Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Mimicry: Please help me understand how
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 121 of 241 (429217)
10-18-2007 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by garyl43
10-18-2007 6:37 PM


My mistake.
Why would a living organism actually make it's survival totally dependant on 1 other species to reproduce, like this orchid: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-h8I3cqpgnA ? Seems to me it would diversify as much as possible to increase it's chances of survival according to evolution.
I can't watch YouTube at work, so I had to wait until I got home to watch it. I guess it is on topic for this thread after all; I thought this was going to be a different orchid example.
The answer to this question is that orchids don't look ahead and see what would be the best, long term adaptation to take. What matters is what it takes to produce the most progeny for the very next generation.
In the case of these orchids, what happened is that those that looked and smelled just a little bit more like a wasp would attract a few more wasps as pollinators; since the initial changes were small, it probably wouldn't have lost out on the other pollinators that were around.
In time, by looking and smelling more like a wasp -- and presumably looking and smelling less like a flower full of tasty nectar -- it would have lost out on the other pollinators -- in fact, maybe it would even have scared other pollinators away. But by this time, by looking and smelling so much like a wasp, it was guaranteed that wasps would actually visit, without fail. And so it would end up more likely to be pollinated, and so would be more likely to produce progeny than those orchids looking and smelling less like wasps.
-
The other questions were already answered in this post. I'm flattered that my answers were so clear and to the point of your questions that you felt no need to question any of it.

In many respects, the Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article. -- Doug Brown (quoted by Carlin Romano in The Chronicle Review)

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

  
garyl43
Junior Member (Idle past 5936 days)
Posts: 6
From: Moab, UT
Joined: 10-18-2007


Message 123 of 241 (429397)
10-19-2007 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by Dr Adequate
10-19-2007 12:37 AM


Hi all! Dr Adequate, I do have more than a passing interest in science (I think science is all I put under interests in my profile).
What I'm saying is that to me natural selection does not explain what I'm seeing here.
Take sex pheromones, they are a complex chemical compound indicating a specific genome, sex and readiness to mate.
Incrimental changes in this would render it useless, not just less appealing (no wasps attracted).
Also, natural selection would dictate that the species with the broadest methods of reproducing would be the one to proliferate, not the one that narrows it's possibilities to one rare species of wasp in a specific local (looking at my yard dandilions come to mind lol!).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-19-2007 12:37 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Chiroptera, posted 10-19-2007 3:42 PM garyl43 has not replied
 Message 125 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-19-2007 10:52 PM garyl43 has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 124 of 241 (429402)
10-19-2007 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by garyl43
10-19-2007 3:11 PM


What I'm saying is that to me natural selection does not explain what I'm seeing here.
Huh. And to me, natural selection does explain what I'm seeing here.
I guess this is why "what seems to me" is a pretty poor method to use in the sciences.
-
Also, natural selection would dictate that the species with the broadest methods of reproducing would be the one to proliferate, not the one that narrows it's possibilities to one rare species of wasp in a specific local
"Natural selection" doesn't dictate anything. What happens is that some individuals in a population will produce more offspring than others in the same population; often this difference is due to physical, inherited characteristics; and so in the next generation there will be more individuals that will have this favorable characteristic. We call this "natural selection". Natural selection is not an agent -- it is a label for a certain phenomenon that occurs.
A slight change may make a flower less attractive to a broad range of insect species, but also may make it more attractive to one particular species of insect. If, overall, this causes the flower to be visited more often, be more likely to pollinate, and so allow the plant to be more likely to reproduce than other plants, then the next generation will have more individuals with that sort of flower.
Edited by Chiroptera, : changed "phrase that describes" to "label for"

In many respects, the Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article. -- Doug Brown (quoted by Carlin Romano in The Chronicle Review)

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 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

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


Message 126 of 241 (433006)
11-09-2007 2:13 PM


McAtee about "aposematism"
McAtee.
Hence the fact that a given animal is indiffirent to, or even rejects, a certain species of insect when in captivity, by no means indicates that it would be indifferent to or reject the same species under natural conditions.
.
.
.
He clearly shows that many species which have been considered to be protected by noxious secretions or other adaptations are not really so protected, a conclusion supported not only by the definite evidence produced by Dr. McAtee, but also by the fact that if such species were not preyed upon by various enemies they would soon people the whole earth.
.
.
.
Hehe.
Page not Found :: University Libraries | The University of New Mexico
And the cherish on the cake:
According Heikertinger (Das Raetsel der Mimikry un seine Loesung - Eine kritische Darstellung des Werdens, des Wesens und der Wiederlegung der Tiertrachthypothesen Jena 1954) U.S. Department of Agriculture studied 80.000 contents of birds' stomachs. And it was McAtee from this department who came to the conclusion that aposematism is ineffective to deter predators. Neodarwinian school has never made such extensive and brutal research. Darwinists make only indoor research with multicoloured food... But the question is if such researches have any relevance for studying so called "warning coloration" outdoors.

