Antievolution.org - Antievolution.org Discussion Board -Topic::Coloration of animals, mimicry, aposematism

	Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > Coloration of animals, mimicry, aposematism

Pages: (13) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >

Topic: Coloration of animals, mimicry, aposematism, Is really natural selection behind it?

< Next Oldest | Next Newest >

VMartin

Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

Posted: Sep. 21 2007,11:31

This is the picture of the Issoria lathonia, where the reverse side of the butterfly wings can be observed:

The color patterns of front wings and hind wings make perfect harmony. But only in these resting position of wings, when the front wings are behind hind wings. We see only small parts of reverse side of front wings. The hided, covered part of them have almost the same coloration as front parts of butterfly wings coloration.

Do you see the white spots on the upper margin at the front wings? There are many black spots on wings which look like copy of spots on the upper part of wings.

So the harmony arise only in special position of wings. It seems like an artist painted the pattern in this exactly position. The phenomenon - neglected nowadays - is called after entomologist Oudemanse (or die Totalzeichnung, the term coined by Suffert) .

We often see animal coloration making the whole nice picture. This picture "is painted" over many parts of animal body which developes independently during ontogenesis.

Heikertinger considered "natural selection" as totally wrong explanatin of the phenomenon conceived in heads of "Hypothetiker" as he called proponents of natural selection.

I couldn't find a picture of Papilio dolicaon where he made his issue about the Oudemanse effect. There are semi-circles on its front and hind wings that fit into each other and create circles in the resting position of wings. It is hardly imaginable (if you are not a darwinist of course) that predators left only those individuals where circles were perfect and eliminated all those individuals, which didn't create perfect circles. It would mean that predators have also some aesthetical feeling.

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Sep. 21 2007,11:43

Aw, Martin, is this your way of avoiding the other questions waiting for you?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Occam's Toothbrush

Posts: 555
Joined: April 2006

Posted: Sep. 21 2007,11:44

Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 21 2007,12:31)

This is the picture of the Issoria lathonia, where the reverse side of the butterfly wings can be observed:

The color patterns of front wings and hind wings make perfect harmony. But only in these resting position of wings, when the front wings are behind hind wings. We see only small parts of reverse side of front wings. The hided, covered part of them have almost the same coloration as front parts of butterfly wings coloration.

Do you see the white spots on the upper margin at the front wings? There are many black spots on wings which look like copy of spots on the upper part of wings.

So the harmony arise only in special position of wings. It seems like an artist painted the pattern in this exactly position. The phenomenon - neglected nowadays - is called after entomologist Oudemanse (or die Totalzeichnung, the term coined by Suffert) .

We often see animal coloration making the whole nice picture. This picture "is painted" over many parts of animal body which developes independently during ontogenesis.

Heikertinger considered "natural selection" as totally wrong explanatin of the phenomenon conceived in heads of "Hypothetiker" as he called proponents of natural selection.

I couldn't find a picture of Papilio dolicaon where he made his issue about the Oudemanse effect. There are semi-circles on its front and hind wings that fit into each other and create circles in the resting position of wings. It is hardly imaginable (if you are not a darwinist of course) that predators left only those individuals where circles were perfect and eliminated all those individuals, which didn't create perfect circles. It would mean that predators have also some aesthetical feeling.

VMartin can't understand how a particular butterfly evolved to look the way it does, therefore goddidit.

--------------
"Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life" --Creo nut Robert Byers
------
"You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?" --Anger Management Problem Concern Troll "Kris"

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Sep. 21 2007,11:46

Quote

VMartin can't understand how a particular butterfly evolved to look the way it does, therefore goddidit.

No, that's the fun part: VMartin can't understand how a particular butterfly evolved to look the way it does, therefore he refuses to tell you what he thinks really happened.

He has no solutions to anything, but he sure hates him some Darwinists.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Henry J

Posts: 5760
Joined: Mar. 2005

Posted: Sep. 21 2007,12:12

It's not as though the chemical that causes the coloration might have other effects of some benefit to the organism, or that the genes responsible might be linked to other genes, or that the impact of the pigment on number of descentdants might be small enough that genetic drift could produce variety.

After all, anybody claiming that coloration is a problem for current theory would have already been thorough about ruling out those hypotheses, right?

Henry

Posts: 1552
Joined: Aug. 2005

Posted: Sep. 21 2007,12:59

Quote

the Oudemanse effect

Well, it had to happen. VMartin plays his trump card.

What can you say to the Oudemanse effect?

Posts: 1552
Joined: Aug. 2005

Posted: Sep. 21 2007,13:07

I think I can counter with the Fibonacci phenomenon. Have you ever looked, I mean really looked, at the arrangement of leaves in a globe artichoke?

JonF

Posts: 634
Joined: Feb. 2005

Posted: Sep. 21 2007,17:23

Quote (Alan Fox @ Sep. 21 2007,14:07)

I think I can counter with the Fibonacci phenomenon. Have you ever looked, I mean really looked, at the arrangement of leaves in a globe artichoke?

Like, wow, man ... deep!

VMartin

Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

Posted: Sep. 24 2007,12:33

You have never heard about Oudemanse and after him called phenomenon of the total coloration of animals ("Totalzeichnung"). That's why Alan pursued me - instead of making his own research - to ISCID with his questions.

Because you didn't find any information using google the phenomenon apparently does not exist for you.

But you should learn more about how to use google:

Quote

The independence of pattern formation mechanisms means that the coordination of united patterns of fore- and hindwings is accidental. This is remarkable, because from Oudemans’s principle [10] , patterns appearing on the exposed surface of fore- and hindwing at the natural resting position are often integrated to form a composite and united adaptive pattern with their surrounding environment.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/nu62h0580t697hn6/

Quote

VMartin can't understand how a particular butterfly evolved to look the way it does, therefore goddidit.

But we are pretty sure naturalselectiondidnotdoit.

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

oldmanintheskydidntdoit

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: Sep. 24 2007,12:47

Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 24 2007,12:33)

But we are pretty sure naturalselectiondidnotdoit.

oldmanintheskydidntdoit asks if naturalselectiondidnotdoit then whatdiddoit?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Sep. 24 2007,15:46

Yes, Martin, what is your alternate explanation?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

VMartin

Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

Posted: Sep. 26 2007,13:49

I hit on the neodarwinian article "The evolution of imperfect mimicry in hoverflies". That's a good reading! There is much more confusion than there was 50 years before. But no wonder, selectionists insist on aposematism whatever the facts are.

In 2002 are selectionists as lost as they were in 1954. It is so ridiculous that I must share some ideas from the above mentioned "up-to-date" material.

First selectionists have to admit sting play no role in aposematism:

Quote

The evidence that birds are also deterred by the sting is very weak and unconvincing. Mostler (1935) recorded no stings suffered by experienced adult birds, and of 70 prolonged contacts between bumblebees and young naive birds trying to eat them, there were only three stings.

Uf! And what nowadays, those research must be outdated!

Quote

Likewise Evans & Waldbauer (1982) thought that the sting of Bombus pennsylvanicus americanorum was not the main protection against birds. Only two of their birds were stung; the others avoided eating bumblebees only after having eaten the “middle segments of the abdomen”, presumably with the venom sac. In this case unpalatability may be due to distasteful venom.

Uf.

Quote

but birds appear to be rarely if ever stung (Mostler, 1935; Liepelt, 1963), and probably the sting is not a significant deterrent (Liepelt, 1963).

So darwinists are obviously lost, because stings are inneficient (they are only "secondary source of noxiousness" in their newspeak). But darwinian fantasy is still efficient:

Quote

Mostler considered the unpalatability of the abdomen to be the major source of noxiousness for wasps, and the sting was only secondary: subsequently Liepelt (1963) found that venom-free abdominal tissue evoked none of the typical unpalatability reactions. It is the terrible taste that the venom imparts to the abdomen that is the main deterrent for birds.

You would think: no problem. If no sting, that venom is the reason of unpalatability. But behold, not even this:

Quote

The basis of the ‘noxiousness’ of a model need not be unpalatability or stings, despite the fact that most discussions about mimicry have focused upon these elements.

Unbelievable! Not stings? Not even unpalatability? What then? Hold your breath now! :

Quote

In Brower & Brower’s (1965) experiments with toads feeding on honeybees and their Palpada mimics, for example, producing a buzz with the wings caused a 38% drop in predation, whereas the use of the sting caused only a 21% decrease in the mortality of the mimic. Thus sound seems to be a very important component of the signal that toads associate with noxiousness

Bingo! It is a buzz! Something that scientists of past weren't aware of and therefore their research is nowadays outdated!

(But frankly speaking - would you believe such nonsense except you are a darwinist?)

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Sep. 26 2007,14:00

Marty, you seem to really hate Darwinism for some reason, but you have yet to tell us what YOUR preferred explanation is. Why are you too afraid to do this?

PS: Just FYI, 'uf' isn't English.

PS2: No surprise, little Martin has been scared away *again*:

Quote

31 guests, 15 Public Members and 2 Anonymous Members [ View Complete List ]
>Arden Chatfield >oldmanintheskydidntdoit >Albatrossity2 >Thought Provoker >creeky belly >Nerull >Tracy P. Hamilton >Gunthernacus >Richardthughes >factician >JohnW >Altabin >George >blipey >J-Dog

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

Posted: Sep. 26 2007,14:32

i don't think VMartin is necessarily saying goddidit.

he is saying what the german school attempted to say during the early part of the 20th century, that there are channels of development. some like eimer admitted that these could be a result of selection. as far as i can tell from reading gould, eimer did search for material causes and was not positing supernatural or design explanations. it's just an old rehash of the formalist/structuralist vs adaptationist/selectionist debate, not an argument for design per se.

of course, where did these channels come from was a question that some of the german school appealed to mystical forces to answer.

so, martin, you are not persuaded of weismanns view of selection. where do orthogenetic channels come from?

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Sep. 26 2007,14:40

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Sep. 26 2007,14:32)

i don't think VMartin is necessarily saying goddidit.

he is saying what the german school attempted to say during the early part of the 20th century, that there are channels of development. some like eimer admitted that these could be a result of selection. as far as i can tell from reading gould, eimer did search for material causes and was not positing supernatural or design explanations. it's just an old rehash of the formalist/structuralist vs adaptationist/selectionist debate, not an argument for design per se.

of course, where did these channels come from was a question that some of the german school appealed to mystical forces to answer.

so, martin, you are not persuaded of weismanns view of selection. where do orthogenetic channels come from?

Quote

he is saying what the german school attempted to say during the early part of the 20th century, that there are channels of development. some like eimer admitted that these could be a result of selection. as far as i can tell from reading gould, eimer did search for material causes and was not positing supernatural or design explanations. it's just an old rehash of the formalist/structuralist vs adaptationist/selectionist debate, not an argument for design per se.

Maybe. But if so, I don't know why he refuses to say so.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

Posted: Sep. 26 2007,17:08

cause it is easier to play jester that way.

i don't think he will find his panselectionist boogey man here, but it is fun to yank his chain.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Sep. 26 2007,19:28

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Sep. 26 2007,17:08)

cause it is easier to play jester that way.

i don't think he will find his panselectionist boogey man here, but it is fun to yank his chain.

He still hasn't answered the question about common descent, tho. I have no intention of letting him off the hook on that one.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

VMartin

Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

Posted: Sep. 27 2007,12:31

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 26 2007,17:08)

cause it is easier to play jester that way.

i don't think he will find his panselectionist boogey man here, but it is fun to yank his chain.

Erasmus, do you agree that natural selection play no role in aposematism and mimicry? That's great!

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

guthrie

Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Sep. 27 2007,12:43

Troll.

VMartin

Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

Posted: Sep. 27 2007,13:17

Quote (guthrie @ Sep. 27 2007,12:43)

Troll.

Do you have any opinion on aposematism or mimicry? Are they caused by natural selection on your view?

Do you think that wasps are protected by their "warning coloration"?

Or do you just present your superioir manner having no idea about the problem?

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

Posted: Sep. 27 2007,14:45

No, I don't agree that 'no role' is even the issue. We are discussing the relative importance of selection and internal constraints. And I think you know that which is why you refuse to address the question.

One More Time:

Now, where the hell do orthogenetic channels come from? Are they material in origin, or not?

You have misrepresented even your own literary sources to make assertions that natural selection plays no role in coloration. There are two questions here, namely 1) origin of patterning and 2) fixation of patterning in populations.

You routinely jump between questions 1 and 2 either because you are dishonest or because you don't even understand what you are [not] saying. answer the questions.

[stage whisper] me thinks VMartin is Alan Sokal in deep cover.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

VMartin

Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

Posted: Sep. 27 2007,15:14

Erasmus, what the hell are you talking about? I haven't claimed that behind mimicry there are "orthogenetic channels".

Why don't you answer a simple question and why do you put your off-topic questions instead like poor Arden?

Are so you afraid accepting "natural selection" as the source of mimicry? I have supposed that you are a selectionist...

But to be clear: "warning coloration" of wasps and ladybugs do not exists actually. It exists only as armchair darwinian preconception in heads and in "primary literature" of darwinists. They need to explain bright coloration of insects. So they see aposematism and mimicry everywhere. They consider their fantasies about coloration to be real. They suppose "warning coloration" to be outcome of "natural selection" that gives their bearer "survival advantage".

Of course such fantasies about ladybugs, wasps, bees, bumple-bees etc. contradicts reality. But oddly enough such fantasies still penetrate into peer-reviewed journals, publications etc...

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

oldmanintheskydidntdoit

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: Sep. 27 2007,15:15

Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 27 2007,15:14)

Erasmus, what the hell are you talking about? I haven't claimed that behind mimicry there are "orthogenetic channels".

Why don't you answer a simple question and why do you put your off-topic questions instead like poor Arden?

Are so you afraid accepting "natural selection" as the source of mimicry? I have supposed that you are a selectionist...

But to be clear: "warning coloration" of wasps and ladybugs do not exists actually. It exists only as armchair darwinian preconception in heads and in "primary literature" of darwinists. They need to explain bright coloration of insects. So they see aposematism and mimicry everywhere. They consider their fantasies about coloration to be real. They suppose "warning coloration" to be outcome of "natural selection" that gives their bearer "survival advantage".

Of course such fantasies about ladybugs, wasps, bees, bumple-bees etc. contradicts reality. But oddly enough such fantasies still penetrate into peer-reviewed journals, publications etc...

The real answer, of course, is that the "designer" simply likes things to be pretty.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

Posted: Sep. 27 2007,15:22

VMartin more dishonesty. Every appeal to anti-selection you have made has been straight from the german school. This school has two camps: materialist and mystic.

Where does aposematic coloration come from?

Remember this is two questions: I think you are interested in the primary (from where does the coloration or patterning arise). This is not a selective issue. Your antiselectionist lit examples (convenient how your best stuff 'is not available in english', eh?) that i am familiar with posit channels or furrows of development that are more or less hard wired.

The question 'how does mimicry become fixed in populations' is clearly answered by selection. While I could be convinced otherwise and sometimes have, I find it hard to believe you could be so thick as to deny this.

So, back to the question. Where does aposematic coloration come from? I wanna hear it. Mind precedes matter and butterflies think it into existence? Or is it a spandrel?

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Posts: 1552
Joined: Aug. 2005

Posted: Sep. 27 2007,15:22

Quote

Of course such fantasies about ladybugs, wasps, bees, bumple-bees etc. contradicts reality. But oddly enough such fantasies still penetrate into peer-reviewed journals, publications etc...

And your alternative explanation to random mutation and natural selection is - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -*

(*please fill in blank)

Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

Posted: Sep. 27 2007,15:24

VMartin

Why do hybrid butterflies exhibit intergrading wing patterns?

(see Heliconias, Lyceades)

If it is heritable it is selectable, buffoon.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Sep. 27 2007,17:10

Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 27 2007,13:17)

Quote (guthrie @ Sep. 27 2007,12:43)

Troll.

Do you have any opinion on aposematism or mimicry? Are they caused by natural selection on your view?

Do you think that wasps are protected by their "warning coloration"?

Or do you just present your superioir manner having no idea about the problem?

'Projection', Marty. Look it up in your English-Slovak dictionary.

For a person who hates Darwinism but has absolutely nothing to offer instead, you're not in the position to be bitching here, dimwit.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Sep. 27 2007,17:11

Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 27 2007,15:14)

But to be clear: "warning coloration" of wasps and ladybugs do not exists actually. It exists only as armchair darwinian preconception in heads and in "primary literature" of darwinists. They need to explain bright coloration of insects. So they see aposematism and mimicry everywhere. They consider their fantasies about coloration to be real. They suppose "warning coloration" to be outcome of "natural selection" that gives their bearer "survival advantage".

Have an alternate explanation, dipshit?

Didn't think so.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

guthrie

Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Sep. 27 2007,17:18

Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 27 2007,13:17)

Quote (guthrie @ Sep. 27 2007,12:43)

Troll.

Do you have any opinion on aposematism or mimicry? Are they caused by natural selection on your view?

Do you think that wasps are protected by their "warning coloration"?

Or do you just present your superioir manner having no idea about the problem?

Variation and natural selection, of course.

I call you a troll because you continually fail to communicate your side of the argument, guaranteeing that well meaning people will waste time trying to work out what you are on about. (or alternatively laughing at you)

So, want to try again to explain what you are talking about?

Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Sep. 27 2007,17:25

Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 27 2007,15:14)

Erasmus, what the hell are you talking about? I haven't claimed that behind mimicry there are "orthogenetic channels".

You haven't claimed anything actually, except "darwinism can't explain...".
We're trying to guess what your theory is, but you're not helping.

VMartin

Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

Posted: Sep. 27 2007,23:59

Quote

The question 'how does mimicry become fixed in populations' is clearly answered by selection. While I could be convinced otherwise and sometimes have, I find it hard to believe you could be so thick as to deny this.

You should have had some basic idea about mimicry to discuss it before calling me names. So let us start a small lecture:

To consider something to be mimicry:

1) there is a resemblance to other species.
2) This resemblance give some advantage to species.
3) This resemblance aroused due Natural selection.

Because there is no advatage having warning coloration for wasps and ladybirds all of their "mimics" are not protected. Consequently natural selection couldn't caused their resemblance.

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Sep. 28 2007,01:27

Quote

Consequently natural selection couldn't caused their resemblance.

What DID cause it then, Martin?

Afraid to say, or just clueless?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

Posted: Sep. 28 2007,07:12

since you seem to be driven by mystical considerations of phenotypes, we can safely dispense with 2 and 3 here. i'm interested in why things look like other things when they are not those things, and i'm calling that mimicry.

otherwise you are playing stupid semantical games where something is impossible by definition. i'm not interested in that type of trolling so don't bother.

some beetles and spiders mimic ants (read: look just damn like them and live in ant nests). how did this happen, according to VMartin. Note "not by the natural selection, you frustrated darwinist materialist from ATBC" is not an answer.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

VMartin

Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

Posted: Sep. 28 2007,14:17

Quote

since you seem to be driven by mystical considerations of phenotypes, we can safely dispense with 2 and 3 here. i'm interested in why things look like other things when they are not those things, and i'm calling that mimicry.

Do not make fool of yourself. Do you consider resemblance of marsupial and placental wolf as mimicry? Which one is a model and which one is a mimic?

Do you consider butterflies living in Asia and those with similar wing color patterns living in Africa for mimicry?

Think before you write something. Point 2 and 3 are as important as point 1 is.

Quote

otherwise you are playing stupid semantical games where something is impossible by definition. i'm not interested in that type of trolling so don't bother

You have to accept definition of mimicry from scientists who devoted to the problem. Your own conception of mimicry is childish.

Quote

some beetles and spiders mimic ants (read: look just damn like them and live in ant nests). how did this happen, according to VMartin.

They didn't look just damn like them. They look just "damn" only in darwinian heads. It is utterly ridiculous to suppose that ants could be mislead by "mimics" from spider species.

Seeing Sphecotypus niger, Salticus contractus or Formicina mutinensis from above remind us on an ant only if no ant is present for comparision. Looking closely to "mimic" even you would be sure it is spider, no ant.

Ants use their antennae, not vision and above view as darwinists.

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Sep. 28 2007,14:25

Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 28 2007,14:17)

Quote

since you seem to be driven by mystical considerations of phenotypes, we can safely dispense with 2 and 3 here. i'm interested in why things look like other things when they are not those things, and i'm calling that mimicry.

Do not make fool of yourself. Do you consider resemblance of marsupial and placental wolf as mimicry? Which one is a model and which one is a mimic?

Take it easy Martin, and stop dodging the question.

Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Sep. 28 2007,14:34

Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 28 2007,15:17)

They didn't look just damn like them. They look just "damn" only in darwinian heads. It is utterly ridiculous to suppose that ants could be mislead by "mimics" from spider species.

Seeing Sphecotypus niger, Salticus contractus or Formicina mutinensis from above remind us on an ant only if no ant is present for comparision. Looking closely to "mimic" even you would be sure it is spider, no ant.

Ants use their antennae, not vision and above view as darwinists.

The only relevant point is that they look like ants to other ants.

--------------

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)

Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Sep. 28 2007,14:40

Quote

You have to accept definition of mimicry from scientists who devoted to the problem. Your own conception of mimicry is childish.

What's childish, Martin, is dismissing the scientific explanation and having absolutely no clue what alternate explanation there could be.

Or do you have an idea, but you're just too frightened to say it?

PS: As usual, VM runs away immediately after posting:

Quote

24 guests, 16 Public Members and 1 Anonymous Members [ View Complete List ]
>Arden Chatfield >fruiqueHigres >improvius >Albatrossity2 >csadams >Steverino >Nerull >Richardthughes >J-Dog >creeky belly >Big D >Reciprocating Bill >Occam's Aftershave >guthrie >JAM >Venus Mousetrap

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Sep. 28 2007,15:06

Martin, is it you position that mimicry confers no advantage?

Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Sep. 28 2007,15:19

I was gonna ask that same question Jeannot.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Sep. 28 2007,15:29

If mimicry confers no advantage, it can hardly be called mimicry.
What do you think, Martin?
We'd like to hear your expertise on that topic.

Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Sep. 28 2007,15:33

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 28 2007,14:40)

Quote

You have to accept definition of mimicry from scientists who devoted to the problem. Your own conception of mimicry is childish.

What's childish, Martin, is dismissing the scientific explanation and having absolutely no clue what alternate explanation there could be.

Or do you have an idea, but you're just too frightened to say it?

PS: As usual, VM runs away immediately after posting:

Quote

24 guests, 16 Public Members and 1 Anonymous Members [ View Complete List ]
>Arden Chatfield >fruiqueHigres >improvius >Albatrossity2 >csadams >Steverino >Nerull >Richardthughes >J-Dog >creeky belly >Big D >Reciprocating Bill >Occam's Aftershave >guthrie >JAM >Venus Mousetrap

I propose a game, where we'd guess what VMartin's theory is.

My bet is that it has something to do with the PEH.
Then we'll imagine some fancy details. It could be fun.

Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

Posted: Sep. 28 2007,15:40

It's not just to other ants. An ant expert in my lab has been fooled for over an hour by ant mimic beetles, trying to figure just what subfamily the thing is in only to realize sheepishly the source of the problem.

Quote

It is utterly ridiculous to suppose that ants could be mislead by "mimics" from spider species.

But that is what happens, stupid troll. Most ants attack everything in the nest that is not a member of their colony. The beetle slips through because THEY THINK HE IS AN ANT.

I watched monomorium ants from two colonies fighting it out on the sidewalk for ten minutes this morning. Pretty cool.

VMartin trolleth:

Quote

Do not make fool of yourself. Do you consider resemblance of marsupial and placental wolf as mimicry? Which one is a model and which one is a mimic?

Do you consider butterflies living in Asia and those with similar wing color patterns living in Africa for mimicry?

Think before you write something. Point 2 and 3 are as important as point 1 is.

These things don't have anything to do with your points 2 and 3.

Now, answer. Where the hell do phenotypes come from if they are not heritable?

I swear to god this is alan sokal getting kicks.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Sep. 28 2007,15:55

Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 27 2007,23:59)

Because there is no advatage having warning coloration for wasps and ladybirds all of their "mimics" are not protected. Consequently natural selection couldn't caused their resemblance.

This study shows the contrary.

Quote

Title: Why are wasps so intimidating: field experiments on hunting dragonflies (Odonata : Aeshna grandis)
Author(s): Kauppinen J, Mappes J
Source: ANIMAL BEHAVIOUR 66: 505-511 Part 3, SEP 2003

Abstract: The mechanisms of aposematism (unprofitability of prey combined with a conspicuous signal) have mainly been studied with reference to vertebrate predators, especially birds. We investigated whether dragonflies, Aeshna grandis, avoid attacking wasps, Vespula norwegica, which are an unprofitable group of prey for most predators. As a control we used flies that were painted either black or with yellow and black stripes. The dragonflies showed greater aversion to wasps than to flies. Black-and-yellow-striped flies were avoided more than black ones, suggesting that aposematic coloration on a harmless fly provides a selective advantage against invertebrate predators. There was no significant difference in reactions to black-painted and black-and-yellow wasps, indicating that, in addition to coloration, some other feature in wasps might deter predators. In further experiments we offered dragonflies artificial prey items in which the candidate warning signals (coloration, odour and shape) were tested separately while other confounding factors were kept constant. The dragonflies avoided more black-and-yellow prey items than solid black or solid yellow ones. However, we found no influence of wasp odour on dragonfly hunting. Dragonflies were slightly, but not significantly, more reluctant to attack wasp-shaped prey items than fly-shaped ones. Our results suggest that the typical black-and-yellow stripes of wasps, possibly combined with their unique shape, make dragonflies avoid wasps. Since black-and-yellow stripes alone significantly decreased attack rate, we conclude that even profitable prey species (i.e. Batesian mimics) are able to exploit the dragonflies' avoidance of wasps. © 2003 Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour.

What's your take on that, Martin?

Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Sep. 28 2007,16:18

Since predator/prey evolution can be viewed as something of a long-term escalation race, it's entirely possible that the wasp striping provided a much stronger survival advantage in the past. But since the predators are also evolving, they may be more discerning now. It may be that they have evolved to react more to the sound or shape than to the color, whereas the past predators may have reacted more to the coloration.

--------------

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)

Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

Posts: 1552
Joined: Aug. 2005

Posted: Sep. 29 2007,04:46

Good quote, Jeannot.

Well, Martin, it would appear that dragonflies hunt mainly by sight, and are a very ancient group. Does your theory, which, by the way, you have so far omitted to discuss, provide a better explanation of these observations and experiments?

Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Sep. 29 2007,05:43

Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 27 2007,23:59)

Because there is no advatage having warning coloration for wasps and ladybirds all of their "mimics" are not protected. Consequently natural selection couldn't caused their resemblance.

In fact, there are flaws in this reasoning.
The fact that many potential predators can identify wasps by other cues than color doesn't mean that the striped color pattern wasn't aposematic in the past (as pointed by Improvius) or for some species (humans?).

Second, the fact that unstriped wasps are still avoided doesn't mean that color doesn't contribute to the identification at all. I can be redundant with shape or odor, which is not the same.
Hence, other groups can take advantage of their mimicry with wasps by misleading predators, as suggested by this study.

VMartin

Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

Posted: Oct. 01 2007,07:27

Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 28 2007,15:55)

Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 27 2007,23:59)

Because there is no advatage having warning coloration for wasps and ladybirds all of their "mimics" are not protected. Consequently natural selection couldn't caused their resemblance.

This study shows the contrary.

Quote

Title: Why are wasps so intimidating: field experiments on hunting dragonflies (Odonata : Aeshna grandis)
Author(s): Kauppinen J, Mappes J
Source: ANIMAL BEHAVIOUR 66: 505-511 Part 3, SEP 2003

Abstract: The mechanisms of aposematism (unprofitability of prey combined with a conspicuous signal) have mainly been studied with reference to vertebrate predators, especially birds. We investigated whether dragonflies, Aeshna grandis, avoid attacking wasps, Vespula norwegica, which are an unprofitable group of prey for most predators. As a control we used flies that were painted either black or with yellow and black stripes. The dragonflies showed greater aversion to wasps than to flies. Black-and-yellow-striped flies were avoided more than black ones, suggesting that aposematic coloration on a harmless fly provides a selective advantage against invertebrate predators. There was no significant difference in reactions to black-painted and black-and-yellow wasps, indicating that, in addition to coloration, some other feature in wasps might deter predators. In further experiments we offered dragonflies artificial prey items in which the candidate warning signals (coloration, odour and shape) were tested separately while other confounding factors were kept constant. The dragonflies avoided more black-and-yellow prey items than solid black or solid yellow ones. However, we found no influence of wasp odour on dragonfly hunting. Dragonflies were slightly, but not significantly, more reluctant to attack wasp-shaped prey items than fly-shaped ones. Our results suggest that the typical black-and-yellow stripes of wasps, possibly combined with their unique shape, make dragonflies avoid wasps. Since black-and-yellow stripes alone significantly decreased attack rate, we conclude that even profitable prey species (i.e. Batesian mimics) are able to exploit the dragonflies' avoidance of wasps. © 2003 Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour.

What's your take on that, Martin?

Hehe. Alan Fox himself seems to be enthusiastic about the results of the "experiment". Darwinists are making these childish experiments more than 150 years to prove their nonsense about their concept of "mimicry". Heikertinger was right when he made the same experiments himself and prove exactly the opposite from them.

Here you have another one, which proves exact the opposite!

Quote

However, dragonflies showed no differences between attacks on prey with wasp-like colours and patterns and those on the same-sized prey that were nonmimetic. Moreover, dragonflies avoided attacking both mock-painted and black-painted wasps entirely. Overall, we found no evidence to support the hypothesis that wasp-like warning signals protect small insect prey from attack by dragonflies, although size seems to be an important cue in dragonfly prey choice.

The most important thing is hidden in the last sentence.
The prey are almost always picked up by size. It is same in all Nature. "Warning coloration" plays no nole. It plays role only in darwinian text-books.

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=17244503

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

VMartin

Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

Posted: Oct. 01 2007,07:32

Quote (improvius @ Sep. 28 2007,16:18)

Since predator/prey evolution can be viewed as something of a long-term escalation race, it's entirely possible that the wasp striping provided a much stronger survival advantage in the past. But since the predators are also evolving, they may be more discerning now. It may be that they have evolved to react more to the sound or shape than to the color, whereas the past predators may have reacted more to the coloration.

May, may, may... This is the last darwinian resort. Nobody can check it. Because "warning coloration" play no role and give no protection - it could be checked - it is presumed that there was once a time... Of course to hold such fantasies for science you have to be convinced about omnipotence of hypothesis of "natural selection".

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

oldmanintheskydidntdoit

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: Oct. 01 2007,07:39

Quote (VMartin @ Oct. 01 2007,07:32)

Quote (improvius @ Sep. 28 2007,16:18)

Since predator/prey evolution can be viewed as something of a long-term escalation race, it's entirely possible that the wasp striping provided a much stronger survival advantage in the past. But since the predators are also evolving, they may be more discerning now. It may be that they have evolved to react more to the sound or shape than to the color, whereas the past predators may have reacted more to the coloration.

May, may, may... This is the last darwinian resort. Nobody can check it. Because "warning coloration" play no role and give no protection - it could be checked - it is presumed that there was once a time... Of course to hold such fantasies for science you have to be convinced about omnipotence of hypothesis of "natural selection".

Nobody can check your idea either, as you refuse to say what is is. So sort yourself out first might be an idea?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

VMartin

Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

Posted: Oct. 01 2007,07:58

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 28 2007,15:40)

It's not just to other ants. An ant expert in my lab has been fooled for over an hour by ant mimic beetles, trying to figure just what subfamily the thing is in only to realize sheepishly the source of the problem.

Quote

It is utterly ridiculous to suppose that ants could be mislead by "mimics" from spider species.

But that is what happens, stupid troll. Most ants attack everything in the nest that is not a member of their colony. The beetle slips through because THEY THINK HE IS AN ANT.

I watched monomorium ants from two colonies fighting it out on the sidewalk for ten minutes this morning. Pretty cool.

VMartin trolleth:

Quote

Do not make fool of yourself. Do you consider resemblance of marsupial and placental wolf as mimicry? Which one is a model and which one is a mimic?

Do you consider butterflies living in Asia and those with similar wing color patterns living in Africa for mimicry?

Think before you write something. Point 2 and 3 are as important as point 1 is.

These things don't have anything to do with your points 2 and 3.

Now, answer. Where the hell do phenotypes come from if they are not heritable?

I swear to god this is alan sokal getting kicks.

Any problems with your nerves? Alan Sokal? Am I really "stupid troll"? Look what nonsense you have written:

Quote

But that is what happens, stupid troll. Most ants attack everything in the nest that is not a member of their colony. The beetle slips through because THEY THINK HE IS AN ANT.

They even "THINK"? Really? Did't you make some naive antropomorphism to support your ridiculous concept of mimicry and it's protective value?

Your stupidity and ignorance are amazing. There are more than 2.000 guests species which lives in ant's nests. According your darwinian flawed logic all of them should be mimics. So have a look at the beetle Atemeles first. Ants are even feeding them... Or lomechusa strumosa or many others... Do you see any resemblance, any mimicry?

Because you have no basic idea about mimicry and so-called "zoomimese" and because you do not care about facts you do not know that in nests is dark and that ants use their antennae to check each other. You would continue to spread nonsense about ant mimics which visionaly look like ants. It should give them protection by your flawed logic - but no one know protection against what.

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

Posts: 1552
Joined: Aug. 2005

Posted: Oct. 01 2007,07:58

Seems both Dragonfly papers require a subscription for full access.

Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 01 2007,08:06

Quote (VMartin @ Oct. 01 2007,08:32)

Quote (improvius @ Sep. 28 2007,16:18)

Since predator/prey evolution can be viewed as something of a long-term escalation race, it's entirely possible that the wasp striping provided a much stronger survival advantage in the past. But since the predators are also evolving, they may be more discerning now. It may be that they have evolved to react more to the sound or shape than to the color, whereas the past predators may have reacted more to the coloration.

May, may, may... This is the last darwinian resort. Nobody can check it. Because "warning coloration" play no role and give no protection - it could be checked - it is presumed that there was once a time... Of course to hold such fantasies for science you have to be convinced about omnipotence of hypothesis of "natural selection".

