Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Mimicry: Please help me understand how
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 95 of 241 (426193)
10-05-2007 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by MartinV
09-26-2007 2:06 PM


Re: Mimicry
Yes, I like these "experiments" done by neodarwinists. These "experiments" always support armchair preconceptions of warning coloration.
The fact that experiments invariably confirm the theory doesn't strike you as proof of the theory?
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?
Having seen what you've mistaken for knowledge, I am not surprised that you dismiss the fact that wasps have stings as an "ignorant idea".
Darinists are obviously lost, because stings are inneficient (or "secondary source of noxiousness" in their newspeak). But darwinian fantasy is still efficient:
Was that phrase intended to have content?
Or this one is a perfect experiment, unbelievable!
Are you claiming that the researchers are lying, or what?
I suppose that's one way of dodging the results of every experiment and observation that proves you utterly wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by MartinV, posted 09-26-2007 2:06 PM MartinV has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 97 of 241 (426209)
10-05-2007 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by MartinV
10-05-2007 4:06 PM


Re: Mimicry
Facts are different as your presuppositions.
No they are not. Wasps have stings.
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.
As i pointed out in the post that you're attempting to respond to, wasps have other natural enemies besides birds.
Stings are ineffective, or in darwinian newspeak "only secondary".
The word "secondary" does not mean "ineffective", and you are not going to deceive anyone by pretending it does.
It is size, no darwinian "warning coloration" that deter predators.
Not all predators are dragonflies.
Many experiments and observations show that warning coloration deters predators.
Whom do you hope to fool?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by MartinV, posted 10-05-2007 4:06 PM MartinV has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 100 of 241 (426348)
10-06-2007 7:31 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by MartinV
10-05-2007 9:54 PM


Re: Wasps and their "mimics"
I don't see what "available data" about syrphids the autor wanted to summarize.
I believe you'll find that the data he wanted to summarize is the data he did in fact summarize.
I am afraid he summarized only preconceptions and not field-based data.
But we can all read the article and see that you are not telling the truth. He cites field-based data. People can see that you're not telling the truth without even reading the article, since you conveniently quoted one of the instances in which he did so.
I really don't understand whom you hope to fool.
Field-based data shows (Csiki, McAtee, see my above posts)clearly that stomachs of many different birds contain wasps.
Which is true, but does not support your delusions about the value of aposematism and mimicry.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by MartinV, posted 10-05-2007 9:54 PM MartinV has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 101 of 241 (426352)
10-06-2007 7:45 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by MartinV
10-05-2007 4:06 PM


Re: Mimicry
It is size, no darwinian "warning coloration" that deter predators.
Field-based observations, including inspection of stomach contents, show that predators eat insects of varying sizes --- big ones, small ones, medium ones.
I wonder if you would like to apply your reasoning, and I use the term loosely, to this fact? No? OK.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by MartinV, posted 10-05-2007 4:06 PM MartinV has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 111 of 241 (429188)
10-18-2007 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by garyl43
10-18-2007 6:37 PM


Hi, welcome to the forums.
You seem to be under the impression that evolution is something achieved by organisms by an effort of will.
It is not.
A simplified version of the theory of evolution would be "random mutation and natural selection". There is more to it than that, but start there. Your local library will have a book on the subject suitable for beginners. Do have a look, it's fascinating.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by garyl43, posted 10-18-2007 6:37 PM garyl43 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by garyl43, posted 10-18-2007 7:08 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 113 of 241 (429195)
10-18-2007 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by garyl43
10-18-2007 7:08 PM


No, I completely understand natural selection.
So when you asked "How does a plant know ...", et cetera, you were just pretending to be ignorant?
How did the orchid survive before it had the perfect mechanism to match this specific wasp? Any incremental change would render it useless, If it didn't have the pheromones? wouldn't work. No adhesive on the pollen? wouldn't work etc.. In order for it to reproduce it had to have all this right the first time or it would have simply died out.
I might have a crack at answering those questions, but first I want your assurance that you are genuinely an ignoramus, rather than just pretending to be one for rhetorical effect.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by garyl43, posted 10-18-2007 7:08 PM garyl43 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-19-2007 12:37 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 119 of 241 (429206)
10-18-2007 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by garyl43
10-18-2007 7:55 PM


That's one of my points Modulous. There is no need for this kind of complexity.
Yeah, God really screwed up there, didn't he?
Of all the funny creationist arguments, I think the Argument From Undesign has to be my fave.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by garyl43, posted 10-18-2007 7:55 PM garyl43 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 122 of 241 (429284)
10-19-2007 12:37 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by Dr Adequate
10-18-2007 7:48 PM


I don't think there's any point in answering this guy until he comes clean and admits that he does know some science, and specifies which bits of science he relly doesn't understand.
We know that to some extent his pretended ignorance is feigned and deceitful, so let's wait 'til he answers my question and tells us how ignorant he really is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-18-2007 7:48 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by garyl43, posted 10-19-2007 3:11 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 125 of 241 (429453)
10-19-2007 10:52 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by garyl43
10-19-2007 3:11 PM


