|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,742 Year: 3,999/9,624 Month: 870/974 Week: 197/286 Day: 4/109 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Junior Member (Idle past 6127 days) Posts: 2 From: Alabama, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Mimicry: Please help me understand how | ||||||||||||||||||||
MartinV  Suspended Member (Idle past 5854 days) Posts: 502 From: Slovakia, Bratislava Joined: |
All I need to show is that after eating noxious tasting insects, there is a tendency in predators to avoid things that look like noxious tasting insects. It doesn't matter why an insect looks noxious, only that a predator is able to discriminate a noxious insect from a non-noxious one - fooled only by non-noxious mimics of course.
It's your opinion that it is all you need to show. Obviously if you show that eagles still prefer mice after tasting wasps (in cages of course) it doesn't mean you are right with your explanation. The same is valid for any other bird species preferring other food after tasting wasps. There will be still enough bee-eaters. If you were right then noxious insect would have "small survival advantage" using your terms. Their population should increase every generation. They will soon populate the Earth as Darwin predicted. But we can see it is not the case. Every noxious and aposematic insect species have dozens predators that chceck their populations and that check those mysterious "small survival advantage" of their noxiousness.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
It's your opinion that it is all you need to show. Obviously if you show that eagles still prefer mice after tasting wasps (in cages of course) it doesn't mean you are right with your explanation. The same is valid for any other bird species preferring other food after tasting wasps. There will be still enough bee-eaters. My apologies. I made the assumption that we were talking about predominantly insect predators. There will still be enough bee-eaters for what? If there are less predators that eat wasps than eat flies, there is a potential advantage for a fly population to look a little like a wasp and thus have its members eaten less.
If you were right then noxious insect would have "small survival advantage" using your terms. Their population should increase every generation. They will soon populate the Earth as Darwin predicted Don't be silly. When noxious insects are the only insects, insectivores have no choice but to eat nasty meals and as we established earlier, they will do so. When did Darwin make this prediction? It seems contrary to common sense since it assumes no other selective pressures.
Every noxious and aposematic insect species have dozens predators that chceck their populations and that check those mysterious "small survival advantage" of their noxiousness. Then why focus on noxious/aposematic insect species? Why not focus on Gazelles who run fast to escape from predators. According to you they should dominate the world by now - they have a small advantage. Also - EVERY species on the planet has some adaptation that gives them a small survival or reproductive advantage and thus EVERY single species on earth (according to your strange logic) should populate the world. I estimate that there can form a balanced ratio of predator-prey where the predators catch enough prey to make a living, and enough prey survive to populate the next generation. That any given population will have an approximately maximum size in any given environment. You seem to have a weird understanding of biology to think survival advantages should continue increasing population size ad infinitum. Survival/reproductive advantages can increase maximum population size but they are more famed for changing the frequency of themselves within a population.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
MartinV  Suspended Member (Idle past 5854 days) Posts: 502 From: Slovakia, Bratislava Joined: |
Also - EVERY species on the planet has some adaptation that gives them a small survival or reproductive advantage and thus EVERY single species on earth (according to your strange logic) should populate the world.
It is not my strange logic. Isn't it a darwinian logic that if a species have small survival advantage to other species (0,0001%) they will in eons surpress the less fit species? But we see that there are wasps, bees, gnats, flies, butterflies, grasshoppres etc. in the countryside. Maybe every year has each species different fitness, but they thive all very well. Consequently I do not see any "survival advantage" having poisonous sacks and stings comparing wasp's fitness with the fitness of non-poisonous conspicuous butterflies.
You seem to have a weird understanding of biology to think survival advantages should continue increasing population size ad infinitum. Survival/reproductive advantages can increase maximum population size..