And once again we see the goalposts being moved. Come on, can't you come up with anything better than that? It's the oldest trick in the book.

Creationist: Creationism is true because evolution has no way of explaining x.
Biologist: Well, actually, here's one possible explanation of x...
Creationist: Ha! You have no way of proving that's what really happened! My theory still wins!
Biologist: ...

--------------

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)

Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 01 2007,11:24

Quote (Alan Fox @ Oct. 01 2007,07:58)

Seems both Dragonfly papers require a subscription for full access.

I don't have access to Martin's paper. However, from the abstract, it seems they didn't measure the same thing. The more recent paper compared predation on flies painted in black with predation on flies with striped color patterns. So clearly, the control allows to test the effect of the color pattern only.
Whereas the older study says

Quote

dragonflies showed no differences between attacks on prey with wasp-like colours and patterns and those on the same-sized prey that were nonmimetic.

So it seems that preys were different (different species?). This couldn't test the effect of stripes alone. There can be confounding effects.

The 2003 paper clearly shows that a fly would benefit of a *new* striped color pattern regarding the risk of predation, while the older doesn't allow any clear conclusion.
It is also possible that some mimmics had a fitness advantage in the past, but they no longer fool their predators.

Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 01 2007,12:01

I'm sorry. I can't take it any more. VMartin, this isn't a challenge to evolution by natural selection.

This is a micro example. Since evolution by natural selection is the force driving speciation, we can know for certain that these things evolved the way they did through natural selection. How is an academic matter with potentially no useful information flowing from the answer. Of course there could be something useful but maybe not. Anyway, raising your objection at all is a weird straw-grasping gesture that even makes the moonies at the airport avoid you.

Yeesh.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 01 2007,12:15

Quote

They even "THINK"? Really? Did't you make some naive antropomorphism to support your ridiculous concept of mimicry and it's protective value?

Your stupidity and ignorance are amazing. There are more than 2.000 guests species which lives in ant's nests. According your darwinian flawed logic all of them should be mimics. So have a look at the beetle Atemeles first. Ants are even feeding them... Or lomechusa strumosa or many others... Do you see any resemblance, any mimicry?

Because you have no basic idea about mimicry and so-called "zoomimese" and because you do not care about facts you do not know that in nests is dark and that ants use their antennae to check each other. You would continue to spread nonsense about ant mimics which visionaly look like ants. It should give them protection by your flawed logic - but no one know protection against what.

Marty, all you have to offer is endless bitching about imagined shortcomings of 'Darwinismus'.

What do you think explains these factors, if not natural selection?

No idea? None?

Too stupid to have an idea, or too embarrassed to say?

Do you sign on with Davison's "goddidit, then died" idea?

Produce something, Marty. Quit being a buffoon. Put up or shut up.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

VMartin

Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

Posted: Oct. 01 2007,12:34

Bug eating a honeybee

Robber fly eating a wasp

Wasp attacked by Robber fly

Dragonfly eating wasp for Jeannot:

Northern shrike eating a wasp:

Cantharidae eating a wasp:

I suppse these pictures weren't done by scientists. Otherwise they would know that modern armchair research proved that wasps' "warning coloration" deter predators...

But who knows, there was once a time wasps have no predators due to their "waring stripes" hehe...

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 01 2007,12:39

Quote

I suppse these pictures weren't done by scientists. Otherwise they would know that modern armchair research proved that wasps' "warning coloration" deter predators...

But who knows, there was once a time wasps have no predators due to their "waring stripes" hehe...

Marty, you're more incoherent than ever.

What's your explanation of such behaviors? Do you have any kind of point here at all? Or just trolling?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 01 2007,12:48

No more photos, Marty. We're not interested. Answer the frigging questions, or get back to work.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

VMartin

Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

Posted: Oct. 01 2007,12:50

Quote (BWE @ Oct. 01 2007,12:01)

I'm sorry. I can't take it any more. VMartin, this isn't a challenge to evolution by natural selection.

This is a micro example. Since evolution by natural selection is the force driving speciation, we can know for certain that these things evolved the way they did through natural selection. How is an academic matter with potentially no useful information flowing from the answer. Of course there could be something useful but maybe not. Anyway, raising your objection at all is a weird straw-grasping gesture that even makes the moonies at the airport avoid you.

Yeesh.

Uf. Another "expert". Micro example, would you believe to such an "argument"?

BWE, do you know something about mimicry or not? Then go away and have a talk at "bathroom wall" with poor Arden. You have written stupid gibberish yet like him. You are not at school to deceive small children how "natural selection" created "warning coloration" you know. But I am aftraid even a small child wouldn't be persuaded by your "airport natural selection" gibberish.

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 01 2007,12:58

Quote (VMartin @ Oct. 01 2007,12:34)

But who knows, there was once a time wasps have no predators due to their "waring stripes" hehe...

Martin, what about the paper I linked to? I clearly shows that a painted stripped pattern lowers the risk of death by predation. Why is that?
So far, you failed to comment on its results.

PS: your photos are totally irrelevant.

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 01 2007,12:59

Quote (VMartin @ Oct. 01 2007,12:50)

Quote (BWE @ Oct. 01 2007,12:01)

I'm sorry. I can't take it any more. VMartin, this isn't a challenge to evolution by natural selection.

This is a micro example. Since evolution by natural selection is the force driving speciation, we can know for certain that these things evolved the way they did through natural selection. How is an academic matter with potentially no useful information flowing from the answer. Of course there could be something useful but maybe not. Anyway, raising your objection at all is a weird straw-grasping gesture that even makes the moonies at the airport avoid you.

Yeesh.

Uf. Another "expert". Micro example, would you believe to such an "argument"?

BWE, do you know something about mimicry or not? Then go away and have a talk at "bathroom wall" with poor Arden. You have written stupid gibberish yet like him. You are not at school to deceive small children how "natural selection" created "warning coloration" you know. But I am aftraid even a small child wouldn't be persuaded by your "airport natural selection" gibberish.

'Stupid gibberish'? Asking you to provide an alternate solution to the one you're witlessly trashing is 'stupid gibberish'?

Out of curiosity, Marty, do you have any kind science education at all? Or did your science teachers just spend all the time trashing theories they didn't like?

Put up or shut up, Marty. Give us an alternate theory. Otherwise, either go back to cuddling Davison, or get back to work.

Quote

Uf. Another "expert". Micro example, would you believe to such an "argument"?

As someone who never offers arguments of any kind, you shouldn't talk, Marty.

Answer the questions or leave, troll.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 01 2007,13:10

Quote

17 Public Members and 2 Anonymous Members [ View Complete List ]
>Arden Chatfield >N.Wells >dheddle >Richardthughes >Louis >slpage >Venus Mousetrap >improvius >BWE >jeannot >argystokes >J-Dog >Tom >oldmanintheskydidntdoit >JohnW >Albatrossity2 >VMartin

Uh, Marty, we're waiting.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

VMartin

Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

Posted: Oct. 01 2007,13:13

Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 01 2007,12:58)

Quote (VMartin @ Oct. 01 2007,12:34)

But who knows, there was once a time wasps have no predators due to their "waring stripes" hehe...

Martin, what about the paper I linked to? I clearly shows that a painted stripped pattern lowers the risk of death by predation. Why is that?
So far, you failed to comment on its results.

PS: your photos are totally irrelevant.

Oh, really? Because the research I gave you the link contardicts to such fantasies clearly:

Quote

Overall, we found no evidence to support the hypothesis that wasp-like warning signals protect small insect prey from attack by dragonflies, although size seems to be an important cue in dragonfly prey choice.

Another point is why do you stick at dragonflies. Do you mean they play any significant role in selecting of color patterns of wasps or what? Because Poulton was of another meaning. The protection of wasps against birds (quoting Poulton:) "would be largely compensated by a relatively increased exposure to predaceous Invertebrata".

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 01 2007,13:17

Marty, we're waiting.

What's your explanation?

Have one?

Anything? Nothing?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 01 2007,13:18

Quote (VMartin @ Oct. 01 2007,12:50)

Quote (BWE @ Oct. 01 2007,12:01)

I'm sorry. I can't take it any more. VMartin, this isn't a challenge to evolution by natural selection.

This is a micro example. Since evolution by natural selection is the force driving speciation, we can know for certain that these things evolved the way they did through natural selection. How is an academic matter with potentially no useful information flowing from the answer. Of course there could be something useful but maybe not. Anyway, raising your objection at all is a weird straw-grasping gesture that even makes the moonies at the airport avoid you.

Yeesh.

Uf. Another "expert". Micro example, would you believe to such an "argument"?

BWE, do you know something about mimicry or not? Then go away and have a talk at "bathroom wall" with poor Arden. You have written stupid gibberish yet like him. You are not at school to deceive small children how "natural selection" created "warning coloration" you know. But I am aftraid even a small child wouldn't be persuaded by your "airport natural selection" gibberish.

Sorry V. I was hoping that if I misused the words it might help you understand.

Anyway, since you appear to be interested in whacky mimicry, here's the way out best mimic:

Quote

Description & Behavior

Movie 1 | Movie 2 | Movie 3 | Movie 4

This fascinating creature was discovered in 1998 off the coast of Sulawesi in Indonesia on the bottom of a muddy river mouth. For the next 2 years, scientists filmed nine different mimic octopuses, Thaumoctopus mimicus (Norman & Hochberg, 2005), impersonating sea snakes, lionfish, and flatfish—a strategy used to avoid predators. The mimic octopus reaches about 60 cm long, and is typically brown and white striped.

The mimic octopus has been observed shifting between impersonations as it crosses the ocean floor to return to its burrow.

Scientists speculate that additional mimic species will be found in muddy river and estuary bottoms in the tropics as these areas are typically unexplored.

All octopus species are highly intelligent and change the color and texture of their skin for camouflage to avoid predators. Until the mimic octopus was discovered, however, the remarkable ability to impersonate another animal had never been observed.

Norman and fellow researchers, Julian Finn of the University of Tasmania in Australia and Tom Tregenza of the University of Leeds in England, describe the mimic octopus in the September 7th issue of the Proceedings of the Royal Society of London.

Although mimicry is a common survival strategy in nature, certain flies assume the black and yellow stripes of bees as a warning to potential predators, the mimic octopus is the first known species to take on the characteristics of multiple species. The creatures they mimic include:

» Sole fish: This flat, poisonous fish is imitated by the mimic octopus by building up speed through jet propulsion as it draws all of its arms together into a leaf-shaped wedge as it undulates in the manner of a swimming flat fish.

» Lion fish: To mimic the lion fish, the octopus hovers above the ocean floor with its arms spread wide, trailing from its body to take on the appearance of the lion fish's poisonous fins.

» Sea snakes: The mimic octopus changes color taking on the yellow and black bands of the toxic sea snake as it waves 2 arms in opposite directions in the motion of two sea snakes.

Scientists believe this creature may also impersonate sand anemones, stingrays, mantis shrimp and even jellyfish.

This animal is so intelligent that it is able to discern which dangerous sea creature to impersonate that will present the greatest threat to its current possible predator. For example, scientists observed that when the octopus was attacked by territorial damselfishes, it mimicked the banded sea snake, a known predator of damselfishes.

The movies from the site are really cool BTW. here's the link: here.

But V, don't stop. You've no idea how much fun you are at parties.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

VMartin

Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

Posted: Oct. 01 2007,14:39

BWE having no idea about insect mimicry is trying to discuss it using off topic example. But even his example is spreading this nonsense:

Quote

Although mimicry is a common survival strategy in nature, certain flies assume the black and yellow stripes of bees as a warning to potential predators...

I don't know at what darwinian party the article was written, but on my opinion black and yellow stripes are more visible on wasps than on bees. Bees even look more inconspicuous, even cryptic. But because authors do not discern between wasps and bees no wonder they see "multiple" mimicry now everywhere.

Quote

But V, don't stop. You've no idea how much fun you are at parties.

I don't doubt about it. If at those parties are darwinian adolescents and experts on mimicry like you and others here...

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 01 2007,14:43

Quote

I don't doubt about it. If at those parties are darwinian adolescents and experts on mimicry like you and others here...

Oh Maaaaartyyyyyyyy......Maaaaartyyyyyyyy...... answer our questions, Maaaaartyyyyyyyy......

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 01 2007,14:48

Um... Have you looked at the reference provided by jeannot? That's ok. I didn't either until I read your last post.

BTW, you are right V. I am not an expert in insect mimicry. However, referring to my previous point, I don't need to be in order to know that speciation is the result of evolution through natural selection.

However, I am learning something on this thread so I hope you continue to enjoy yourself.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 01 2007,15:03

Martin, you're getting more boring and arrogant than ever.

There are hundreds of studies testing and confirming aposematism in many animals. Do I need past all their abstracts here?
Your fancy pictures of wasps being eaten by predators (big news), and this old study whose negative result fail to demonstrate aposematism doesn't prove your point, whatever that is.

VMartin

Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

Posted: Oct. 01 2007,15:26

Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 01 2007,15:03)

Martin, you're getting more boring and arrogant than ever. ???
There are hundreds of studies testing and confirming aposematism in many animals. Do I need past all their abstracts here?
Your fancy pictures of wasps being eaten by predators (big news), and this old study whose negative result fail to demonstrate aposematism doesn't prove your point, whatever that is.

Oh, there are "hundreds of studies"? You have presented only one of them yet - which was mildly speaking utterly childish. Feel free to put here second one of them. As you can see I have no problem tu put here "studies" or experiments or facts that refute your "studies" very clearly. There is unbelievable mess in those studies.
We can go through each one of those "hundreds of studies" one by one.

All this mess is caused by the fact that there is no such thing as "warning coloration" of wasps, bees, ladybirds, butterfiles. This is the reason why such studies contradicts each other. But selectionists insist on "warning coloration", or aposematism to explain colourful patterns of many insect species.

Now you are using the argument - we are so many, we have so many studies, we must be right!
But you are not.
Let's start with another "study" of insect "warning coloration". Choice the one you like best.

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 01 2007,15:28

Quote

We can go through each one of those "hundreds of studies" one by one.

Instead, why don't you explain what *your* theory is, Marty?

Or, explain why it's 'adolescent' to ask you to explain yourself.

Martin, for your country's sake, I sincerely hope you're not a typical result of the Slovakian educational system.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 01 2007,15:39

V,

Hmmm. High school kid playing a prank?

OK, thought experiment, why are they warning coloration on wasps? Why not just a bit o teh sexah? But if you were a kind of thing that didn't like the sting so to speak and you got tired of gittin jiggy wit the owie kabowie, you'd be fair to likely to cross the seat and not bitch about the color of twinkie's eyes if you catch my drift. At that point my slinky mollusk is thinking Arby's. Follow?

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 01 2007,16:42

Quote (VMartin @ Oct. 01 2007,14:39)

Quote

But V, don't stop. You've no idea how much fun you are at parties.

I don't doubt about it. If at those parties are darwinian adolescents and experts on mimicry like you and others here...

Can you elaborate? Forgive me if I miss the reference. Your thinking style isn't native to my whatever it could be...

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

Posted: Oct. 01 2007,17:05

Some things to look at, perhaps:

Lindström, L. , Alatalo, R. V. , Lyytinen, A. & Mappes, J. (2001) Strong antiapostatic selection against novel rare aposematic prey. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 98, 9181-9184 http://www.pnas.org/cgi....1a92ec6

Commentary on Lindstrom's work by James Mallet in PNAS: Mimicry: An interface between psychology and evolution PNAS 2001 98: 8928-8930 http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/98/16/8928

Quote

Every now and then, a new technique allows major breakthroughs to be made on a hitherto intractable problem. In this issue of PNAS, Leena Lindström and colleagues have shed light on long-standing controversies in warning color and mimicry. They have achieved this through experiments on the behavior of wild-caught birds (great tits, Parus major), using their ingenious "novel world" setup, a modification of that originally introduced by Rauno Alatalo and Johanna Mappes in 1996...

