Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8945 total)
188 online now:
DrJones*, jar, JoeT, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Taq (6 members, 182 visitors)
Newest Member: ski zawaski
Upcoming Birthdays: ONESOlivia, perfect
Post Volume: Total: 865,493 Year: 20,529/19,786 Month: 926/2,023 Week: 434/392 Day: 50/74 Hour: 1/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Mimicry: Please help me understand how
Shtop
Junior Member (Idle past 641 days)
Posts: 30
Joined: 07-19-2007


Message 151 of 241 (434504)
11-16-2007 3:10 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by MartinV
11-16-2007 2:31 AM


quote:
But there are also mammals that eat wasps so that "terrrible taste" wouldn't be so terrible as darwinists would like us to believe.
I had a bad cough when I was a kid. Doc gave me this medicine that tasted so terrible I was almost literally sick. But my mom made me take it every day until the cough went away. Does that prove it didn't taste that terrible? No. It proves I wasn't given a choice.

If an animal is faced with two options: 1. Eating something that tastes bad or 2. Going hungry, that is not really a choice, is it.

I think you are the one with the memory problems here. No matter how many times you say that the neodarwinistic selection model doesn't work because some animals eat wasps, you forget that you can never find evidence for succesful mimicry in an animals stomach.


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

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 419 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 152 of 241 (434563)
11-16-2007 10:54 AM
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.

You brought up memory, I just asked for evidence that bird's don't have a good enough memory to support the hypothesis. You could not do it, you change the subject and now you are criticising me for addressing your points as you bring them up?

Poor form, Martin.

I have given you link that chemical senses of birds are poor.

Yes you have. It was never in dispute, so it doesn't advance the debate.

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.

The article you linked to also pointed out that that mammals and birds consider different things untasty or tasty, so I fail to see your point. The important point, as far as we are concerned, in the article you linked to is that birds do find some things untasty and will avoid those things if given the choice.

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.

Another thread would be better for that, I'd imagine. However the simple answer would be that stings were presumably developed to protect the queen from predator attack; I haven't looked into it in any depth.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by MartinV, posted 11-16-2007 2:31 AM MartinV has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by MartinV, posted 11-18-2007 12:34 PM Modulous has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 7.3


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 yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 7.3


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 yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 7.3


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 yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 7.3


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 yet responded

  
MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4143 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 157 of 241 (434973)
11-18-2007 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by Modulous
11-16-2007 10:54 AM


quote:

The colored stripes contain pigment granules underneath the translucent cuticle where light sensila were detected (Ishay et al., 1986). These granules are cylindrical in shape and in Vespa orientalis they comprise of what seems to be spores of a symbiotic fungus (Ishay and Shmuelson, 1994).In the hornet the pigment is of a prominent yellow color but in other hornets or wasps the pigment can appear in various shades of green, beige, black (Vecht, 1957, 1959; Ishay et al., 1967; Kemper and D"hring, 1967; Wilson, 1971; Matsuura and Sakagami, 1973; Spradbery, 1973; Edwards, 1980; Akre et al, 1981; Brian, 1983; Matsuura and Yamane, 1990).

According this research it is spores of fungus that are responsible for the yellow stripes of Vespa orientalis.

I am not sure if that shades of green, beige, black are also due to the color of spores of fungi. But it would be more simple explanation of difference of coloration of these Hymenoptera as those neodarwinian questionable "protective coloration" of them.

One should be really blind not to ask why are wasps aposematic and bees almost cryptic when "aposematism" for poisonous bees should have given them the same "survival advantage".

Fungi and coloration of some hymenoptera:

http://scilib.univ.kiev.ua/article.php?27251

http://www.desc.med.vu.nl/Publica....R_3.htm

---
As to dr. Adequate, I don't read his posts anymore. His posts should probably gave some arguments or elucidate problems from darwinian point of view, so let his posts serve for discussion with other participants.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Modulous, posted 11-16-2007 10:54 AM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by Modulous, posted 11-18-2007 4:55 PM MartinV has responded
 Message 159 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-18-2007 7:16 PM MartinV has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 419 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 158 of 241 (435027)
11-18-2007 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by MartinV
11-18-2007 12:34 PM


According this research it is spores of fungus that are responsible for the yellow stripes of Vespa orientalis.

