sac. In this case unpalatability may be due to distasteful venom

The reasons birds avoid eating bumblebees might be because they ate the venom, not because they get stung trying. It goes on to say

quote:
When tasted or eaten, honeybees induced the same unpalatability reactions as for wasps (see below), but these were more limited in degree, and appeared less frequently. Using mealworms smeared with abdominal tissues, Mostler showed that unpalatability was the main cause of the rejection response. As in the case of wasps, Liepelt (1963) demonstrated the bad taste of the abdomen derived from the venom. The removal of the entire sting apparatus including the venom sac rendered honeybees completely palatable, and all were eaten.

And about wasps:

quote:
It is the terrible taste that the venom imparts to the abdomen that is the main deterrent for birds.

The paper also states:

quote:
These established beyond doubt that the colour patterns of all the syrphids he used did give substantial protection from predation, and that the protective effect was proportional to mimetic similarity (Figs 1 & 2). Honeybees and their mimics were a less successful mimetic system than the wasp system, while the bumblebee system was the most successful of all. When mimics were offered soon after their models (within 50 mins) in the wasp mimicry system, the wasp mimics were strongly protected (Fig 2), fading with time, but this protection vanished when they were offered before models, and in fact the wasps suffered, since more wasps than normal were attacked.

Fascinating stuff.

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by MartinV, posted 09-27-2007 1:14 PM MartinV has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by MartinV, posted 09-27-2007 2:51 PM Modulous has responded

  
MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3993 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 89 of 241 (424587)
09-27-2007 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Modulous
09-27-2007 2:18 PM


Re: stings and the taste of venom
Modulous,

as an unbiased man you probably see the difference between birds in countryside and birds held in cages. Stressed birds or birds full of unnatural meal in cages, birds that are often feeded in the same time and consequently do not prey, such birds have different feeding patterns as in free. Do you agree?

The most important are experiments outdoors and from those are the most important studies of the content of stomachs of real birds.

These experiments was done by Biological Survey Division of United States Department of Agriculture. They wanted to estimate harmfulness of birds. These results are neglected by selectionists, because they show something selectionists do not like - wasp, bees are readily eaten by birds.

McAtee made statistics from these results and argue with Poulton about efecteveness of "warning coloration" of wasps, etc...

The same study was done in Hungary 1905-1910 by Csiki, who studied contents of stomachs of almost 2.800 birds. The result corresponds with those done in USA. Heikertinger quoted results in his book refuting selectionists explanation of mimicry.

---

quote:

Professor Beal on the Food of our More Important Flycatchers...
Of this hymenoptera-- bees, wasps, etc. constitute more than a
third and as these insects are for the most part beneficial, this element must be weighed against the destruction of noxious species, which Prof. Beal considers more than balances it....

http://elibrary.unm.edu/sora/Auk/v030n01/p0127-p0127.pdf

quote:

Food.--The 186 stomachs of the tufted titmouse examined by Professor Beal (Beal, McAtee, and Kalmbach, 1916) were irregularly distributed throughout the year and were considered by him too few "to afford more than an approximation of the bird's economic worth." ...
The food consisted of 66.57 percent animal matter and 33.43 percent vegetable. He says that the food "includes one item, caterpillars, which form more than half the animal food, and two items, caterpillars and wasps, which are more than half of the whole food."

http://home.bluemarble.net/~pqn/ch21-30/titmouse.html


This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Modulous, posted 09-27-2007 2:18 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Modulous, posted 09-27-2007 4:18 PM MartinV has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 269 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 90 of 241 (424598)
09-27-2007 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by MartinV
09-27-2007 2:51 PM


Re: stings and the taste of venom
as an unbiased man you probably see the difference between birds in countryside and birds held in cages. Stressed birds or birds full of unnatural meal in cages, birds that are often feeded in the same time and consequently do not prey, such birds have different feeding patterns as in free. Do you agree?

It is certainly feasible. I'd want to see studies that show the degree of difference before committing further. I'd also need to see the conditions the birds in the experiments mentioned were in to see if they would be subject to this phenomenon.

That said, it is still an important observation that some birds do have the ability to discriminate when it comes to noxious insects (ie., if they eat the non-noxious mimic first, they tend to also attack the noxious model but if they eat the noxious model first, they tend to avoid the mimic). It would be odd to think that birds developed this specific behaviour as a result of captivity stress.

The most important are experiments outdoors and from those are the most important studies of the content of stomachs of real birds.

They may be important. What they don't tell us, unfortunately, is whether birds learn to avoid certain prey over time (unless we tag them I guess - has that been done?).

These experiments was done by Biological Survey Division of United States Department of Agriculture. They wanted to estimate harmfulness of birds. These results are neglected by selectionists, because they show something selectionists do not like - wasp, bees are readily eaten by birds.

I've not seen them, so I couldn't say either way.

http://elibrary.unm.edu/sora/Auk/v030n01/p0127-p0127.pdf

All I see there that is conclusive is that some birds have a big impact on parasitic hymenoptera. They are the ones that don't have the yellow/black colouration hypothesized to be a warning. Perhaps you have more information on this paper?

http://home.bluemarble.net/~pqn/ch21-30/titmouse.html

Again, what species of wasp?

Another point of note, is that some birds have been known to discriminate between wasp gender - which is yet another thing to keep in mind. The thing is, it is difficult to falsify the hypothesis by looking at a small number of species.

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by MartinV, posted 09-27-2007 2:51 PM MartinV has not yet responded

  
Prev1
...
45
6
78
...
17NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019