I believe that simplistic number-dependent selection will ultimately be disproved; however, near-zero attack asymptotes can ONLY lead to conventional, mutualistic Müllerian mimicry... Will we ever have a complete, unassailable theory of warning color and Müllerian mimicry? I don't know, but I believe the ingenious "novel world" experiments are the best yet designed to investigate the psychological interface of this unsolved evolutionary problem (my emphases)

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

Posted: Oct. 01 2007,17:44

Those little works lead me to things like:

C. Barnett, M Bateson, and C Rowe. State-dependent decision making: educated predators strategically trade off the costs and benefits of consuming aposematic prey
Behav. Ecol., July 1, 2007; 18(4): 645 - 651. http://beheco.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/18/4/645

and:

M. V. Trotter and H. G. Spencer. Frequency-Dependent Selection and the Maintenance of Genetic Variation: Exploring the Parameter Space of the Multiallelic Pairwise Interaction Model. Genetics, July 1, 2007; 176(3): 1729 - 1740.

commentary on early models of "Speedian" or "quasi-Batesian" mimicry:

Joron, M. ; Mallet, JLB.(1998) Diversity in mimicry: paradox or paradigm? Trends in Ecology & Evolution. Vol. 13, no. 11, 461 p. Nov 1998. http://zeldia.cap.ed.ac.uk/joron/joron98.pdf

A proposed mathematical model and a good overview of various theoretical models of aposematism:

Evol Puurtinen M,Kaitala V (2006) CONDITIONS FOR THE SPREAD OF CONSPICUOUS WARNING SIGNALS: A NUMERICAL MODEL WITH NOVEL INSIGHTS. Evolution 60(11): 2246 http://users.jyu.fi/~hemipu/2227_Puurtinen.pdf

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

VMartin

Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

Posted: Oct. 01 2007,23:47

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 01 2007,17:44)

Those little works lead me to things like:

C. Barnett, M Bateson, and C Rowe. State-dependent decision making: educated predators strategically trade off the costs and benefits of consuming aposematic prey
Behav. Ecol., July 1, 2007; 18(4): 645 - 651. http://beheco.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/18/4/645

and:

M. V. Trotter and H. G. Spencer. Frequency-Dependent Selection and the Maintenance of Genetic Variation: Exploring the Parameter Space of the Multiallelic Pairwise Interaction Model. Genetics, July 1, 2007; 176(3): 1729 - 1740.

commentary on early models of "Speedian" or "quasi-Batesian" mimicry:

Joron, M. ; Mallet, JLB.(1998) Diversity in mimicry: paradox or paradigm? Trends in Ecology & Evolution. Vol. 13, no. 11, 461 p. Nov 1998. http://zeldia.cap.ed.ac.uk/joron/joron98.pdf

A proposed mathematical model and a good overview of various theoretical models of aposematism:

Evol Puurtinen M,Kaitala V (2006) CONDITIONS FOR THE SPREAD OF CONSPICUOUS WARNING SIGNALS: A NUMERICAL MODEL WITH NOVEL INSIGHTS. Evolution 60(11): 2246 http://users.jyu.fi/~hemipu/2227_Puurtinen.pdf

As I have already told to Jeannot - please pick up only one of those materials and put it here for discussion. It doesn't mean that giving links to ten materials in two consecutive posts you prove story of aposematism. You see I have also other interests as study all selectionists links you put here.

The last link is of no avail - armchair mathematical models are proving nothing. It is ridiculous to make armchair computation and charts how are wasps protected where there are bird predators specialised on wasps.

In the other link you have given is written these sentence:

Quote

This result challenges classic theoretical models of the evolution of aposematism based purely on predator learning and forgetting rates and demonstrates the need to consider energy-toxin trade-offs in foraging decisions on defended prey.

In other words it told us what we know more than 70 years. This "trade-off" is nothing more and nothing less than the fact if the foraging bird is hungry or not.
If it is hungry it will eat aposematics regardless of their poison.

The most important are experiments outdoors and from those are the most important studies of the content of stomachs of real birds.

These experiments was done by Biological Survey Division of United States Department of Agriculture. They wanted to estimate harmfulness of birds. These results are neglected by selectionists, because they show something selectionists do not like - wasp, bees are readily eaten by birds.

McAtee made statistics from these results and argue with Poulton about efecteveness of "warning coloration" of wasps, etc...

The same study was done in Hungary 1905-1910 by Csiki, who studied contents of stomachs of almost 2.800 birds. The result corresponds with those done in USA. Heikertinger quoted results in his book refuting selectionists explanation of mimicry.

Such studies are not done anymore, but instead we are facing the great number of indoor experiments and "mathematical models" proving aposematism.

Quote

Professor Beal on the Food of our More Important Flycatchers...
Of this hymenoptera-- bees, wasps, etc. constitute more than a
third and as these insects are for the most part beneficial, this element must be weighed against the destruction of noxious species, which Prof. Beal considers more than balances it....

Quote

Food.--The 186 stomachs of the tufted titmouse examined by Professor Beal (Beal, McAtee, and Kalmbach, 1916) were irregularly distributed throughout the year and were considered by him too few "to afford more than an approximation of the bird's economic worth." ...
The food consisted of 66.57 percent animal matter and 33.43 percent vegetable. He says that the food "includes one item, caterpillars, which form more than half the animal food, and two items, caterpillars and wasps, which are more than half of the whole food."

This is reality, not armchair mathematical models.

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 02 2007,00:20

Quote

This is reality, not armchair mathematical models.

VMartin tells us what 'reality' is. Good lord.

Share your reality, Marty. Since you disdain 'selectionists' so, what is the correct model?

You do HAVE a model, right, troll?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

Posted: Oct. 02 2007,10:09

Quote

They even "THINK"? Really? Did't you make some naive antropomorphism to support your ridiculous concept of mimicry and it's protective value?

You fool, you believe that only humans think? Do you think visual display is the only sort of mimicry? What is your point anyway, other than making an ass out of yourself?

Quote

you do not know that in nests is dark and that ants use their antennae to check each other. You would continue to spread nonsense about ant mimics which visionaly look like ants. It should give them protection by your flawed logic - but no one know protection against what.

Speaking of anthropomorphic projection, what is dark to you is dark to all? Someone should tell the burrowing salamanders. I have seen spiders beetles and hemiptera that look just like ants and that live in ant colonies. I would love to hear your explanation for why that is so. If you want to yammer on and on about directed mutations please do so but realize there is not one single shred of evidence for such things. With a few exceptions most working biologists have realized that many things are invisible to selection and not every feature of the natural world has been forged in the fire of selection. See 'Spandrels and homage to Santa Rosalia' silly fool.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

VMartin

Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

Posted: Oct. 02 2007,14:06

Erasmus

Quote

You fool, you believe that only humans think?

I have supposed that insects are driven by instincts. But if you are sure that insects and especially ants "think" I have nothing to say.
Anyway your opinion about a "thinking ant" is a brand new theory I dare say.

Quote

Do you think visual display is the only sort of mimicry?

But it was you who claimed the same in the next sentence:

Quote

I have seen spiders beetles and hemiptera that look just like ants and that live in ant colonies.

I have asked you it first btw. How are you sure that such a "visual" mimicry is perceived as a mimicry by ants' antennae in the dark of an anthill? They use touch, not look.

Quote

Speaking of anthropomorphic projection, what is dark to you is dark to all? Someone should tell the burrowing salamanders.

We are discussing ants' mimics now. Do you suggest that ants use vision in anthill and are decepted by their vision there?

But as far as I underestand your point of view you don't care about point 2 and 3. Any similarity is a mimicry for you. Even if we accept a fact that some spiders looks like ants to us (I am speaking about humans and our vision, not about ants and their way of perception)
the question remains: what was the driving force of such similarity?

Obviously you do agree that it was not natural selection -or am I wrong? Because you have written:

Quote

With a few exceptions most working biologists have realized that many things are invisible to selection and not every feature of the natural world has been forged in the fire of selection.

I fully agree. In the case of ants and their "mimics" (as well as wasps and their mimics and ladybirds and their mimics) natural selection play no role whatsever.

Because: to look like an ant, wasp or ladybird brings no "survival advantage".

Quote

What is your point anyway, other than making an ass out of yourself?

My point is as you wrote it - natural selection play no role in evolution of "warning coloration" - aposematism and NS play no role in mimicry. I think that you agree with me. It's fine even though you are such an ignorant in the interesting cases of coloration of insects.

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

Posts: 532
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 02 2007,16:57

Vweenie:

Quote

Oh, there are "hundreds of studies"? You have presented only one of them yet - which was mildly speaking utterly childish. Feel free to put here second one of them. As you can see I have no problem tu put here "studies" or experiments or facts that refute your "studies" very clearly. There is unbelievable mess in those studies. We can go through each one of those "hundreds of studies" one by one.

And, when we does so, are you going to have a more acute criticism--oh, you know, something involving critiquing the evidence, data, observation, experimental design?--as opposed to evidence-free assertions like "utterly childish"?

Didn't think so.

In the meantime, Vmaroonie, got any answers to Teh Questiones?

Didn't think so.

Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 02 2007,17:11

Quote (VMartin @ Oct. 01 2007,23:47)

As I have already told to Jeannot - please pick up only one of those materials and put it here for discussion.

Why are flies painted with striped color more avoided that flies painted in black?

Scientists say: that's because they look like wasps, which happen to be less predated.

VMartin says: ...

Science 1
VMartin 0

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 02 2007,17:36

Quote

Because: to look like an ant, wasp or ladybird brings no "survival advantage".

Oh really, Marty? You quite sure about that? Or is your arrogance supposed to prove it?

Quote

natural selection play no role in evolution of "warning coloration" - aposematism and NS play no role in mimicry. I

Then what does 'play a role', Marty?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Henry J

Posts: 5760
Joined: Mar. 2005

Posted: Oct. 02 2007,21:58

Re "Scientists say: that's because they look like wasps, which happen to be less predated."

I'm guessing it depends on the kind of bird. A predator with the ability to get around the wasp's defences will probably not be put off by its appearance. A predator that is more vulnerable to that stinger, probably would be.

Henry

Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 03 2007,05:44

Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 02 2007,21:58)

Re "Scientists say: that's because they look like wasps, which happen to be less predated."

I'm guessing it depends on the kind of bird. A predator with the ability to get around the wasp's defences will probably not be put off by its appearance. A predator that is more vulnerable to that stinger, probably would be.

Henry

Yes, but what counts is the average fitness cost due to predation.

Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 03 2007,07:48

Quote (VMartin @ Oct. 02 2007,15:06)

Because: to look like an ant, wasp or ladybird brings no "survival advantage".

You're saying that an insect which feeds on ant larvae receives no advantage from blending in with those ants? Come on, this is beyond stupid.

--------------

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)

Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

Posted: Oct. 03 2007,10:32

Martin you of course are whistling past the graveyard where your 'instinct' and my 'think' lie intertwined as mutually inclusive explanations for animal behavior.

Otherwise, it is just instinct that is causing you to be an obnoxious troll and not answer questions that folks are dying to hear.

Or just instinct for you to do anything else you do. Or a dog. Or an amoeba. Or an ant. Or Leviathan.

Or are humans different, martin? Is that where we are going? animals and plants use instinct, men think?

Now, ants don't live in anthills all the time. So surely they see sometimes (or perhaps the Designer guides them around like sparrows). Anthills are probably not entirely dark. I'm not making a positive point here, just pointing out that yours is stupid and irrelevant.

Now listen up, troll.

You say natural selection plays no role whatsoever in mimicry. WHAT DOES???

If by whatever reason, a mimicry arises that does confer selective advantage, then selection will fix that mimicry.

When you claim that selection cannot account for mimicry, then you claim that mimicry by definition is the result of natural selection, you are setting up straw men that you seem to enjoy tearing down. Trolling is fun. No doubt. But you haven't added anything to the discussion.

We are waiting to hear how mimicry arises, according to the world famous well-published well-read VMartin. You can play semantic games from the position of the german school all day long, but the mechanisms of heredity are against you when you claim that selection can't fix it in a population.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Posts: 532
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 03 2007,13:08

Erasmus, FCD:

Quote

Now listen up, troll.

You say natural selection plays no role whatsoever in mimicry. WHAT DOES???

Arden Chatfield:

Quote

Vweenie:
"natural selection play no role in evolution of "warning coloration" - aposematism and NS play no role in mimicry."

Then what does 'play a role', Marty?

These are pretty clear questions, weenie. Heck, I'll even give you a hint: they are the same question.

Either answer it or, by failing to answer it, admit that you can't and that you're the clueless maroon we've all recognized as such since you first slithered in under out swinging bar doors, clinging to the coattails of JAD, who at least stumbled in on his own two hindlimbs, albeit swaying perilously.

VMartin

Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

Posted: Oct. 03 2007,14:45

Erasmus:

Quote

If by whatever reason, a mimicry arises that does confer selective advantage, then selection will fix that mimicry.

First I wrote that something to be consider mimicry it should fulfil all the following conditions:

1) there is a resemblance to other species.
2) This resemblance give some advantage to species.
3) This resemblance aroused via Natural selection.

You answered Sep 28:

Quote

we can safely dispense with 2 and 3 here. i'm interested in why things look like other things when they are not those things, and i'm calling that mimicry.

But now you added "survival advantage" and "natural selection" to it. Probably you eventualy see that the above mentioned definition is a good definition of mimicry.

My point is that if in some given case under discussion:

1) there is no resemlance to other species
2) there is a resemblance but such resemblance give no "survival advantage"
3) there is a resemblance that give "survival advantage" bur this resemblance is not an outcome of natural selection,

then considering all these cases we are not facing mimicry.

Quote

You can play semantic games from the position of the german school all day long, but the mechanisms of heredity are against you when you claim that selection can't fix it in a population.

I am trying to define mimicry. I defined it some times ago, but you disagreed, because for you every similarity represented "mimicry" at that time.

In the case of insects that resemble ants we are encountering cavernous shapes of insects. For such cavernous animals are characteristic:
- small or no eyes.
- often, but not always, striking extention of antennae and legs.
- very often narrowing of the front part of the body
- swelling of the hind part of the body (bubble shape).

Neverthenless they can be tell apart from similarly looking ants because their shape is like of "stock" (of rifle) and ants shape is that of "dumbbell".

These cavernous shape we encounter very often outside anthills, in (micro)cavernous environment where no ants live.

If we encounter such shaped animal living amongst ants it doesn't mean that it "mimic" them.

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 03 2007,14:47

You're still not answering the question, or answering the objections to your previous statements.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

VMartin

Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

Posted: Oct. 03 2007,15:02

Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 02 2007,17:11)

Quote (VMartin @ Oct. 01 2007,23:47)

As I have already told to Jeannot - please pick up only one of those materials and put it here for discussion.

Why are flies painted with striped color more avoided that flies painted in black?

Scientists say: that's because they look like wasps, which happen to be less predated.

VMartin says: ...

Science 1
VMartin 0

Do you mean Dipteria? From these most wasps-like are Syrphidae, hoverflies.

But I am not sure you mean these. As for Syrphidae
the black segments with some yellow margin stripes are their common coloration.

There are about 6,000 species in 200 genera in this family of Syrphidae. Do you mean these 6.000 species are mimics of wasps? If not, which of them?

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

Posted: Oct. 03 2007,15:03

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

Posted: Oct. 03 2007,15:14

you tell me what is what above.

when ant mimicking spiders mimic ant behavior (including stroking them with their fore legs, which look to us like antennae) i think it is a safe call.

your point 2 is spurious for several reasons. current survival advantage says nothing about past survival advantage.

further there are many difficulties associated with measuring the selection costs directly. many of them logistic. some theoretical (what to measure).

see Bumpus 1899 for a good example of how it might be done cheaply and simply. Or don't.

point 3 is stupid in the same way. You'd have to know the genetic basis of mimicry, and no one knows that yet. Or you'd have to measure selection during the time which the mimicry character became fixed.

So, it still stands that you define mimicry out of the picture with your 3 points. Under your definition, it can't be mimicry because it can't be mimicry.

All Science So Far!!!

still waiting for your explanation, suckah.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 03 2007,15:51

You need to re-host those images, the first 2 aren't working.

--------------

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)

Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

Posted: Oct. 03 2007,16:07

I can see them.

Wanna bet that Martin acts like he can't?

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 03 2007,16:09

Quote (improvius @ Oct. 03 2007,15:51)

You need to re-host those images, the first 2 aren't working.

Same here.

Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 03 2007,17:12

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Oct. 02 2007,17:36)

Quote

Because: to look like an ant, wasp or ladybird brings no "survival advantage".

Oh really, Marty? You quite sure about that? Or is your arrogance supposed to prove it?

Quote

natural selection play no role in evolution of "warning coloration" - aposematism and NS play no role in mimicry. I

Then what does 'play a role', Marty?

Arden, that's what makes it a joke right there. First, yes it does demonstrate natural selection :: witness my octopi :: second whether it does or doesn't; WTF is the point?

V, what are you getting at? Whhat is your alternative? Do you think that mimicry is evidence for front loading?

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

Henry J

Posts: 5760
Joined: Mar. 2005

Posted: Oct. 03 2007,22:27

One question is what would prevent variance + natural selection from occasionally producing cases of mimicry, when lots of species (many of them with lots of varieties) are thrown together in one ecosystem

Henry

VMartin

Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

Posted: Oct. 05 2007,11:16

Erasmus.

We are here not at school where you can deceive children with ants' mimics and stories how natural selection caused their existence using your weird pictures.

First you should put name of the species of the beetle (you have sent also beetles, not spiders you know) next to the every picture you have sent. As you might noticed I have done it every time I sent a picture.

Second you should sent also a picture and species name of an ant you suppose the beetle is mimicking. Otherwise we can send photos ad nausea.
Your example is valid only until a real picture of an ant is present for comparision.

(I am afraid ants do not sit on a ladder observing their mimics from above as darwinists do. I would say more appropriate view would be a side view. Just a hint.)

You sent:

and this is a real ant:

You sent

and this is a real ant

I doubt that real ants using their antennae could be mislead. I doubt that their touch would give them impression of the own species. In the second example your beetle is missing entirely the narrow connection between thorax and abdomen.

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 05 2007,11:25

Quote (VMartin @ Oct. 05 2007,12:16)

I doubt that real ants using their antennae could be mislead. I doubt that their touch would give them impression of the own species.

Hypothetically, what would convince you otherwise?