So it cannot increase maximum population size ad infinitum but it can increase maximum population size neverthenless. Where do you see a point it stops? Sooner or later there will pop up some predator's species that would take advantage of eating noxious aposematics, do you agree? Maybe we are now in such a period, there are so many imperfecr mimics of wasps. Obviously the simplest explanation would be there is no selective advantage to look more waspish, because wasps have so many predators. Consequently there is no selective advantage of looking like wasps. Myabe the imperfect mimics of wasps prove the uneffectiviness of "warning coloration" of wasps better than anything else. Maybe I have weird underestanding of it. But your underestanding of it seems to me also weird.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
It is not my strange logic. Isn't it a darwinian logic that if a species have small survival advantage to other species (0,0001%) they will in eons surpress the less fit species? No it isn't. Evolutionary theory is used to describe how biodiversity occurred it doesn't predict that diversity has to decrease.
So it cannot increase maximum population size ad infinitum but it can increase maximum population size neverthenless. Where do you see a point it stops? A simple thought-example. A hypothetical organism requires 1KJ of energy to grow to reproductive size. It lives in an area that has 1MJ of exploitable energy. It is impossible in this scenario for a population size of 10,000 to all reach reproductive size. Only the ones that are best apt at staying alive long enough to exploit the limited energy will prosper. Thus the specimens that are best at efficiently harvesting energy and avoiding death will be more represented in the next generation when their children will be trying to exploit the exploitable energy supplies.
ooner or later there will pop up some predator's species that would take advantage of eating noxious aposematics, do you agree? Indeed - as the population of noxious insects increases in size, the chances that predators will exploit the food source will increase - thus reducing the population size and keeping the population size in check. There is an maximum optimum population size where the aposematicism is effective, going above that size will result in the population being reduced down to below that maximum optimum. No doubt you have heard of the careful balance of nature.
Maybe we are now in such a period, there are so many imperfecr mimics of wasps. This is something that can and does switch and change within our lifetimes...it cannot be the explanation for the evolution of imperfect mimicry.
Obviously the simplest explanation would be there is no selective advantage to look more waspish, because wasps have so many predators. Yet they have less predators than things that look less waspish so the simplest explanation is also the wrong one.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 309 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Honey-bees have no way "aposematic coloration". What a stupid, stupid lie.
Note the classic yellow and black aposematic coloration, you stupid pathetic liar. You notice how you can't support your position without drooling out stupid patheitc lies? That's 'cos you're wrong. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
It has to be 6 hours for you.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
MartinV  Suspended Member (Idle past 5854 days) Posts: 502 From: Slovakia, Bratislava Joined: |
Yet they have less predators than things that look less waspish so the simplest explanation is also the wrong one.
If I put a neodarwinian hat on my head my reasoning would be like this (if I am not wrong) -: each individual of imperfect wasp mimic species that looks more waspish should obtain a small survival advantage (let say 0,0001%). After thousands years and generations we should observe only "perfect mimics" of wasps. Obviously it is not the case. There must be a force that prevents to spread of "more waspish phenotype alleles" to take an advatntage to "not so much waspish looking phenotype alleles". Do you have an idea what is the force that prevents imperfect mimics to become more perfect mimics of wasps? Edited by MartinV, : Grammar.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
each individual of imperfect wasp mimic species that looks more waspish should obtain a small survival advantage (let say 0,0001%). After thousands years and generations we should observe only "perfect mimics" of wasps. Only if the only selection pressure was on looking more waspish. Since this is never the case, we don't anticipate that perfect waspish insects will have to evolve.