OK so you have provided the mechanism behind the colouration of some potential models. What has this got to do with with the fact that mimics have also utilized a mechanism for looking similar?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by MartinV, posted 11-18-2007 12:34 PM MartinV has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by MartinV, posted 11-19-2007 1:11 AM Modulous has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 7.3


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 yet responded

  
MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4143 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 160 of 241 (435101)
11-19-2007 1:11 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by Modulous
11-18-2007 4:55 PM


What kind of mimics do you have on your mind? Some given species from Diptera or Lepidoptera? You know we should find out if the given "mimicry" is not pure chance of looking alike by transforamtion sequences which would exist also without wasp model. And we should also find out if birds are so mislead by it as neodarwinists are.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Modulous, posted 11-18-2007 4:55 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by Modulous, posted 11-19-2007 2:12 AM MartinV has responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 419 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 161 of 241 (435108)
11-19-2007 2:12 AM
Reply to: Message 160 by MartinV
11-19-2007 1:11 AM


What kind of mimics do you have on your mind?

Whatever mimics you would like to discuss.

Some given species from Diptera or Lepidoptera?

Why limit ourselves?

You know we should find out if the given "mimicry" is not pure chance of looking alike by transforamtion sequences which would exist also without wasp model.

Indeed, we've discussed this before already.

And we should also find out if birds are so mislead by it as neodarwinists are.

Why limit ourselves to bird predation? There are plenty of other mimics out there.


What has this got to do with my post?

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by MartinV, posted 11-19-2007 1:11 AM MartinV has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by MartinV, posted 11-22-2007 3:07 PM Modulous has responded
 Message 164 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-22-2007 4:13 PM Modulous has not yet responded

  
MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4143 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 162 of 241 (435720)
11-22-2007 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by Modulous
11-19-2007 2:12 AM



Whatever mimics you would like to discuss.

First we should perhaps agree in the cause and the origin of the aposematism of wasps. Bees venom is stronger that those of wasps and wasps do not have so much venom as bees have. Wasps use their venom often when preying (maybe their sacks are are full of venom in experiments in cages, something that doesn't occurs in the free - hence the difference of bird predation in cages and in the free. Just a thought.)

Anyway you didn't answer to the question about non-aposematic coloration of bees. And the question is important, because it has been posed even in the article we discussed about:

quote:

Given that they are noxious, and birds learn to avoid them, why is the honeybee complex not aposematically coloured (Holloway, 1976) ?

So why?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Modulous, posted 11-19-2007 2:12 AM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by Modulous, posted 11-22-2007 3:58 PM MartinV has responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 419 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 163 of 241 (435752)
11-22-2007 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by MartinV
11-22-2007 3:07 PM


First we should perhaps agree in the cause and the origin of the aposematism of wasps.

No problem. What do you propose is the cause and origin of aposematism in wasps?

Anyway you didn't answer to the question about non-aposematic coloration of bees.

I didn't see a question about non aposematic colouration of bees, only a question about the honeybee complex. I'm not sure what a honeybee complex is in this context. Are you suggesting that honeybees are not aposematically coloured, or are you suggesting their mimics aren't, or both?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by MartinV, posted 11-22-2007 3:07 PM MartinV has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by MartinV, posted 11-23-2007 12:00 PM Modulous has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 7.3


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 yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by bluescat48, posted 11-22-2007 7:35 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2504 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 165 of 241 (435774)
11-22-2007 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by Dr Adequate
11-22-2007 4:13 PM


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.

That must be a surprise to other insect species, arachnids, mammals, reptiles & amphibians that subsist on insects.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-22-2007 4:13 PM Dr Adequate 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