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Modulous, posted 11-09-2007 2:30 PM MartinV has replied

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


Message 127 of 241 (433009)
11-09-2007 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by MartinV
11-09-2007 2:13 PM


Re: McAtee about "aposematism"
It seems you are repeating yourself. McAtee and Heikertinger have been discussed, and arguments as to why they might not have been right in their conclusions have been presented. Instead of repeating their conclusions, can you please deal with the subsequent argument?
Rule 4 partly writes:
Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by MartinV, posted 11-09-2007 2:13 PM MartinV has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by MartinV, posted 11-09-2007 2:44 PM Modulous has replied

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


Message 128 of 241 (433011)
11-09-2007 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by Modulous
11-09-2007 2:30 PM


Re: McAtee about "aposematism"
Perhaps you may support your neodarwinian conclusions regarding "warning coloration" of insects also with some modern researches in natural conditions. Any relevant link?
And I mean birds vs. so called "aposematic" insects in natural conditions.
Edited by MartinV, : insects added
Edited by MartinV, : The last sentence added.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Modulous, posted 11-09-2007 2:30 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Modulous, posted 11-09-2007 3:05 PM MartinV has replied

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


Message 129 of 241 (433013)
11-09-2007 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by MartinV
11-09-2007 2:44 PM


Re: McAtee about "aposematism"
Perhaps you may support your neodarwinian conclusions regarding "warning coloration" of insects also with some modern researches in natural conditions. Any relevant link?
I think the study we were already discussing was good enough. Unless you think that being in captivity allows birds to suddenly become able to successfully discriminate between mimics and models if they ate the models first, and not if it happens the other way around.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by MartinV, posted 11-09-2007 2:44 PM MartinV has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by MartinV, posted 11-09-2007 3:30 PM Modulous has replied

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


Message 130 of 241 (433022)
11-09-2007 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by Modulous
11-09-2007 3:05 PM


Re: McAtee about "aposematism"
Again. You didn't give a link I've asked you.
According McAtee (and it sounds like Heikertinger has written it in his last work):
quote:
Considering bird predation alone this principle predation in proportion to population leads to a high degree of indiscriminancy in attack upon the whole kingdom of animal life. The combined attack of birds plus all other predators still more closely approaches complete indiscriminancy. In other words there is utilization of animals of practically every kind for food approximately in proportion to their numbers. This means that predation takes place much the same as if there were no such thing as protective adaptations. And this is only another way of saying that the phenomena classed by theorists as pro- tective adaptations have little or no effectiveness. “Natural Selection theories assume dis- crimination in the choice of prey. The
principle of proportional predation so obvious from the data contained in this pper vitiates those theories for it denotes indiscrimination, the very antithesis of selection.
If you think his arguments has been refuted take into consideration this sentence:
quote:

In no other institution
in the country has such a. volume of
data been collected on food habits of birds.
It is therefore extremely valuable to students
throughout the country to have this
mass of data digested, summarized, and
made available for use as Mr. McAtee has
done

Page not Found :: University Libraries | The University of New Mexico
Again: I am almost sure no such outdoors research has been made by neodarwinists to support their armchair idea of protective meaning of "aposematism". If yes give me a link. I would like to know it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Modulous, posted 11-09-2007 3:05 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Modulous, posted 11-09-2007 6:01 PM MartinV has replied

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


Message 131 of 241 (433049)
11-09-2007 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by MartinV
11-09-2007 3:30 PM


repeats suck - when does the next season start?
Again. You didn't give a link I've asked you.
A link has already been posted. I referred you to that. You want me to post it again? You've posted it yourself more than anyone else I suspect.
If you think his arguments has been refuted take into consideration this sentence:
quote:
In no other institution
in the country has such a. volume of
data been collected on food habits of birds.
It is therefore extremely valuable to students
throughout the country to have this
mass of data digested, summarized, and
made available for use as Mr. McAtee has
done
Written in 1932. In the past 75 years, other work has been done with better methodology to establish bird eating behaviour with regard to mimes. You posted a paper which discusses this work.
Again: I am almost sure no such outdoors research has been made by neodarwinists to support their armchair idea of protective meaning of "aposematism". If yes give me a link. I would like to know it.
Well, once again, I ask you - does being in captivity generate abilities in birds to discriminate between insects in a pattern consistent with the mimic hypothesis?
However, you and I have both posted a paper which conducted outdoor observations.
quote:
Possibly the scarcity of attacks is due to the
ability of social wasps to defend themselves so
that relatively few species of birds are able to
ingest them. Similarly there seem to be few avian
attacks on caterpillars of the family Arctiidae
(which includes the Ctenuchinae). Many species
of moths of this family sequester alkaloids from
their host plants which results in the caterpillar
being impalatable to potential predators (Watson
1975). An additional variable to be considered in
gaining an understanding of avian predation on
noxious insects is the ability of individual birds
to learn how to process a prey item prior to
ingestion. Such behaviour results in big differences
in the species of insects taken -even among
individuals of a particular species of bird. Sometimes
a bird learns to recognize particular types
of insects and is able to manipulate the prey so
as to avoid the insect's defense system (Brown &
Vasconcelos 1976). A bird can also learn to recognize
a particular sex of an insect species. For
example, one White- throated Kingbird (Tyrannus
albogularis caught and ate numerous male of
the solitary bee (Epicharis melanoxantha Moure),
but was never seen to capture a female though the
males have a faster, erratic flight (Raw 1992, in
press).
As I said - you're just repeating yourself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by MartinV, posted 11-09-2007 3:30 PM MartinV has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by MartinV, posted 11-09-2007 6:52 PM Modulous has replied

