Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8945 total)
33 online now:
1.61803, DrJones*, dwise1, jar, Taq (5 members, 28 visitors)
Newest Member: ski zawaski
Post Volume: Total: 865,780 Year: 20,816/19,786 Month: 1,213/2,023 Week: 164/557 Day: 51/43 Hour: 2/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Mimicry: Please help me understand how
Elmer
Member (Idle past 4223 days)
Posts: 82
Joined: 01-15-2007


Message 136 of 241 (433072)
11-09-2007 8:45 PM


Hi guys. Love this topic. I do not see how RMNS can account for mimicry, but I don't know what does. I'll have to go back and read the thread right through, and see what I can pick up.

Later.


Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by crashfrog, posted 11-09-2007 8:54 PM Elmer has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 137 of 241 (433074)
11-09-2007 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Elmer
11-09-2007 8:45 PM


I do not see how RMNS can account for mimicry

Why not? It seems obvious to me that they can. Mimicry, in fact, is perhaps the classical example of a class of traits that come about from random mutation and natural selection, because any little amount of mimicry is such a powerful advantage.

What's your specific objection?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Elmer, posted 11-09-2007 8:45 PM Elmer has not yet responded

  
MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4147 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 138 of 241 (433103)
11-10-2007 1:29 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by Modulous
11-09-2007 7:37 PM


Re: repeats suck - when does the next season start?

Do you believe that becoming caged changes a bird's habit so that it starts avoiding mimics only after first eating a model?

Obviously it's your duty to give evidence that birds feeding behaviour in cages is the same as in the free. It cannot be assumed a priori. It should be at the top of every scientifical research that generalise conclusions of experiments made in cages.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Modulous, posted 11-09-2007 7:37 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Modulous, posted 11-10-2007 10:31 AM MartinV has responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 423 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 139 of 241 (433136)
11-10-2007 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by MartinV
11-10-2007 1:29 AM


Re: repeats suck - when does the next season start?
Obviously it's your duty to give evidence that birds feeding behaviour in cages is the same as in the free.

Why? I'm not making that assertion. I'm asking if you think that being in captivity can produce such a strange and specific change in eating behaviour as you are claiming has happened. A bird that never discriminated before, when captured, suddenly eats mimics unless it has previously eaten a model and then tends to avoid mimics from there on in.

You are making this assertion - I just want you to either accept you are making it, or drop the feeding change in captivity argument. If you accept that you are making this claim, I'd like you to explain how it came to be.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by MartinV, posted 11-10-2007 1:29 AM MartinV has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by MartinV, posted 11-10-2007 3:29 PM Modulous has responded

  
MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4147 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 140 of 241 (433204)
11-10-2007 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by Modulous
11-10-2007 10:31 AM


Re: repeats suck - when does the next season start?
You are pushing me into something I have never insisted upon discussing McAtee work as far as I remember. If yes, forget it. I have claimed that birds feed on aposematics outdoors but neodarwinists claim that birds avoid eating aposemtaics in cages. I still mean poisonous models, not their mimics. If birds eat poisonous models there is obviously no selective pressure which could give "survival advantage" to their mimics. This is the main point, not if birds discriminate between models and mimics. Of course some facts back the idea that predators could distinguish very well between different species that looks alike, but it is not the issue McAteee adressed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Modulous, posted 11-10-2007 10:31 AM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Modulous, posted 11-10-2007 3:57 PM MartinV has responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 423 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 141 of 241 (433209)
11-10-2007 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by MartinV
11-10-2007 3:29 PM


Re: repeats suck - when does the next season start?
You are pushing me into something I have never insisted upon discussing McAtee work as far as I remember.

McAtee is irrelevant. I'm just asking you a simple question based on your stated position.

I have claimed that birds feed on aposematics outdoors but neodarwinists claim that birds avoid eating aposemtaics in cages.

That is not what the neodarwinist position is at all. We all agree that birds eat both mimics and their models - both indoors and outdoors. What you seem to be saying is that being kept indoors somehow induces a specific behaviour pattern whereby they will begin avoiding models and mimics only after having eaten a model.

I'm just asking how you propose that happens.

This is the main point, not if birds discriminate between models and mimics.

Unless they've eaten a model before and they are caged. How did they develop this feeding behaviour?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by MartinV, posted 11-10-2007 3:29 PM MartinV has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by MartinV, posted 11-10-2007 5:48 PM Modulous has responded

  
MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4147 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 142 of 241 (433231)
11-10-2007 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by Modulous
11-10-2007 3:57 PM


Getting angry that outdoors research do not support darwinian fancy?
quote:

That is not what the neodarwinist position is at all. We all agree that birds eat both mimics and their models - both indoors and outdoors.

