|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,387 Year: 3,644/9,624 Month: 515/974 Week: 128/276 Day: 2/23 Hour: 1/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Junior Member (Idle past 6122 days) Posts: 2 From: Alabama, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Mimicry: Please help me understand how | |||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 304 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 304 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 304 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 304 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 304 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 304 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 304 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 304 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 304 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 304 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 304 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 304 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 304 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 304 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 304 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024