|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Junior Member (Idle past 6127 days) Posts: 2 From: Alabama, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Mimicry: Please help me understand how | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 309 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
garyl43 Junior Member (Idle past 5962 days) Posts: 6 From: Moab, UT Joined: |
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!).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 309 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
MartinV  Suspended Member (Idle past 5854 days) Posts: 502 From: Slovakia, Bratislava Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
MartinV  Suspended Member (Idle past 5854 days) Posts: 502 From: Slovakia, Bratislava Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
MartinV  Suspended Member (Idle past 5854 days) Posts: 502 From: Slovakia, Bratislava Joined: |
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: If you think his arguments has been refuted take into consideration this sentence:
quote:
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
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: As I said - you're just repeating yourself.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
MartinV  Suspended Member (Idle past 5854 days) Posts: 502 From: Slovakia, Bratislava Joined: |
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:?
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:
Page not Found ::
University Libraries | The University of New Mexico
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
MartinV  Suspended Member (Idle past 5854 days) Posts: 502 From: Slovakia, Bratislava Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024