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


Message 132 of 241 (433057)
11-09-2007 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Modulous
11-09-2007 6:01 PM


Re: repeats suck - when does the next season start?
Written in 1932. In the past 75 years, other work has been done with better methodology to establish bird eating behaviour with regard to mimes. You posted a paper which discusses this work.
So if the same research of 80.000 contentns of stomach's birds would have been done today the outcome would be different? Do you think that feeding behaviour of birds today is different from that in the beginning of the 20th century?
Do you think that words like "relatively few species of birds are able to ingest them" are sufficently neodarwinian evidence refute this contribution of:
quote:
... of data on the food habits of Nearctic birds-data
which have been accumulating in the records of the United States Biological Survey for the past forty-five years.
?
Well, once again, I ask you - does being in captivity generate abilities in birds to discriminate between insects in a pattern consistent with the mimic hypothesis?
Obviously the matter is more complicated as you would like to see it:
quote:
The evidence seems conclusive that animals in captivity do not react to the stimulus of food as they do in a wild state. Hence the fact that a given animal is indifferent to, or even rejects, a certain species of insect when in captivity, by no means indicates that it would be indifferent to or reject the same species under natural conditions.
Page not Found :: University Libraries | The University of New Mexico

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Modulous, posted 11-09-2007 6:01 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Modulous, posted 11-09-2007 7:05 PM MartinV has replied

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


Message 133 of 241 (433059)
11-09-2007 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by MartinV
11-09-2007 6:52 PM


Re: repeats suck - when does the next season start?
So if the same research of 80.000 contentns of stomach's birds would have been done today the outcome would be different?
Who knows? But that wasn't my point. Better studies have been done that explore the question of mimics specifically.
Obviously the matter is more complicated as you would like to see it:
quote:
The evidence seems conclusive that animals in captivity do not react to the stimulus of food as they do in a wild state. Hence the fact that a given animal is indifferent to, or even rejects, a certain species of insect when in captivity, by no means indicates that it would be indifferent to or reject the same species under natural conditions.
Obviously it isn't more complicated. I've not said at any point that birds might not change their eating habits. What I've asked you is - do you think that being in captivity gives birds the ability to discriminate between mimics and models that they apparently didn't have when in the wild?
Because the data presented so far shows that at least some birds will eat mimics happily if they have not eaten a model - but if they begin with a model, they will tend to avoid the mimics.
Does living in captivity shift the habits of these birds so specifically? Is that what you are suggesting?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by MartinV, posted 11-09-2007 6:52 PM MartinV has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by MartinV, posted 11-09-2007 7:12 PM Modulous has replied

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


Message 134 of 241 (433061)
11-09-2007 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Modulous
11-09-2007 7:05 PM


Re: repeats suck - when does the next season start?
But in the free birds eat models despite of darwinian experiments in cages. That's the conclusion of the researches done by US Department of Agriculture of stomach's contents of 80.000 birds.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Modulous, posted 11-09-2007 7:05 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Modulous, posted 11-09-2007 7:37 PM MartinV has replied

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


Message 135 of 241 (433065)
11-09-2007 7:37 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by MartinV
11-09-2007 7:12 PM


Re: repeats suck - when does the next season start?
But in the free birds eat models despite of darwinian experiments in cages. That's the conclusion of the researches done by US Department of Agriculture of stomach's contents of 80.000 birds.
Nobody is disputing that birds eat models. What we are saying is that birds have been observed to generally avoid eating mimics after having eaten a model. You suggest that this is something to do with cages. I've asked you a question about this many times now. Do you believe that becoming caged changes a bird's habit so that it starts avoiding mimics only after first eating a model?
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by MartinV, posted 11-09-2007 7:12 PM MartinV has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by MartinV, posted 11-10-2007 1:29 AM Modulous has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024