Fine. If neodarwinists position is antiselectionist as well in the case discussed so much better.

quote:

What you seem to be saying is that being kept indoors somehow induces a specific behaviour pattern whereby they will begin avoiding models and mimics only after having eaten a model.

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.

It is not only US. Biological survey that made such vast research of contents of birds stomachs. The same research was done by Csiki in Hungary in 1905-1910 but only in 2.800 birds compared with those 80.000. But their stomachs contain also lot of aposematics and Heikertinger used this research to back his idea of ineffetiviness of aposmatism (of models I addded for better underestanding).

Because of both researches done in the nature I see no point discussing some neodarwinian indoors experiments (did you give any link to them at least?) that should invalidate conclusions of mentioned outdoors data.

Heikertinger quoted a reserach of some caged bird that eats wasps until beeing stung. Then it avoid them. Neverhenless the stunged bird eat wasps after few hours as readily as before. Is this the point you aim at?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Modulous, posted 11-10-2007 3:57 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Modulous, posted 11-10-2007 6:27 PM MartinV has responded
 Message 155 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-16-2007 12:38 PM MartinV has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 423 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 143 of 241 (433236)
11-10-2007 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by MartinV
11-10-2007 5:48 PM


Re: Getting angry that outdoors research do not support darwinian fancy?
Getting angry that outdoors research do not support darwinian fancy?

No.

Fine. If neodarwinists position is antiselectionist as well in the case discussed so much better.

Seems unrelated to what I said.

I wanted to say that neodarwinian experiments indoors have probably no relevance to real behaviour of birds outdoors.

I understand that. Your position is that being indoors changes the behaviour of birds somehow. I agree that it does to some extent. If this is the explanation for the results of indoor tests then it must follow that being indoors makes birds behave in a very specific fashion ie., they avoid mimics only after eating models.

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.

Not really. Nobody is disputing that birds don't eat mimics or models. Do I have to keep repeating that this isn't in dispute?

Because of both researches done in the nature I see no point discussing some neodarwinian indoors experiments

We need to understand how birds can behave so very specifically when indoors.

(did you give any link to them at least?)

Yes, the paper we have discussed extensively in this thread already.

Heikertinger quoted a reserach of some caged bird that eats wasps until beeing stung. Then it avoid them. Neverhenless the stunged bird eat wasps after few hours as readily as before. Is this the point you aim at?

I'm not talking about stinging.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by MartinV, posted 11-10-2007 5:48 PM MartinV has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by MartinV, posted 11-12-2007 11:49 AM Modulous has responded

  
MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4147 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 144 of 241 (433512)
11-12-2007 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by Modulous
11-10-2007 6:27 PM


Re: Getting angry that outdoors research do not support darwinian fancy?

If this is the explanation for the results of indoor tests then it must follow that being indoors makes birds behave in a very specific fashion ie., they avoid mimics only after eating models.

How long did they avoid them? I am almost sure if they are hungry they will eat them again. No one claims that they would rather die from starvation as far as I know.


I'm not talking about stinging.

I see. You have obviously accepted the fact that sting play no role in protection of wasps. Anyway one would say that no other protective mechanism remains to deter wasps predators as birds. Because "only after eating models" - as you depicted it - is very vague. We know many animals that eat poisonous organisms and eating of which would kill us or other mammals. That some birds after eating wasps vomits do not prove anything in my opinion. They vomit to feed their youngs, they often vomit to get rid of indigestible parts of food they ate.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Modulous, posted 11-10-2007 6:27 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by Modulous, posted 11-12-2007 12:54 PM MartinV has responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 423 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 145 of 241 (433532)
11-12-2007 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by MartinV
11-12-2007 11:49 AM


How long did they avoid them? I am almost sure if they are hungry they will eat them again. No one claims that they would rather die from starvation as far as I know.

So why bring up a claim nobody is making? As for the length of time, why don't you look it up? That's the kind of data you should be presenting to make your case. Try Beobachtungen zur Frage der Wespenmimikry (1935). Mostler G - referenced from the paper we've been discussing.

I see. You have obviously accepted the fact that sting play no role in protection of wasps.

I've not even bothered to argue either way on it -since it really isn't the topic.