--------------

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)

Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

VMartin

Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

Posted: Oct. 05 2007,11:29

Jeannot,

the same for you. Be more precise as "flies painted with striped color". There are much more striking similarities between some species of Syrphidae and wasps than there are between ants and their "mimics". But of course let me know which yellow-black striped hoverflies do you consider to be wasps mimics and which not. There are 6.000 species of Syrphidae.

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 05 2007,12:14

Quote

We are here not at school where you can deceive children with ants' mimics and stories how natural selection caused their existence using your weird pictures.

What DID cause their existence, Marty?

Any idea?

Any idea at all?

Clueless?

Come on, don't be a troll, answer the question.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 05 2007,12:36

Quote (VMartin @ Oct. 05 2007,11:29)

Jeannot,

the same for you. Be more precise as "flies painted with striped color". There are much more striking similarities between some species of Syrphidae and wasps than there are between ants and their "mimics". But of course let me know which yellow-black striped hoverflies do you consider to be wasps mimics and which not. There are 6.000 species of Syrphidae.

I'm not an entomologist but a population geneticist (sort of). Do you have access to the paper? I guess it will answer your questions.
But to me, they are hardly relevant anyway. The test and the control (painted in black) show that yellow stripes reduce predation on tested species, all else being equal. Maybe they used several species.
Their result is compatible with the hypothesis that yellow stripes are aposematic and that mimicry can be advantageous.
Perhaps it's not the best explanation. But at least it's an attempt.
What's your hypothesis, Martin?

VMartin

Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

Posted: Oct. 05 2007,13:48

Jeannot.

On my knowledge birds eat wasps readily. But even if we accept preliminary the unplatability of wasps (I doubt about it very) there was done a research (Dlussky 1984 - is it "outdated"? ) that shows that:

Quote

On the other hand, all the syrphids were considered to be palatable, and even the superb wasp mimic Temnostoma vespiforme was eaten by Spotted Flycatchers despite the fact that its model was rejected. Dlusski concluded that these experienced birds usually distinguished between models and mimics, even the good ones, and thus mimicry was ineffective here.

Temnostoma vespiforme :

------------
The evolution of imperfect mimicry in hoverflies by
Francis Gilbert
eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/archive/00000096/01/ImperfectMimicry.pdf

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 05 2007,14:12

Deaf today, Marty? Sorry to hear it. I'll ask again.

Quote

We are here not at school where you can deceive children with ants' mimics and stories how natural selection caused their existence using your weird pictures.

What DID cause their existence, Marty?

I mean, since you don't want us to 'deceive children', how will we know what to say unless you tell us?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 05 2007,14:19

Ms. Martin,

What the flying heck are you yammering on about? Do you have the notion that this is refuting something? I remember hearing conversations like this in my youth between my Mom and her entomologist friends. But, as far as I can tell, they were quibbling over details; there was no big point.

Do you have a big point? I mean seriously, there are mimics. For some godamm reason there are mimics. They obviously evolved that way so there must have been some advantage. Go figure out what that advantage was! Or whatever.

I just don't get what you are trying to accomplish.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 05 2007,14:23

Quote (VMartin @ Oct. 05 2007,14:48)

Jeannot.

On my knowledge birds eat wasps readily. But even if we accept preliminary the unplatability of wasps (I doubt about it very) there was done a research (Dlussky 1984 - is it "outdated"? ) that shows that:

Quote

On the other hand, all the syrphids were considered to be palatable, and even the superb wasp mimic Temnostoma vespiforme was eaten by Spotted Flycatchers despite the fact that its model was rejected. Dlusski concluded that these experienced birds usually distinguished between models and mimics, even the good ones, and thus mimicry was ineffective here.

So, can we all just agree that you can't fool all of the predators all of the time?

--------------

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)

Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

VMartin

Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

Posted: Oct. 05 2007,15:10

BWE

Quote

But, as far as I can tell, they were quibbling over details; there was no big point.

Details are important. You cannot conceive a theory when all details contradict it - unless you are a darwinist.

Quote

I mean seriously, there are mimics. For some godamm reason there are mimics.

I am afraid those "mimics" exists only in your head. Predators do not care about your "mimics". Discuss real facts, not armchair presupposition about "mimicry". I am ready to discuss "mimicry" of ants, ladybirds, wasps, butteflies. Use facts, not darwinian "theories". Go on.

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 05 2007,15:19

Still deaf, Marty? Surely Bratislava must have ear doctors, even tho their level of science education seems iffy. I'll ask again, third time:

Quote

We are here not at school where you can deceive children with ants' mimics and stories how natural selection caused their existence using your weird pictures.

What DID cause their existence, Marty?

Don't you want us to stop 'deceiving children'?

Go on.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Posts: 532
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 05 2007,16:30

Vshortedontestosterone:

I'm somewhat reluctant to invoke the spirit of Hollywood horse opera stars, living and dead. Maybe they've never shown John Wayne or Clint Eastwood movies in the the dim smokey movie halls of Northeast Lower Bratislava.

But, seriously dude, I think even Marlene Dietrich would agree: you need to cowboy up!

Choice (a): Explain to us in your best poor English, if natural selection didn't drive the evolution of the mimics, what else did.

Choice (b): Admit you haven't a frickin' clue what gave rise to mimics, wouldn't recognize said clue if it was ten miles wide and fell on you from space 65 mya while you were vacationing in Cancun, and that, as a consequence, you are just a peculiarly-obsessed poseur.

Choice ©: Continue to neither explain or admit, in which case everybody else commenting here, and everybody else who might ever come to read this thread, will realize that you can't do (a) because you're (b).

Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 05 2007,16:37

I think he's going with:

(d) There are no mimics.

--------------

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)

Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

Henry J

Posts: 5760
Joined: Mar. 2005

Posted: Oct. 05 2007,17:03

Whether a wasp is palatable or not might depend on the kind of bird trying to eat it. Just a thought.

VMartin

Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

Posted: Oct. 05 2007,21:31

Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 05 2007,17:03)

Whether a wasp is palatable or not might depend on the kind of bird trying to eat it. Just a thought.

Palatability or unpalatability of an insect should not be generalised by our human perception. It is very often pure antropomorphism.

Birds, or better insectivores in common have different criteria.

Field-based research that put under scrutiny contents of stomachs of many different bird species:

-Csiki Hungary 1905-1910 investigated contents of 2.800 birds.

- In Biological Survey Division of United States Department of Agriculture had been investigated according Heikertinger almost 80.000(!) contents of birds stomachs before 2WW.

Such researches are of course brutal, but represent reality much more better than any research done with birds in cages.

Both researches showed up that wasps are readily eaten by birds. McAtee from the mentioned department of Agriculture - who was a prominent ornitologist - came to the conclusion, that warning coloration of wasps are ineffective. He disputed many years with famous selectionist Poulton about it.

But nowadays are results of these researches forgotten because they do not fit into selectionist agenda.

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 05 2007,22:05

Hey, Marty, what do YOU think causes mimicry?

Or do you think it doesn't exist?

Answer, troll.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: Oct. 05 2007,22:12

Quote (improvius @ Oct. 03 2007,16:51)

You need to re-host those images, the first 2 aren't working.

improvius, that AFDave sig is really devastating. It's somewhere in the Top 10 of Bad Creationist Reasoning ever given at AtBC.

Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 05 2007,23:02

Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 05 2007,23:12)

Quote (improvius @ Oct. 03 2007,16:51)

You need to re-host those images, the first 2 aren't working.

improvius, that AFDave sig is really devastating. It's somewhere in the Top 10 of Bad Creationist Reasoning ever given at AtBC.

Yeah, it was definitely my favorite. The best part is that, as far as I can tell, he meant it exactly the way it sounds. He's never once complained that it's out of context or tried to back down from it.

--------------

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)

Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 05 2007,23:11

Quote (improvius @ Oct. 05 2007,23:02)

Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 05 2007,23:12)

Quote (improvius @ Oct. 03 2007,16:51)

You need to re-host those images, the first 2 aren't working.

improvius, that AFDave sig is really devastating. It's somewhere in the Top 10 of Bad Creationist Reasoning ever given at AtBC.

Yeah, it was definitely my favorite. The best part is that, as far as I can tell, he meant it exactly the way it sounds. He's never once complained that it's out of context or tried to back down from it.

Quote

Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

So... I guess it means that one of these days, AFD's loving God will take all the scientists who still don't believe in Creationism and have us all gassed and burned? Or just taken to a forest outside of town, shot, and buried in a mass grave? I'm confused...

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Henry J

Posts: 5760
Joined: Mar. 2005

Posted: Oct. 05 2007,23:37

Quote

Quote

(Henry J @ Oct. 05 2007,17:03)
Whether a wasp is palatable or not might depend on the kind of bird trying to eat it. Just a thought.

Palatability or unpalatability of an insect should not be generalised by our human perception. It is very often pure antropomorphism.

How the heck do you get "human perception" out of "depend on kind of bird"?

Henry

VMartin

Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

Posted: Oct. 06 2007,01:01

Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 05 2007,23:37)

Quote

Quote

(Henry J @ Oct. 05 2007,17:03)
Whether a wasp is palatable or not might depend on the kind of bird trying to eat it. Just a thought.

Palatability or unpalatability of an insect should not be generalised by our human perception. It is very often pure antropomorphism.

How the heck do you get "human perception" out of "depend on kind of bird"?

Henry

I have given you information about scientific research that solve the problem of the so called unpalatability of wasps.

But if you prefer only philosophizing that some birds eat wasps and some don't then feel free to continue in this best tradition of armchair darwininism.

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 06 2007,10:38

Quote

I have given you information about scientific research that solve the problem of the so called unpalatability of wasps.

What IS the solution, dipshit?

What is the explanation for mimicry?

Do you need to ask Davison first?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 06 2007,10:59

As somewhat of an aside, I was looking through some research on the topic and found this fascinating (to me, anyway) paper:

Conditional use of honest signaling by a Batesian mimic

Apparently, there are times when being an ant mimic isn't such a hot idea - like when there's an ant predator nearby. So the mimic spiders avoid "accidental" predation by temporarily signaling. "Dude, I'm totally not really an ant!"

Quote

Jumping spiders (Salticidae) usually avoid ants, but some species within this family single out ants as preferred prey, while others (especially the species in the genus Myrmarachne) are Batesian mimics of ants. Field records show that ant-eating salticids sometimes prey on Myrmarachne, suggesting that the unwanted attention of predators that specialize on the model may be an important, but poorly understood, cost of Batesian mimicry. By staging encounters in the laboratory between living ant-eating salticids and Myrmarachne, we determined that ant-eating salticids attack Myrmarachne. However, when Myrmarachne detects a stalking ant-eating salticid early enough, it adopts a distinctive display posture (legs almost fully extended, elevated 45°, and held out to the side 45°), and this usually deters the predator. When Myrmarachne detects an ant-eating salticid before stalking begins, Myrmarachne makes preemptive displays that appear to inhibit the initiation of stalking. Using immobile lures made from dead Myrmarachne that were either in a display posture or a nondisplay posture, we ascertained that specifically the display posture of Myrmarachne deters the initiation of stalking (ant-eating salticids stalked nondisplaying more often than displaying lures). In another experiment, we ascertained that it is specifically the interjection of display posture that deters stalking. When ant-eating salticids that had already begun stalking experienced lures that switched from a nondisplay to a display posture, they stopped stalking.

--------------

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)

Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

VMartin

Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

Posted: Oct. 07 2007,02:25

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Oct. 05 2007,15:19)

Still deaf, Marty? Surely Bratislava must have ear doctors, even tho their level of science education seems iffy.
...

Your way of discussion is very mean and stupid. You are a troll and provocateur.

----
"PERCENTAGE OF YOUNG PEOPLE AGED 22 WHO HAVE SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETED
AT LEAST UPPER SECONDARY EDUCATION, 1997"

Slovakia, Sweden and Czech republic are at the top.

http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/educ/indic/rapinen.pdf

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

oldmanintheskydidntdoit

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: Oct. 07 2007,03:12

Quote (VMartin @ Oct. 07 2007,02:25)

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Oct. 05 2007,15:19)

Still deaf, Marty? Surely Bratislava must have ear doctors, even tho their level of science education seems iffy.
...

Your way of discussion is very mean and stupid. You are a troll and provocateur.

----
"PERCENTAGE OF YOUNG PEOPLE AGED 22 WHO HAVE SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETED
AT LEAST UPPER SECONDARY EDUCATION, 1997"

Slovakia, Sweden and Czech republic are at the top.

http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/educ/indic/rapinen.pdf

You still here VMartin? Don't let the door hit you on your way out now!

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

Posted: Oct. 07 2007,10:03

Martin

go here for someone who has reviewed the cases of spiders that are ant mimics. If you are at the public library computer you may be able to download it, but if you are sitting under the bushes in your neighbors backyard pirating bandwith from their wireless you may not get JSTOR.

but simply put there is a shitpile of evidence for morphological and behavioral mimicry adaptations.

and you still never said WHAT YOUR OPINION IS about how mimicry arises. Dishonest asshole.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 07 2007,11:04

Quote (VMartin @ Oct. 07 2007,02:25)

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Oct. 05 2007,15:19)

Still deaf, Marty? Surely Bratislava must have ear doctors, even tho their level of science education seems iffy.
...

Your way of discussion is very mean and stupid. You are a troll and provocateur.

----
"PERCENTAGE OF YOUNG PEOPLE AGED 22 WHO HAVE SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETED
AT LEAST UPPER SECONDARY EDUCATION, 1997"

Slovakia, Sweden and Czech republic are at the top.

http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/educ/indic/rapinen.pdf

Then what's YOUR excuse, Marty? Dropped out of school at age 12?

Seriously, get your ears checked. You can't hear a thing people say to you.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

VMartin

Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

Posted: Oct. 09 2007,13:49

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 07 2007,10:03)

Martin

go here for someone who has reviewed the cases of spiders that are ant mimics. If you are at the public library computer you may be able to download it, but if you are sitting under the bushes in your neighbors backyard pirating bandwith from their wireless you may not get JSTOR.

but simply put there is a shitpile of evidence for morphological and behavioral mimicry adaptations.

and you still never said WHAT YOUR OPINION IS about how mimicry arises. Dishonest asshole.

There are people who believe in extraterrestrials and there are people who believe there are ants' mimics.

You can send your funny pictures and your funny articles whenever you like - the same do believers in extraterrestrials. They have also their articles and their pictures.

What is interesting is the fact that another ignorant here adolescentdidnotknowanything mentioned in the thread about evolution of horse that there are amazing numbers of beetles' species. I don't know if the poor guy has ever realised this fact more deeply. It could have occured him that some of them could look like ants by pure chance. And this is the solution of the problem of ant's mimicry. There are so many forms of beetles that some of them looks like ants. It is no way "mimicry".

Many beetle species which look like ants live in caverns. But because there live no ants darwinists cannot claim that these beetles are ants' mimics. They simply ignore them.

On the other hand there live many thousands insect species inside anthills. Only very few of them look like ants.
Did "natural selection" forget to shape them or what? Obviously natural selection moulded only few of them. It is very weird, isn't it?

I am glad that selectionists realised the fact at last after so many years Heikertinger adressed it. Heikertinger called proponents of ants and wasps mimicry only as "Hypothetiker".

In your article there is written that "...since even myrmecophiles which lack morphological resemblance to ants may mimic chemical or textural characters of their hosts".

Of course one should have asked what was the reason of "morphological resemblance" when you can live in anthills without such "morphological resemblance" and thrive there well - as vast number of ants' guests prove.

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 09 2007,14:02

Marty:

Are you claiming that there is no such thing as mimicry in nature at all?

Quote

Of course one should have asked what was the reason of "morphological resemblance" when you can live in anthills without such "morphological resemblance" and thrive there well - as vast number of ants' guests prove.

What's YOUR explanation of "morphological resemblance", Marty?

Too stupid to have one, or too afraid to say what it is?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 09 2007,14:52

Hypothetically, Marty, what do you think would constitute evidence of mimicry?

--------------

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)

Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

Posts: 532
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 09 2007,18:34

This is the V-one's "answer" to the question of mimicry--there's Shitloads'O'Beetles, so a few are bound to look like ants by pure chance?

Man, that is so pitiful. I'm tempted to dredge up one of the better written IDist's "Teh Oddz R 2 Long" canards to refute him with.

"Of all the ant tunnels, in all the ant hills, in all the world, she walks into mine." She being a beetle what looks just like an ant that belongs in this here gin joint, er, ant tunnel...

Henry J

Posts: 5760
Joined: Mar. 2005

Posted: Oct. 09 2007,21:38

Quote

This is the V-one's "answer" to the question of mimicry -- there's Shitloads'O'Beetles, so a few are bound to look like ants by pure chance?

That pretty much sums up my understanding of how mimicry arises in the first place: with a huge number of species, the odds of not getting a few that look somewhat alike would be quite low. If it happens that the resemblance reduces risk of attack, or makes food more accessible, then that leads to a conclusion that VMartin won't like.

Henry

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 10 2007,13:05

Marty:

Since you've logged in, here's a chance to give a straight answer for once in your life. Please answer the following question:

"I do not believe that there is any such thing as mimicry in nature."

a) agree
b) disagree

If you can handle that one, many of us would also like to hear what definition of "morphological resemblance" you do advocate.