There must be a force that prevents to spread of "more waspish phenotype alleles" to take an advatntage to "not so much waspish looking phenotype alleles". Do you have an idea what is the force that prevents imperfect mimics to become more perfect mimics of wasps? It's called natural selection. Let's say that in order to look more like a wasp, the insect has to compromise flight skill. There will be a balance between looking waspish and being skilled and the optimum solution will eventually be found - no doubt some kind of compromise between the two.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
MartinV  Suspended Member (Idle past 5854 days) Posts: 502 From: Slovakia, Bratislava Joined: |
AdminNosy,
I have no problem if somebody is abusing me. Austrian entomologist Franz Heikertinegr spent more than 40 years refuting neodarwinian concept of mimicry (His work "Das Raetsel der Mimikry und seine Loesung - Eine kritische Darstellung des Werdens, des Wesens und der Wiederlegung der Tiertrachthypothesen Jena 1954" is a summary of his opinions and researches and also a valuable source of argumets refuting so called aposematism and mimicry in insect realm) was also a great systematic of a past time. He came to the conclusion that honey-bees - comparing it's relative species - looks like flies. So in this case poisonous honey-bees having stings look more like flies, the phenomenon very strange indeed. There is supposedly a general rule( I am not a systematic) that tropic wasps are no way aposematics (they are supposedly mainly brown or black there) and this must be explained by neodarwinian "natural selection" rule as well. I do not read and I do not answer Dr.Adequate posts. Anyway thank you. His posts with great pictures of honey-bees is something I cannot just skip without noticing it.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
MartinV  Suspended Member (Idle past 5854 days) Posts: 502 From: Slovakia, Bratislava Joined: |
It's called natural selection. Let's say that in order to look more like a wasp, the insect has to compromise flight skill. There will be a balance between looking waspish and being skilled and the optimum solution will eventually be found - no doubt some kind of compromise between the two.
Are you sure? Because according the following observation it is only due wasps ability (or skills) that protects wasps from being eaten. Do you think that their mimics must be more skillfull than wasps? If yes I do not see a reason why so many species are mimicking wasps:
quote: Page not found - BirdWatching Jeanne who is a terraine biologist who studied wasps in Costa Rica almost 25 years ( he is no way an armchair neodarwinian scientist I dare say) came to this conclusion (2002) :
quote: NCBI Do you see any "selective pressure" for looking like wasps here? Edited by MartinV, : link added. Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Do you think that their mimics must be more skillfull than wasps? No, they don't have to be more skilful than wasps.
Do you see any "selective pressure" for looking like wasps here? No - its a paper on defensive behaviour, why would I expect to find a discussion on selection pressures on morphology?
|
||||||||||||||||||||
MartinV  Suspended Member (Idle past 5854 days) Posts: 502 From: Slovakia, Bratislava Joined: |
No - its a paper on defensive behaviour, why would I expect to find a discussion on selection pressures on morphology?
Obviously "warning coloration" is not enough to protect wasps. They need also "defensive behaviour" in order to survive "struggle for life". Because their "warning coloration" is not enough it obviously would be not enough for their mimics as well. And wasps' mimic behaviur is very different from those of wasps. You can check it if you like.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Obviously "warning coloration" is not enough to protect wasps. They need also "defensive behaviour" in order to survive "struggle for life". Yes, warning colouration only goes so far, but if they can't fly - wasps die. There are many things a wasp must have in full working order to expect to survive long enough to have those fully working genes passed on.
Because their "warning coloration" is not enough it obviously would be not enough for their mimics as well. Agreed, which is why wasp mimics aren't amorphous blobs of yellow and black biomasses.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
MartinV  Suspended Member (Idle past 5854 days) Posts: 502 From: Slovakia, Bratislava Joined: |
Discussing warning coloration of wasps we should take into consideration the wood wasps as well. There is a very dangerous looking species Sirex gigas which is no way harmfull. I am afraid the whole Siricidae family is no way dangerous. According Wikipedia:
quote: So I do not see the force mantaining "warning coloration" of the unarmed, defenceless wood wasps for such a long period. Can you give some explanation of it?
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
That was one heck of a subject change Martin.
So I do not see the force mantaining "warning coloration" of the unarmed, defenceless wood wasps for such a long period. This is not a thread on warning colouration but on mimicry. IF the colouration of the horntails is aposematic then the pressure to keep it should be obvious. If it is not, then there is presumably some other reason for its colouration. This isn't really the topic though - so why bring it up?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024