But as I have said, before I can be bothered to answer you, I need your assurance that you are genuinely stupid. 'Cos you've lied to me about this once already.
If you will say, plainly and frankly, that you really are too dumb to answer this question, then I will answer it for you.
If you're just pretending to be stupid, as you admit that you've done in the past, then why should I play your stupid games?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by garyl43, posted 10-19-2007 3:11 PM garyl43 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 153 of 241 (434581)
11-16-2007 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by MartinV
11-16-2007 2:31 AM


The problem of aposematism doesn't rest on the bird's memory. You alwasy pick up some lateral argument and focus your attention to it. I have given you link that chemical senses of birds are poor.
Sheesh.
Trying to educate MartinV is like pouring water into a sieve.
Yes, their chemical senses are "poor". This does not prevent them from learning to avoid unpalatable foodstuffs, as we know from multiple experiments.
But there are also mammals that eat wasps so that "terrrible taste" wouldn't be so terrible as darwinists would like us to believe.
And there are also mammals that don't.
Go eat a wasp, MartinV, and tell us how yummy it was.
No?
You should better focus yourself to the "selective pressure" that led to the change of ovipositors into stings when stings do not - at least in the cases of birds - do not offer any significant protection.
Birds are not the sole potential predators of wasps, anything that likes calories and protein, i.e. any animal, might happily crunch them up --- if it wasn't for the stings and the unpalatability, next question.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by MartinV, posted 11-16-2007 2:31 AM MartinV has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 154 of 241 (434582)
11-16-2007 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by MartinV
11-15-2007 2:43 PM


Our article stated about wasps that "It is the terrible taste that the venom imparts to the abdomen that is the main deterrent for birds." It is weird how birds are extraordinary taste-sensitive in these neodarwinian experiments. I suppose that such sensiteveness to "terrible taste" is some kind of speciality of researches proving aposematism.
You find it "weird" that all the experiments in this field prove you wrong?
I find it utterly inevitable.
Because in cases where "natural selection" is not the issue of the research the experiments show something different and birds are more relaxed:
quote:
One of the first experiments we did with taste some years ago was with pheasants, at Cornell. We sprayed prospective repellant on the feed in troughs. The birds would come over to the feeders and take one mouthful offered; since birds are not very bright they would shift their heads and take another mouthful. Then they would start wiping their beaks and move away from the feed. But a few birds enjoyed the fact that there was no competition at the feeder troughs and continued eating. It is obvious that the minority experienced a taste sensation different from that of the majority, in this case failing to perceive the offensive chemical.
Prospective repellant, MartinV. They had something which they hoped would repel birds. It didn't repel all birds. What the heck you think this has to do with aposematism, I have no idea. This repellent was not produced by natural selection, was it? It wasn't a chemical secreted by an aposematic creature was it? As you yourself admit, natural selection is not the issue in this experiment. It's got damn-all to do with anything you're babbling about, has it?
quote:
Generally, if you offer a bird two food choices, and you add a
chemical to one that is so offensive to them that they will not take any of it in a choice situation, and then give them no choice but the flavored food, food intake will be normal over a 14-day period. You have to increase the offensiveness 10-fold to reduce food intake by 10%. Taste offensiveness is of little consequence when the test is of reasonable duration.
I, too, would eat unpalatable food if the alternative was starving to death.
Which part of this do you not understand?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by MartinV, posted 11-15-2007 2:43 PM MartinV has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 155 of 241 (434588)
11-16-2007 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by MartinV
11-10-2007 5:48 PM


Re: Getting angry that outdoors research do not support darwinian fancy?
It is probably because of my grasp of English that I was misunderestood. I wanted to say that neodarwinian experiments indoors have probably no relevance to real behaviour of birds outdoors. It is very strange that neodarwinists observing birds in cages came to conclusion that birds avoid poisonous aposematics and yet stomach contets of birds in free show opposite.
That would be strange if it was true, but it's complete bollocks, isn't it?
Say, do you avoid eating wasps only when you're in a cage? Do tell.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by MartinV, posted 11-10-2007 5:48 PM MartinV has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 156 of 241 (434590)
11-16-2007 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by MartinV
11-13-2007 3:33 PM


I am a little bit perplexed.
No you're not. You're extremely perplexed. You're baffled on a gargantuan scale. You are massively stymied, your puzzlement is titanic in its magnitude. You are discombobulated to the nth degree.
This is because you're wrong.
I am not even a little bit perplexed. This is because I have a view of nature that actually makes sense. You should try it some time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by MartinV, posted 11-13-2007 3:33 PM MartinV has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 159 of 241 (435059)
11-18-2007 7:16 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by MartinV
11-18-2007 12:34 PM


As to dr. Adequate, I don't read his posts anymore.
Yeah, if you want to hide from reality, you've gotta hide from me too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by MartinV, posted 11-18-2007 12:34 PM MartinV has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 164 of 241 (435755)
11-22-2007 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by Modulous
11-19-2007 2:12 AM


Why limit ourselves to bird predation?
Because so much of his gibberish depends on tacitly assuming that insects have no other potential predators except birds.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Modulous, posted 11-19-2007 2:12 AM Modulous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by bluescat48, posted 11-22-2007 7:35 PM Dr Adequate 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