No more tedious babbling about 'Darwinists'. It's getting old.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 10 2007,13:15

I think Marty has made it clear that he does not believe "mimicry" exists in nature. But what isn't clear is what criteria he is using to come to that belief. I'd still like to know what, specifically, would constitute hypothetical evidence of mimicry for him.

--------------

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)

Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 10 2007,13:19

Quote (improvius @ Oct. 10 2007,13:15)

I think Marty has made it clear that he does not believe "mimicry" exists in nature. But what isn't clear is what criteria he is using to come to that belief.

You're probably right, but I want him to come out and SAY he doesn't believe mimicry exists. For some reason, he's doing his usual unconvincingly evasive routine with this.

Quote

I'd still like to know what, specifically, would constitute hypothetical evidence of mimicry for him.

Good luck with that.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

VMartin

Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

Posted: Oct. 10 2007,13:20

Quote (improvius @ Oct. 09 2007,14:52)

Hypothetically, Marty, what do you think would constitute evidence of mimicry?

First of all we should define mimicry. This is the definition I have already proposed:

To consider something to be mimicry:

1) there is a resemblance to other species.
2) This resemblance give some survival advantage to the species.
3) This resemblance aroused due Natural selection.

Some guys here are unable to comprehend this definition and their posts are full of gibberish. It is enough for them when some pets look like another pets and the guys here think they are observing "mimicry".

Of course in such naive notion also placental and marsupial wolfs represents mimicry, but experts
here haven't instructed us yet which is the model and which is the mimic, hehe.

On the other hand survival advantage for species that looks like wasps is still an unproved and very dubious idea and even if true it was sure not natural selection from predators that led to such resemblance.

The same for the so called mimics of ants. There live many thousands species in anthills and only few of them look like ants - and also these resemblances are very superficial.

There is no need to suppose that ants in anthills carried out selection for resemblance of some species but they did'n care for all of the forms and shapes of the species that create majority of their guests.

Summa: there is no such thing as mimicry of ants or wasps, even if darwinists like to present it.

Of course presenting some nice pictures of "mimicry" in "scientifical" darwinian text-books may look convincingly. Untill you compare other forms and shapes of related species.

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 10 2007,13:28

Quote

Summa: there is no such thing as mimicry of ants or wasps, even if darwinists like to present it.

Is there any such thing as mimicry of any other kind of organisms, Marty?

Quote

Of course one should have asked what was the reason of "morphological resemblance" when you can live in anthills without such "morphological resemblance" and thrive there well - as vast number of ants' guests prove.

So Marty seems to be saying evolution is false because not all organisms evolve identically.

Which is basically a recycling of the 'why do we still have apes?' argument.

Marty, do you have any kind of scientific education at all?

Quote

1) there is a resemblance to other species.
2) This resemblance give some survival advantage to the species.
3) This resemblance aroused due Natural selection.

Marty, we told you about 'aroused'. Check your dictionary again.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 10 2007,13:39

Well, I give up. I can't argue against something that I can't parse.

In any case, here's another article about a toxic frog mimic: http://news.mongabay.com/2006/0313-frogs.html

--------------

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)

Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 10 2007,13:48

Quote (improvius @ Oct. 10 2007,13:39)

Well, I give up. I can't argue against something that I can't parse.

I think I can parse it:

Quote

To consider something to be mimicry:

1) there is a resemblance to other species.
2) This resemblance give some survival advantage to the species.
3) This resemblance aroused due Natural selection.

So I think what Marty the Wacky Slovakian Creationist is saying that there is no such thing as mimicry because there's no such thing as Natural Selection. Why isn't there? Well, because he SAYS so, obviously.

His condition number 2 is irrelevant because he gives himself an escape clause anyway:

Quote

On the other hand survival advantage for species that looks like wasps is still an unproved and very dubious idea and even if true it was sure not natural selection from predators that led to such resemblance.

So he's basically saying 'mimicry doesn't benefit any species and even if it did, it's still false because natural selection doesn't exist'.

Why? Well, because Marty said so, of course!

Quote

Some guys here are unable to comprehend this definition and their posts are full of gibberish.

It's ironic to be accused of writing gibberish by VMartin, but Marty seems not to have irony in his system. (Sarcasm is not the same as irony.)

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 10 2007,13:58

Ok, but WTF do you make of this one:

Quote

There is no need to suppose that ants in anthills carried out selection for resemblance of some species but they did'n care for all of the forms and shapes of the species that create majority of their guests.

--------------

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)

Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 10 2007,14:02

Quote (improvius @ Oct. 10 2007,13:58)

Ok, but WTF do you make of this one:

Quote

There is no need to suppose that ants in anthills carried out selection for resemblance of some species but they did'n care for all of the forms and shapes of the species that create majority of their guests.

Well, Improvius, if a reptile hatched a bird there is no ancestor in common view, you know.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 10 2007,14:06

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Oct. 10 2007,15:02)

Quote (improvius @ Oct. 10 2007,13:58)

Ok, but WTF do you make of this one:

Quote

There is no need to suppose that ants in anthills carried out selection for resemblance of some species but they did'n care for all of the forms and shapes of the species that create majority of their guests.

Well, Improvius, if a reptile hatched a bird there is no ancestor in common view, you know.

Thanks, that makes perfect sense now. I'll be sure to ask you again if anything else arouses.

--------------

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)

Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

Posted: Oct. 10 2007,14:41

yeah martin is playing semantical silly-buggers, obvious from his 3 part definition of mimicry.

martin when you have something interesting to say about mimicry i'll be listening. until then i will remain convinced that you are either 1) an idiot, 2) deep cover troll or 3) both.

why don't you tell us how freshwater mussels don't mimic oligochaetes to disperse glochidia onto fish. that'd be another riot.

if the opportunity arouses, that is.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Henry J

Posts: 5760
Joined: Mar. 2005

Posted: Oct. 10 2007,15:21

The definition of "mimicry" should not say anything about how that mimicry arose.

Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 10 2007,15:58

My Cephalopods were pretty damn cool and Marty just spit on them since they weren't, um,... bugs. Or more accurately I suppose I should call them by their latin name: ugbays.

The octopi actually mimic color, shape and behavior! And they choose which preditor to mimic based on the danger they find themselves in. Tell me they aren't mimicking.

Phfftht.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

JohnW

Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006

Posted: Oct. 10 2007,16:01

Quote (BWE @ Oct. 10 2007,13:58)

My Cephalopods were pretty damn cool and Marty just spit on them since they weren't, um,... bugs. Or more accurately I suppose I should call them by their latin name: ugbays.

The octopi actually mimic color, shape and behavior! And they choose which preditor to mimic based on the danger they find themselves in. Tell me they aren't mimicking.

Phfftht.

But they don't mimic ants, do they?

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"... Â The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

Henry J

Posts: 5760
Joined: Mar. 2005

Posted: Oct. 10 2007,16:15

Those octopi are mimicking all right, but not by being already similar to something else, but by being smart, flexible, and colorful, and using all of those traits.

Henry

VMartin

Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

Posted: Oct. 10 2007,23:52

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 10 2007,14:41)

martin when you have something interesting to say about mimicry i'll be listening. until then i will remain convinced that you are either 1) an idiot, 2) deep cover troll or 3) both.

Your judgment of my person is as valid as your idiotic opinion of beetles "mimicking" ants. Either you are a cretine or neodarwinian stupido. Or both.

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 10 2007,23:54

Quote (VMartin @ Oct. 10 2007,23:52)

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 10 2007,14:41)

martin when you have something interesting to say about mimicry i'll be listening. until then i will remain convinced that you are either 1) an idiot, 2) deep cover troll or 3) both.

Your judgment of my person is as valid as your idiotic opinion of beetles "mimicking" ants. Either you are a cretine or neodarwinian stupido. Or both.

Hey, Marty my troll, do you believe in common descent? You never did tell us.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

VMartin

Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

Posted: Oct. 11 2007,23:47

Maybe darwinists think that lies and hypocrisy is something common and normal also in the nature. They think they can see such hypocrisy also in insect realm and they call it mimicry. You know all the messy stuff about wasps or ants and their so-called "mimics".
But such "mimicry" is nothing else as a convergent evolution or a pure coincidence of similarity of animals.
"Mimicry" no way supports their fantasies. It reveals more darwinian way of thinking.

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

oldmanintheskydidntdoit

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: Oct. 12 2007,03:11

Quote

Maybe darwinists think that lies and hypocrisy is something common and normal also in the nature.

There is plenty of it in this thread already. You see what you look for VMartin. If you think mainstream science is engaged in a massive conspiracy then when you look for the evidence you'll certainly find if even if it's not really there.

Quote

They think they can see such hypocrisy also in insect realm and they call it mimicry.

That makes sense...NOT

Quote

You know all the messy stuff about wasps or ants and their so-called "mimics".

Oh yeah, that.....whatever dude.

Quote

But such "mimicry" is nothing else as a convergent evolution or a pure coincidence of similarity of animals.

Oh, thanks for explaining it. I was wondering. Some quite unlikely co-incidences don't you think? Oh, of course you don't think, sorry.

Quote

"Mimicry" no way supports their fantasies. It reveals more darwinian way of thinking.

Only a true professional like yourself can have a fantasy with no supporing evidence. Who needs actual evidence to support their craziness? Certainly not VMartin!

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 12 2007,09:04

Quote

"PERCENTAGE OF YOUNG PEOPLE AGED 22 WHO HAVE SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETED
AT LEAST UPPER SECONDARY EDUCATION, 1997"
Slovakia, Sweden and Czech republic are at the top.

Dumbshit, graduation rates have nothing to do with overall quality of science education.

You answered my question for me.

Quote

Maybe darwinists think that lies and hypocrisy is something common and normal also in the nature.

Another ignorant, whiny, dishonest creationist. Big surprise.

Go home, troll, cuddle with Davison, whatever. You're not wanted here.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

VMartin

Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

Posted: Oct. 12 2007,11:05

Anignorantfromdarwinianparty

Quote

Oh, thanks for explaining it. I was wondering. Some quite unlikely co-incidences don't you think? Oh, of course you don't think, sorry.

What coindidences are you babbling about? Stop scribbling nonsense and answer these questions first:

1) Do you believe that all 6.000 species of Syrphidae (hoverflies) are mimicking wasps? If no, where do you see a division line between mimics and non-mimics?

2) Do you believe all 600 species of Sessidae (clearwing moths) are mimicking wasps? If no, where do you see a division line between mimics and non-mimics?

Quote

Only a true professional like yourself can have a fantasy with no supporing evidence. Who needs actual evidence to support their craziness? Certainly not VMartin!

I am not a professional - just like you. But it's not my fault that modern darwinists are not as clairvoyant systematics and systematic's experts as were their adversaries like Franz Heikertinger. Scientists of the past didn't just pick up two species and presented them as mimicry. They were aware that we should take into consideration all species from "model" group and all species from the "mimic" group and compare them. By comparing color patterns of whole insect families we can often immediately dismiss many cases of mimicry as it is presented by darwinists. We are often facing convergent evolution or pure coincidence and not "mimicry".

Let say we have models having these color patterns in their group (family):

E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 E7 E8 E9 E10

and so-called mimic having these color patterns in it's group (family):

A3 B3 C3 D3 E3 F3 G3 H3 I3 J3

A darwinist picks up E3 from both group and he shows it to children: "Look children, what a nice mimicry! There is natural selection behind it, science, you know.".

The poor darwinist is either an ignorant or a hypocrite. He is only comparing some similarities from transformation sequences.

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 12 2007,11:08

Martin, you're a pathetic fraud. We're tired of your whiny bitching about how wicked Darwinists are, and your refusal to answer questions. STFU and go back to brownnosing Davison and leave the science to the grownups.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 12 2007,11:15

Quote (VMartin @ Oct. 12 2007,12:05)

The poor darwinist is either an ignorant or a hypocrite. He is only comparing some similarities from transformation sequences.

You're completely disregarding location (among other things). Meditate on that for a while.

--------------

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)

Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

oldmanintheskydidntdoit

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: Oct. 12 2007,11:42

Quote (VMartin @ Oct. 12 2007,11:05)

By comparing color patterns of whole insect families we can often immediately dismiss many cases of mimicry as it is presented by darwinists. We are often facing convergent evolution or pure coincidence and not "mimicry".

So write it up in a paper, get it peer reviewed and publish it.

Or you could publish in ISCID's journal? I hear they are looking for new papers, and have been for some time.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

VMartin

Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

Posted: Oct. 12 2007,12:09

Quote (improvius @ Oct. 12 2007,11:15)

Quote (VMartin @ Oct. 12 2007,12:05)

The poor darwinist is either an ignorant or a hypocrite. He is only comparing some similarities from transformation sequences.

You're completely disregarding location (among other things). Meditate on that for a while.

Am I? One of the prominent founding fathers of selectionist's explanation of "mimicry" Poulton was of different opinion. He considered Limenitis albomaculata which lives in West China and their models - males Hypolimnas misippus - which lives in southeast Asia to be model and mimic.

http://main2.amu.edu.pl/~skoracka/china/tn_49.html

http://www.inra.fr/papillon/papilion/nymphali/texteng/h_misipp.htm

And his explanation of the "mimicry"? Unspecified migratory birds!
Would you believe it?

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

oldmanintheskydidntdoit

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: Oct. 12 2007,12:35

Quote (VMartin @ Oct. 12 2007,12:09)

And his explanation of the "mimicry"? Unspecified migratory birds!
Would you believe it?

what's your explanation?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 12 2007,12:43

Quote (VMartin @ Oct. 12 2007,13:09)

Am I? One of the prominent founding fathers of selectionist's explanation of "mimicry" Poulton was of different opinion. He considered Limenitis albomaculata which lives in West China and their models - males Hypolimnas misippus - which lives in southeast Asia to be model and mimic.

http://main2.amu.edu.pl/~skoracka/china/tn_49.html

http://www.inra.fr/papillon/papilion/nymphali/texteng/h_misipp.htm

And his explanation of the "mimicry"? Unspecified migratory birds!
Would you believe it?

Instead of arguing against and misrepresenting a paper from a century ago, why don't you take a look at the recent frog example I posted?

--------------

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)

Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

VMartin

Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

Posted: Oct. 12 2007,14:53

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 07 2007,10:03)

Martin

go here for someone who has reviewed the cases of spiders that are ant mimics. If you are at the public library computer you may be able to download it, but if you are sitting under the bushes in your neighbors backyard pirating bandwith from their wireless you may not get JSTOR.

but simply put there is a shitpile of evidence for morphological and behavioral mimicry adaptations.

and you still never said WHAT YOUR OPINION IS about how mimicry arises. Dishonest asshole.

Erasmus, are you sleeping or what? You have called me "an idiot" and "asshole", do you remember cretine? I have read your article. Let's discuss it. It is not necessary to have access to JSTOR cretine, everybody could read it here:

http://www.fcla.edu/FlaEnt/fe80p165.pdf

So according the article spiders are mimicking ants only when there are no predators present. It is very weird, isn't it?

Quote

Ants, when disturbed, tend to respond aggressively to the threat, whereas spiders tend to dodge the threat, hiding beneath a leaf or in a crevice, or dropping on a drag line. It has been noted that spider myrmecomorphs, which are also behavioral mimics, abandon their ant-like gait when disturbed (Emerton 1911, Marson 1947, Fowler 1984, Brignoli 1984). This sudden, unexpected change in the behavior of the spider would most likely facilitate its escape from an ant predator.

I would say if they didn't use an ant-like gait at all it would give them even more protection, he?

This sentence is also very interesting:

Quote

However, myrmecophiles may not mimic their hosts in any way and may simply be tolerated by their otherwise aggressive hosts because they are either neutral in odor or are below some critical size to be recognized by the hosts as intruders (Cushing 1995a).

So, there is no reason to mimic ants to be tolerated by ants in their colonies? Why the "mimicry"?

The fig.1 is also interesting. What species of ants are those spiders mimicking?

Quote

In many cases, the extent to which the mimics resemble a particular model is extraordinary (see Fig. 1).

Maybe. But what models has the author on her mind? You know, I would like to see them.

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 12 2007,16:01

'Cretine' isn't a word, Marty.

Dictionaries are your friend, Marty.

So, our lovable little creationist troll, what is YOUR explanation of what's really going on with mimicry?

Any idea?

Oh, and do you agree with Davison that God is now dead?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 12 2007,16:05

Quote (VMartin @ Oct. 12 2007,15:53)

So according the article spiders are mimicking ants only when there are no predators present. It is very weird, isn't it?

Quote

Ants, when disturbed, tend to respond aggressively to the threat, whereas spiders tend to dodge the threat, hiding beneath a leaf or in a crevice, or dropping on a drag line. It has been noted that spider myrmecomorphs, which are also behavioral mimics, abandon their ant-like gait when disturbed (Emerton 1911, Marson 1947, Fowler 1984, Brignoli 1984). This sudden, unexpected change in the behavior of the spider would most likely facilitate its escape from an ant predator.

I would say if they didn't use an ant-like gait at all it would give them even more protection, he?

You are misunderstanding the article. The spiders mimic ants when there are no ant predators present. When a predator is present that specifically feeds on ants, the spiders change their signals to indicate that they are not ants.