Anyway one would say that no other protective mechanism remains to deter wasps predators as birds. Because "only after eating models" - as you depicted it - is very vague.

It's very specific. Some birds show a tendency to avoid wasps after they have partaken. Not completely never ever eat them, just if they had the choice, they'd eat something else first because wasps aren't tasty. I'd rather eat chocolate than coconut, but if I had no choice I'd eat coconut.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by MartinV, posted 11-12-2007 11:49 AM MartinV has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by MartinV, posted 11-13-2007 3:33 PM Modulous has responded

  
MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4147 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 146 of 241 (433916)
11-13-2007 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by Modulous
11-12-2007 12:54 PM


I am a little bit perplexed. Mostler in the point 27). claims that
negative experience take effect 14 months, but in average 3 months.

On the other side he claims in the point 13.) that after 3 weeks when birds were offered mimics they ate those mimics like this: Seracomya borealis 71,5%, bei Chrysothorax festivum 74,5%, bei Eristalomya ienax und Myatropa florea 85,2%, bei Eristalis arbustorum 87,6%, bei Helophilus trivitattus 90,8%.

I am afraid birds wouldn't remember for 3 months that wasps taste bad.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/vm6p110542322302/

I know you would insist whatever the time is it will give wasps small "survival advantage". But this is only one neo-darwinian research that you offered against the research of 80.000 birds done by US Agricalture Survey.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Modulous, posted 11-12-2007 12:54 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by Modulous, posted 11-13-2007 3:48 PM MartinV has responded
 Message 156 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-16-2007 12:44 PM MartinV has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 423 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 147 of 241 (433919)
11-13-2007 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by MartinV
11-13-2007 3:33 PM


I am afraid birds wouldn't remember for 3 months that wasps taste bad.

What makes you say that?

I know you would insist whatever the time is it will give wasps small "survival advantage". But this is only one neo-darwinian research that you offered against the research of 80.000 birds done by US Agricalture Survey.

It still shows that the tendency exists. You have at least come to accept this fact, and are not arguing that birds magically develop unique abilities in cages. Since I have not for a moment denied that birds eat wasps, the other study doesn't contradict my position.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by MartinV, posted 11-13-2007 3:33 PM MartinV has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by MartinV, posted 11-15-2007 2:43 PM Modulous has responded

  
MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4147 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 148 of 241 (434343)
11-15-2007 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by Modulous
11-13-2007 3:48 PM



What makes you say that?

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. 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.

And these sentences also contradicts the observed fact that birds avoid 3 months distatesful aposematics:

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.

Birds do not have very good memory and they do not have good taste (except in expertiments proving effectiveness of aposematism where birds obviously always somehow surpass all expectation):

quote:

Birds have an interesting sense of taste. They have taste receptors like other animals, and their general structure is essentially the same as that in other vertebrates.
The starling and chicken have a few dozen taste buds as compared to 25000 for the cow.


The chemical senses of birds 1970:

http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1183&context=icwdmbirdcontrol


This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Modulous, posted 11-13-2007 3:48 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by Modulous, posted 11-15-2007 5:10 PM MartinV has responded
 Message 154 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-16-2007 12:28 PM MartinV has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 423 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 149 of 241 (434375)
11-15-2007 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by MartinV
11-15-2007 2:43 PM


I am afraid birds wouldn't remember for 3 months that wasps taste bad.

What makes you say that?


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."

What has this got to do with birds not remembering for 3 months that wasps taste bad?

Then you site a study which says that birds, if given the choice will avoid unpleasant tasting things, but will eat them if given no choice. A point that was never in contention.

Birds do not have very good memory

Are we back to repeats again? Is this related to the writer's strike? How about you bring some evidence to the table regarding avian memory?

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by MartinV, posted 11-15-2007 2:43 PM MartinV has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by MartinV, posted 11-16-2007 2:31 AM Modulous has responded

  
MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4147 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 150 of 241 (434502)
11-16-2007 2:31 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by Modulous
11-15-2007 5:10 PM


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. They have only small fraction of taste buds comparing mammals. But there are also mammals that eat wasps so that "terrrible taste" wouldn't be so terrible as darwinists would like us to believe.

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.
I would like to know your explanation of it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Modulous, posted 11-15-2007 5:10 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by Shtop, posted 11-16-2007 3:10 AM MartinV has not yet responded
 Message 152 by Modulous, posted 11-16-2007 10:54 AM MartinV has responded
 Message 153 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-16-2007 12:25 PM MartinV has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019