I pointed this out days ago, but apparently you never bothered to read my post.

--------------

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)

Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

VMartin

Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

Posted: Oct. 13 2007,00:55

Quote (improvius @ Oct. 12 2007,16:05)

Quote (VMartin @ Oct. 12 2007,15:53)

So according the article spiders are mimicking ants only when there are no predators present. It is very weird, isn't it?

Quote

Ants, when disturbed, tend to respond aggressively to the threat, whereas spiders tend to dodge the threat, hiding beneath a leaf or in a crevice, or dropping on a drag line. It has been noted that spider myrmecomorphs, which are also behavioral mimics, abandon their ant-like gait when disturbed (Emerton 1911, Marson 1947, Fowler 1984, Brignoli 1984). This sudden, unexpected change in the behavior of the spider would most likely facilitate its escape from an ant predator.

I would say if they didn't use an ant-like gait at all it would give them even more protection, he?

You are misunderstanding the article. The spiders mimic ants when there are no ant predators present. When a predator is present that specifically feeds on ants, the spiders change their signals to indicate that they are not ants.

I pointed this out days ago, but apparently you never bothered to read my post.

I have read your post. The point is this one: spiders are according the article mimicking ants because:

1) they want to eat ants (selectionists speciality: wolf in sheep's clothing among insects hehe)

2) they want deceive predators pretending to be ants.
In this case it is ridiculous to assume that spiders are mimicking ants only when their predators do not observe them.

Anyway the mess by telling apart myrmecomorphs and myrmecophiles is great. But English division is more simple than German - Wassmann defined three groups.

I was also wrong that author didn't present models in figure 1. The models are listed in tables. Anyway she prudently used terms "putative models".

Some reason of mimcry is very curious - see the column
"Notes on the Natural History of the Mimics".
We can often read this explanation:"mimic running with model". Are they having some running competitions or what?

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

Posts: 1552
Joined: Aug. 2005

Posted: Oct. 13 2007,06:15

VMartin

Just wondering why you post here, so I am trying my explanatory filter.

Is it because:

1) You wish to improve your English,

2) You have an alternative theory which better explains examples of apparent mimicry than does RM + NS, and you are soon to enlighten us,

3) You have an innate dislike of evolutionary theory.

As the evidence for 1) is patchy, and the evidence for 2) is non-existent, I am forced to conclude 3). Unless I am falling for the fallacy of not considering the unknown explanation.

Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 13 2007,08:33

Quote (VMartin @ Oct. 13 2007,01:55)

2) they want deceive predators pretending to be ants.
In this case it is ridiculous to assume that spiders are mimicking ants only when their predators do not observe them.

I suspect you're being intentionally obtuse here.

The spiders mimic ants, which keeps most insectivore predators away.

Any predator that shows interest is likely to be one that prefers ants.

When a predator does show interest, the spider tries to look more like spider. Since the predator prefers ants, it loses interest in the spider.

--------------

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)

Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

VMartin

Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

Posted: Oct. 15 2007,15:14

Quote

The spiders mimic ants, which keeps most insectivore predators away.

This is only an unproved pressuposition. It is not as clear as it is presented, it is no way "eternal truth". Do you have any links, any evidence? The same authors you quoted have written also about Myrmarachne another article:

"Out of the Frying Pan and into the Fire: a Novel Trade-Off for Batesian Mimics".

So you can see the problem is more complicated and I would say unresolved yet. There should have been very strong selective pressure driving some spiders towards ants and to look like them.

As to the article itself: some displaying Myrmarachne were eaten neverthenless. Some of them didn't display at all. One should ask - why some individuals didn't display? Individuals that don't display should have been
already eradicated by natural selection. Why they survived, having no reflex when dangerous Salticidae is stalking? Btw. as far as I can judge this experiment has researched something never observed outside, it only wants to prove a hypothesis. Quoting: "...but there are, besides several hundred records of ant-eating salticids eating ants, 14 records of ant-eating salticids eating ant-like salticids". I suppose no displaying Myrmarachne was observed in coutryside.

The validity of these indoors experiments can be better showed in another reserach done by the same authors:

"Living with the enemy: jumping spiders that mimic weaver ants".

There they put together for 10 hours weaver ants with Myramachne assimilis and different individuals representing Myrmecophagic, Myrmecomorphic, Myrmecophilic and ordinary species . Oddly enough when 40 ants were present "few salticids survived when confined with groups of 40 ants, regardless of category".

The problem is that all those species in countryside survive very well, even in anthills. So I do not see a point of these researches, except to prove "mimicry"
in artificial conditions. Results of these experiments sometimes contradicts reality outdoors - but proved "mimicry" as conceived in armchairs of Universities.
All tested species couldn't have acquired any host-specific cuticular hydrocarbons, because individuals used never encountered ants before being tested. The scientists researched if "M. assimilis might have evolved adaptations that make it especially proficient at surviving in the presence of it model even in the absence of opportunity to acquire nest-mates cues."

----------
Another problem is probably division on Myrmecophagic, Myrmecomorphic and Myrmecophilic species. The pre-war German school used different categorization of ant "mimics". We should be aware that also myrmecomorphic probably have to be myrmecophilic (and that's why the whole article the poor Erasmus has given link to should be discussed more deeply) because - according the same authors - "Batesian mimics of ants may be forced to "walk a tightrope", living with the "enemy". They need to be close to the model for safety from other predators but at the same time need to avoid becoming the model prey".

--------

And last but not at least : Heikertinger sometimes repeated such experiments and obtained totally different results. See EvC where admin asked me to traslate it from German. He had made the same experiments with ladybirds and their "victims" as selectionists made. But I don't claim that the mentioned experiments with ants and spiders are are wrong. Just for a record.

Anyway there are pletny of birds' species that eat ants and it is not sure that being ant's "mimic" is some advantage even though darwinists claim: of cource, it is.

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 15 2007,16:54

Quote (VMartin @ Oct. 15 2007,16:14)

Quote

The spiders mimic ants, which keeps most insectivore predators away.

This is only an unproved pressuposition. It is not as clear as it is presented, it is no way "eternal truth". Do you have any links, any evidence?

You mean besides the obvious fact that ants have aggressive defense mechanisms and are full of tasty (read: not tasty at all) formic acid? Yes: Vision-based innate aversion to ants and ant mimics

Quote

As to the article itself: some displaying Myrmarachne were eaten neverthenless. Some of them didn't display at all. One should ask - why some individuals didn't display? Individuals that don't display should have been
already eradicated by natural selection. Why they survived, having no reflex when dangerous Salticidae is stalking?

This is all entirely irrelevant to the question of whether or not ant mimicry will deter predators. Obviously it does.

--------------

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)

Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

VMartin

Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

Posted: Oct. 16 2007,13:24

Quote (improvius @ Oct. 15 2007,16:54)

Quote (VMartin @ Oct. 15 2007,16:14)

Quote

The spiders mimic ants, which keeps most insectivore predators away.

This is only an unproved pressuposition. It is not as clear as it is presented, it is no way "eternal truth". Do you have any links, any evidence?

You mean besides the obvious fact that ants have aggressive defense mechanisms and are full of tasty (read: not tasty at all) formic acid? Yes: Vision-based innate aversion to ants and ant mimics

Quote

As to the article itself: some displaying Myrmarachne were eaten neverthenless. Some of them didn't display at all. One should ask - why some individuals didn't display? Individuals that don't display should have been
already eradicated by natural selection. Why they survived, having no reflex when dangerous Salticidae is stalking?

This is all entirely irrelevant to the question of whether or not ant mimicry will deter predators. Obviously it does.

Do you mean that Salticids having "high acuity eyes" are the main predators of Myrmarachne? And that "selective pressure" from Salticids has lead to the Myrmarachne mimicry?

Yet another Salticids single out ants as preferred prey (the previous article). In this case ants-like Myrmarachne "display" to deter those salticids - even though dishonestly, because they are innocuous.

So Myrmarachne should be aware what kind of Salticids they are dealing with. "Display" in presence of Salticids with "innate aversion" to ants would cost them their lives.

On the other hand when there are present more than 40 ants they will eat Myrmarachne, ant-eating Salticids, Myrmecomorphs, Myrmecophilic and ordinary species as well, almost everything present.

One should have great fantasy to see behind this mess "natural selection".

Quote

This is all entirely irrelevant to the question of whether or not ant mimicry will deter predators. Obviously it does.

Would you like me to send here the names of birds' species feeding on ants (and consequently on their "mimics") or would do you make some research at inet yourself?

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

oldmanintheskydidntdoit

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: Oct. 16 2007,13:50

Quote (VMartin @ Oct. 16 2007,13:24)

One should have great fantasy to see behind this mess "natural selection".

That's very interesting VMartin. Fascinating.

I can see that natural selection is not the mechanism of choice for you. No doubt you would say that that is indeed a sensible choice and agree with the proposal of an alternative. The alternative which you will elucidate at some point soon. This leads me to my point, via a roundabout almost mendacious path.

As "natural selection" is, as you have so marvelously described, insufficient to create those wonders, then what possible force, being or thing did?

Can you put a name to it?

VMartin?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

VMartin

Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

Posted: Oct. 16 2007,13:59

And just for a record. Males of Myrmarachne assimilis have enormously elongated chelicerae. I am afraid that Salticidae having eight eyes and acute vision would notice this "trifle". Even human see it at first glance.
So even scientists from above mentioned articles excluded these males from their experiments.
But the question is: did natural selection forget to form the males chelicerae or what?

http://www.miiz.waw.pl/salticid/diagnost/myrmar/assim-ph.htm

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 16 2007,15:42

Quote (VMartin @ Oct. 16 2007,13:59)

And just for a record. Males of Myrmarachne assimilis have enormously elongated chelicerae. I am afraid that Salticidae having eight eyes and acute vision would notice this "trifle". Even human see it at first glance.
So even scientists from above mentioned articles excluded these males from their experiments.
But the question is: did natural selection forget to form the males chelicerae or what?

http://www.miiz.waw.pl/salticid/diagnost/myrmar/assim-ph.htm

Answer the question, Marty.

Not Natural Selection?

What, then?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 17 2007,08:31

Quote (VMartin @ Oct. 16 2007,14:24)

Quote

This is all entirely irrelevant to the question of whether or not ant mimicry will deter predators. Obviously it does.

Would you like me to send here the names of birds' species feeding on ants (and consequently on their "mimics") or would do you make some research at inet yourself?

I will restate:

This is all entirely irrelevant to the question of whether or not ant mimicry will deter some predators. Obviously it does.

I thought it would be obvious that I was not referring to "all" predators, but apparently I was wrong.

Any thoughts on those frogs yet?

--------------

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)

Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 17 2007,14:02

Quote

So even scientists from above mentioned articles excluded these males from their experiments.
But the question is: did natural selection forget to form the males chelicerae or what?

For the moment, let's pretend you know what you're talking about. You think natural selection failed to "form the males chelicerae".

Fine. What's the solution, since Natural Selection supposedly cannot make these things arouse?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

VMartin

Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

Posted: Oct. 17 2007,14:16

Quote

I will restate:

This is all entirely irrelevant to the question of whether or not ant mimicry will deter some predators. Obviously it does.

I thought it would be obvious that I was not referring to "all" predators, but apparently I was wrong.

It would be fine if you gave some researches supporting your belief. Because facts are these:

In Csikis' research of inhalts of stomachs of 2523 birds
ants were found in stomachs of 51 from 60 different birds species from different families.

In stomachs of specialist Picus vividis were found cca 700 pieces of Formica pratensis, Lasius niger 400, 400, 500, 500, 600 and Myrmica laeviondis cca 600.

In perdix perdix were found 250, 250 pieces of Lasius niger.

The almost same results were obtained in Europe, North America and Tropics.

Groebbels "Der Vogel...Atmungswelt and Nahrughswelt" 234 pages, Berlin 1933.

Ants are readily eaten by birds and there is no reason to suppose that ants' mimics are protected.

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 17 2007,14:27

Quote (VMartin @ Oct. 17 2007,15:16)

Quote

I will restate:

This is all entirely irrelevant to the question of whether or not ant mimicry will deter some predators. Obviously it does.

I thought it would be obvious that I was not referring to "all" predators, but apparently I was wrong.

It would be fine if you gave some researches supporting your belief. Because facts are these:

In Csikis' research of inhalts of stomachs of 2523 birds
ants were found in stomachs of 51 from 60 different birds species from different families.

In stomachs of specialist Picus vividis were found cca 700 pieces of Formica pratensis, Lasius niger 400, 400, 500, 500, 600 and Myrmica laeviondis cca 600.

In perdix perdix were found 250, 250 pieces of Lasius niger.

The almost same results were obtained in Europe, North America and Tropics.

Groebbels "Der Vogel...Atmungswelt and Nahrughswelt" 234 pages, Berlin 1933.

Ants are readily eaten by birds and there is no reason to suppose that ants' mimics are protected.

I give up - you're insane. It's like you're arguing that nobody stops at red lights because there are documented examples of people running red lights. Any time someone actually does stop at a red light is merely coincidence, and has nothing at all to do with the color of the light.

--------------

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)

Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

VMartin

Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

Posted: Oct. 17 2007,14:48

Quote

I give up - you're insane. It's like you're arguing that nobody stops at red lights because there are documented examples of people running red lights. Any time someone actually does stop at a red light is merely coincidence, and has nothing at all to do with the color of the light.

So again my little stupido. In 51 of 60 birds' species were found ants (in 85%). If there are 85% of people running red lights or 85% cars don't give way having red lights then only stupido (and a darwinist of course) could insist red lights are perceived as warning coloration.

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 17 2007,15:59

Quote (VMartin @ Oct. 17 2007,15:48)

Quote

I give up - you're insane. It's like you're arguing that nobody stops at red lights because there are documented examples of people running red lights. Any time someone actually does stop at a red light is merely coincidence, and has nothing at all to do with the color of the light.

So again my little stupido. In 51 of 60 birds' species were found ants (in 85%). If there are 85% of people running red lights or 85% cars don't give way having red lights then only stupido (and a darwinist of course) could insist red lights are perceived as warning coloration.

Uh-huh. And how many of those were weaver ants?

--------------

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)

Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 17 2007,17:40

Seriously, Martin, why do you refuse to ever offer up any kind of preferred alternative to 'Darwinism'?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

VMartin

Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

Posted: Oct. 18 2007,13:31

Aphaenops vandeli

Aphaenops pluto

These "ants" are in fact cavernous beetles, I suppose they are blind. They probably have never met ants in their life. But neverthenless if a darwinist saw similar looking species in proximity of ants he would persuade small children about how predators or natural selection created "extraordinary ants' mimics".

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

Posts: 532
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 18 2007,14:16

Vmaroon?

In murriken ynglush, does "cavernous" mean "cave-dwelling," as opposed to its usual meaning of "big and empty and dark like a cave" (the movie theater seemed cavernous and spooky with so few people inside it)?

I know you won't answer, because your translation program hasn't worked its way back from zed to A yet, but I thought I'd ask, just to preserve my place in the Unanswered Questions queu...

Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 21 2007,05:06

I just came across this study:
Evolution (OnlineEarly Articles).
doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.2007.00219.x
SPATIAL DIFFERENTIATION FOR FLOWER COLOR IN THE DESERT ANNUAL LINANTHUS PARRYAE: WAS WRIGHT RIGHT?
Douglas W. Schemske and Paulette Bierzychudek

Quote

Understanding the evolutionary mechanisms that contribute to the local genetic differentiation of populations is a major goal of evolutionary biology, and debate continues regarding the relative importance of natural selection and random genetic drift to population differentiation. The desert plant Linanthus parryae has played a prominent role in these debates, with nearly six decades of empirical and theoretical work into the causes of spatial differentiation for flower color. Plants produce either blue or white flowers, and local populations often differ greatly in the frequencies of the two color morphs. Sewall Wright first applied his model of "isolation by distance" to investigate spatial patterns of flower color in Linanthus. He concluded that the distribution of flower color morphs was due to random genetic drift, and that Linanthus provided an example of his shifting balance theory of evolution. Our results from comprehensive field studies do not support this view. We studied an area in which flower color changed abruptly from all-blue to all-white across a shallow ravine. Allozyme markers sampled across these regions showed no evidence of spatial differentiation, reciprocal transplant experiments revealed natural selection favoring the resident morph, and soils and the dominant members of the plant community differed between regions. These results support the hypothesis that local differences in flower color are due to natural selection, not due to genetic drift.

I know it's partially off-topic (coloration in plants, not animals), but this study is one among many showing that selection can favor different colors in flowers.

EDIT: In that case, pollinators, which are the usual suspected factors of color selection, show no preference for either coloration. That didn't prevent researchers to test and verify the hypothesis of local selection. Have you learnt anything, Martin?

There are also those interesting examples of mimicry between plants. Morph frequencies in the field are very well explained by (gasp!) natural selection.

VMartin

Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

Posted: Oct. 22 2007,13:44

Darwinian fanatic Steviepinhead:

As I supposed "cavern" comes from Latin caverna.
So as majority of English words it comes from Latin. It's not my fault you cannot underestand words from any other language as English. Even French use the word "cavernicoles":

http://speleoclpa.free.fr/biospeleo/pages/biospeologie5.htm

Maybe Alan Fox could translate those sentences.

Heikertinger used in German "Kavernikolenhabitus".
It means beetles which live in caverns, you know. Unfortunatelly there are no pictures of beetles from Bosnia-Hertzegovina - Parantrophilon spelaebatoides etc. which look like ants. That's the reason I put in my previous post pictures of some ant-like "cavernicoles" beetles species from France.

You can see that the darwinian conception of ant's mimicry is a very dubious idea. There are many beetle species that do not live with ants and neverthenless look like ants. Because they do not have the same enemies as ants have obviously natural selection do not shaped them. We are facing some transformational sequences of beetles. Obviously ant's mimicry often haunted only in darwinian heads and pinheads.

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

VMartin

Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

Posted: Oct. 22 2007,13:57

Jeannot,

you wouldn't believe me but I would like to read the whole article how "natural selection" created local differences in flower color of Linanthus parryae! Is it somewhere available for download? It sounds unbelievable! Took the authors into consideration all evolution and change of flora and fauna or they just focused their attention only to the present fauna on the both side of a ravine?

Quote

We studied an area in which flower color changed abruptly from all-blue to all-white across a shallow ravine.

This shallow ravine is inpassable or what? Give me the whole article!

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 22 2007,15:35

Martin, why can't you offer up an alternative to 'Darwinism'?

Do you perhaps have some kind of religious agenda here which you're clumsily trying to hide?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Posts: 532
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 22 2007,15:45

Vmaroon:

Quote

It sounds unbelievable!

(I took out the extra space--I know you're spacey, but I'm going to assume this one was a typo...)

Gosh, another great scientificalistic reason why Vmaroon doesn't believe in the efficacy of natural selection.

What's next: "It doesn't smell good"? "It doesn't me arouse"? "My mind isn't cavernous enough to encompass the very idea"? "Not enough Latin roots"?

Let us know when you have an alternative to propose to "Darwinistic" ("I don't like beards on men") "selectionism" (and don't forget to register with your draft board today!).

...Or, uh, when you've probed around in your cavern long enough to actually locate a scientific objection that you can actually explain, using Latin roots or not.

Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 22 2007,15:51

Quote (VMartin @ Oct. 22 2007,14:44)

Because they do not have the same enemies as ants have obviously natural selection do not shaped them.

Just stop for a minute and think about what you wrote there.

--------------

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)

Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 22 2007,16:21

Quote (VMartin @ Oct. 22 2007,13:57)

This shallow ravine is inpassable or what? Give me the whole article!

Easy Martin. I can't do that. Access requires registration, but you can ask the authors to send you a copy if you like.
The ravine is passable, as you would see by reading the abstract. If it had been impassable, they couldn't have demonstrated anything from field observation and population genetics. They did some fitness measures, though. And they confirm the results they got from allozymes data.

VMartin

Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

Posted: Oct. 24 2007,13:49

Selectionhead:

Quote

Or, uh, when you've probed around in your cavern long enough to actually locate a scientific objection that you can actually explain, using Latin roots or not.

Do you have any explanation of the fact that majority of English words have Latin roots? Are there any "constraints" in English that didn't allow to accept also Latin grammar? You know Celtic rules of grammar together with Latin words...

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

VMartin

Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

Posted: Oct. 24 2007,13:59

Improvious.

Quote

Just stop for a minute and think about what you wrote there.

I will try again. There are beetles living in caverns that look like ants. Sometimes their similarity with ants even surpass darwinian so-called "mimics" of ants. But those ants living in caverns do not have the same predators as ants. Consequently it weren't ants predators that selected such ant-like forms. We are facing some kind of transformational sequences of beetles.

The idea that "ants-like" beetles which live near ants are mimicking them is often only unproved darwinian fantasy.

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

oldmanintheskydidntdoit

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: Oct. 24 2007,14:07

Quote (VMartin @ Oct. 24 2007,13:59)

Improvious.

Quote

Just stop for a minute and think about what you wrote there.

I will try again. There are beetles living in caverns that look like ants. Sometimes their similarity with ants even surpass darwinian so-called "mimics" of ants. But those ants living in caverns do not have the same predators as ants. Consequently it weren't ants predators that selected such ant-like forms. We are facing some kind of transformational sequences of beetles.

The idea that "ants-like" beetles which live near ants are mimicking them is often only unproved darwinian fantasy.

VMarting, even HeroIsReal's thread is beating yours, it's pages ahead of you 9 to your 7. C'mon man, keep your game up. You'll never get to AFDave status at this rate!

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 24 2007,14:11

Quote

Are there any "constraints" in English that didn't allow to accept also Latin grammar? You know Celtic rules of grammar together with Latin words...

They don't teach linguistics in Slovakia any better than they teach biology, I see.

Marty, we're STILL waiting for your explanation of what should replace 'Darwinismus'.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

VMartin

Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

Posted: Oct. 24 2007,14:13

Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 22 2007,16:21)

Quote (VMartin @ Oct. 22 2007,13:57)

This shallow ravine is inpassable or what? Give me the whole article!

Easy Martin. I can't do that. Access requires registration, but you can ask the authors to send you a copy if you like.
The ravine is passable, as you would see by reading the abstract. If it had been impassable, they couldn't have demonstrated anything from field observation and population genetics. They did some fitness measures, though. And they confirm the results they got from allozymes data.

And what is the opinion of the neutral-driftists to such an surprising outcome? We should wait for their research now, what do you think? Sometimes these guys using the same methods in the same areas come to the opposite conclusions.

The dispute between selectionists and neutral-driftists is interesting. Both gropus consider themselves to be the scientists who are able to explain secrets of life and evolution. But they remind me of those groups of reformists and oportunists (or stalinists and trockists) who disputed about materialistic backgrounds in social processes in the frame of marxism.

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 24 2007,14:27

Quote

The dispute between selectionists and neutral-driftists is interesting. Both gropus consider themselves to be the scientists who are able to explain secrets of life and evolution. But they remind me of those groups of reformists and oportunists (or stalinists and trockists) who disputed about materialistic backgrounds in social processes in the frame of marxism.

Good, Marty, it'd been a while since you compared Darwinists to Stalinists.

So. Marty. Darwinismus is bankrupt. We ask you: with what should we replace it?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 24 2007,14:56

Quote (VMartin @ Oct. 24 2007,14:59)

Improvious.

Quote

Just stop for a minute and think about what you wrote there.

I will try again. There are beetles living in caverns that look like ants. Sometimes their similarity with ants even surpass darwinian so-called "mimics" of ants. But those ants living in caverns do not have the same predators as ants. Consequently it weren't ants predators that selected such ant-like forms. We are facing some kind of transformational sequences of beetles.

The idea that "ants-like" beetles which live near ants are mimicking them is often only unproved darwinian fantasy.

He still doesn't get it, does he?

--------------

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)

Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

Henry J

Posts: 5760
Joined: Mar. 2005

Posted: Oct. 24 2007,22:10

Quote

He still doesn't get it, does he?

He seems to think that "Darwinists" tend to scream "MICICRY" whenever anything alive resembles anything else that's alive, without checking other factors prior to forming a conclusion.

It's getting monotonous.

Henry

Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 25 2007,03:14

Quote (VMartin @ Oct. 24 2007,14:13)

Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 22 2007,16:21)

Quote (VMartin @ Oct. 22 2007,13:57)

This shallow ravine is inpassable or what? Give me the whole article!

Easy Martin. I can't do that. Access requires registration, but you can ask the authors to send you a copy if you like.
The ravine is passable, as you would see by reading the abstract. If it had been impassable, they couldn't have demonstrated anything from field observation and population genetics. They did some fitness measures, though. And they confirm the results they got from allozymes data.

And what is the opinion of the neutral-driftists to such an surprising outcome? We should wait for their research now, what do you think? Sometimes these guys using the same methods in the same areas come to the opposite conclusions.

The dispute between selectionists and neutral-driftists is interesting. Both gropus consider themselves to be the scientists who are able to explain secrets of life and evolution. But they remind me of those groups of reformists and oportunists (or stalinists and trockists) who disputed about materialistic backgrounds in social processes in the frame of marxism.

There's no "dispute between selectionists and neutral-driftists" on such topic (and almost anywhere else).
Everyone agrees that most molecular polymorphism is neutral, which can be the case for the allozymes that show no differentiation between both sides of the ravine. However, coloration shows a very sharp cline, and local selection is confirmed by fitness measures of transplanted plants.

What's your explanation, Martin?
The fact that you resort to comparisons between science and politics is speaking. Can't comment on the biological evidence?

VMartin

Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

Posted: Oct. 30 2007,12:36

Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 25 2007,03:14)

Quote (VMartin @ Oct. 24 2007,14:13)

Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 22 2007,16:21)

Quote (VMartin @ Oct. 22 2007,13:57)

This shallow ravine is inpassable or what? Give me the whole article!

Easy Martin. I can't do that. Access requires registration, but you can ask the authors to send you a copy if you like.
The ravine is passable, as you would see by reading the abstract. If it had been impassable, they couldn't have demonstrated anything from field observation and population genetics. They did some fitness measures, though. And they confirm the results they got from allozymes data.

And what is the opinion of the neutral-driftists to such an surprising outcome? We should wait for their research now, what do you think? Sometimes these guys using the same methods in the same areas come to the opposite conclusions.

The dispute between selectionists and neutral-driftists is interesting. Both gropus consider themselves to be the scientists who are able to explain secrets of life and evolution. But they remind me of those groups of reformists and oportunists (or stalinists and trockists) who disputed about materialistic backgrounds in social processes in the frame of marxism.

There's no "dispute between selectionists and neutral-driftists" on such topic (and almost anywhere else).
Everyone agrees that most molecular polymorphism is neutral, which can be the case for the allozymes that show no differentiation between both sides of the ravine. However, coloration shows a very sharp cline, and local selection is confirmed by fitness measures of transplanted plants.

What's your explanation, Martin?
The fact that you resort to comparisons between science and politics is speaking. Can't comment on the biological evidence?

What evidence? In the abstract of the article you have given as an scientific example of "natural selection in action" is written:

Quote

Sewall Wright first applied his model of "isolation by distance" to investigate spatial patterns of flower color in Linanthus. He concluded that the distribution of flower color morphs was due to random genetic drift, and that Linanthus provided an example of his shifting balance theory of evolution.

Good remark. It shows how plausible all these evolutionary "models" really are. Everyone can create his model - driftists have theirs and selectionists theirs. It is obviously nothing more than childish play all these "models".

Quote

...reciprocal transplant experiments revealed natural selection favoring the resident morph, and soils and the dominant members of the plant community differed between regions.

Oddly enough one of the authors of the article Paulette Bierzychudek has on her own page this picture

Obviously this picture is either arranged or the soils differ in 2 cm distance substantially.

Quote

These results support the hypothesis that local differences in flower color are due to natural selection, not due to genetic drift.

So natural selection eliminated all red and yellow and blue-white combination of colors of this flower? Do you believe it?

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 30 2007,13:13

Marty, why is it that you refuse to ever offer an alternative to your much-hated 'Darwinism'?

Seriously, if Darwinism is so awful, shouldn't you be telling us what we should be doing instead?

C'mon Marty, no one's interested in your babbling, not even Davison. Tell us what you propose instead.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

oldmanintheskydidntdoit

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: Oct. 30 2007,13:48

Quote (VMartin @ Oct. 30 2007,12:36)

Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 25 2007,03:14)

Quote (VMartin @ Oct. 24 2007,14:13)

Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 22 2007,16:21)

Quote (VMartin @ Oct. 22 2007,13:57)

This shallow ravine is inpassable or what? Give me the whole article!

Easy Martin. I can't do that. Access requires registration, but you can ask the authors to send you a copy if you like.
The ravine is passable, as you would see by reading the abstract. If it had been impassable, they couldn't have demonstrated anything from field observation and population genetics. They did some fitness measures, though. And they confirm the results they got from allozymes data.

And what is the opinion of the neutral-driftists to such an surprising outcome? We should wait for their research now, what do you think? Sometimes these guys using the same methods in the same areas come to the opposite conclusions.

The dispute between selectionists and neutral-driftists is interesting. Both gropus consider themselves to be the scientists who are able to explain secrets of life and evolution. But they remind me of those groups of reformists and oportunists (or stalinists and trockists) who disputed about materialistic backgrounds in social processes in the frame of marxism.

There's no "dispute between selectionists and neutral-driftists" on such topic (and almost anywhere else).
Everyone agrees that most molecular polymorphism is neutral, which can be the case for the allozymes that show no differentiation between both sides of the ravine. However, coloration shows a very sharp cline, and local selection is confirmed by fitness measures of transplanted plants.

What's your explanation, Martin?
The fact that you resort to comparisons between science and politics is speaking. Can't comment on the biological evidence?

What evidence? In the abstract of the article you have given as an scientific example of "natural selection in action" is written:

Quote

Sewall Wright first applied his model of "isolation by distance" to investigate spatial patterns of flower color in Linanthus. He concluded that the distribution of flower color morphs was due to random genetic drift, and that Linanthus provided an example of his shifting balance theory of evolution.

Good remark. It shows how plausible all these evolutionary "models" really are. Everyone can create his model - driftists have theirs and selectionists theirs. It is obviously nothing more than childish play all these "models".

Quote

...reciprocal transplant experiments revealed natural selection favoring the resident morph, and soils and the dominant members of the plant community differed between regions.

Oddly enough one of the authors of the article Paulette Bierzychudek has on her own page this picture

Obviously this picture is either arranged or the soils differ in 2 cm distance substantially.

Quote

These results support the hypothesis that local differences in flower color are due to natural selection, not due to genetic drift.

So natural selection eliminated all red and yellow and blue-white combination of colors of this flower? Do you believe it?

If "Darwinism" is wrong, what would you have replace it?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 30 2007,14:42

Quote (VMartin @ Oct. 30 2007,12:36)

Good remark. It shows how plausible all these evolutionary "models" really are. Everyone can create his model - driftists have theirs and selectionists theirs. It is obviously nothing more than childish play all these "models".

Quote

...reciprocal transplant experiments revealed natural selection favoring the resident morph, and soils and the dominant members of the plant community differed between regions.

Oddly enough one of the authors of the article Paulette Bierzychudek has on her own page this picture

Obviously this picture is either arranged or the soils differ in 2 cm distance substantially.

Quote

These results support the hypothesis that local differences in flower color are due to natural selection, not due to genetic drift.

So natural selection eliminated all red and yellow and blue-white combination of colors of this flower? Do you believe it?

Wright didn't have the genetic tools to test his claims.

And the strong difference in coloration is seen in a particular ravine. Perhaps soil is not the only factor selecting for color there. And things are not all black and white Martin. Perhaps the photographer selected a particular spot were both color were in sympatry. You're not going to refute their conclusions using a single photo. You're not that naive, are you?

There's a very sharp cline in flower color across the ravine, but this is not seen on neutral markers. What is your explanation, Martin?

We're waiting.

Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

Posted: Oct. 30 2007,14:49

your 'models' are just based on 'facts' anyway.

right martin?

Do you disbelieve in heredity, you dishonest coward?

If so, admit it.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

VMartin

Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

Posted: Oct. 31 2007,16:11

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 30 2007,14:49)

your 'models' are just based on 'facts' anyway.

right martin?

Do you disbelieve in heredity, you dishonest coward?

If so, admit it.

But it is you who is a coward. It is you who run away from discussion about "ant's mimicry". You are unable to defend the "ant mimicry" links you have given and which I have tried to discuss.

But no wonder. Darwinists see selection everywhere. Even Zebras have some kind of protective coloration (oddly enough Zebras stripes are used at roads to give way the walkers, hehe.). That lions are hunting predominantly at nights and that antilopes having no stripes are thriving in the same areas very well is only a detail for selectionists.

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 31 2007,16:27

Quote (VMartin @ Oct. 31 2007,16:11)

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 30 2007,14:49)

your 'models' are just based on 'facts' anyway.

right martin?

Do you disbelieve in heredity, you dishonest coward?

If so, admit it.

But it is you who is a coward. It is you who run away from discussion about "ant's mimicry". You are unable to defend the "ant mimicry" links you have given and which I have tried to discuss.

But no wonder. Darwinists see selection everywhere. Even Zebras have some kind of protective coloration (oddly enough Zebras stripes are used at roads to give way the walkers, hehe.). That lions are hunting predominantly at nights and that antilopes having no stripes are thriving in the same areas very well is only a detail for selectionists.

Marty, why can't you offer an alternative to Darwinism?

What exactly are you trying to conceal?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Posts: 532
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 31 2007,16:33

Oh, the excitement as I open the AtBC main page, only to see that Vmaroon has again deigned to grace the discussion of coloration and mimicry he started, and on which his only point seems to be that evolution, natural selection, and the other natural mechanisms accepted by the world's scientists can't possibly be responsible for the colors and similarities we see in nature.

Once again, my anticipation rises! Arouses...! Er, whatever!

Once again, I turn to Vmaroon's latest post to see what it is instead of selection and other natural mechanisms he posits to explain the mysterious phenomena of the natural world...

When to my surprise what do I see, but yet another empty post, devoid of any semblance of an alternative mechanism--no hypothesis, no model, no theory, no arousal...

Just more blithering evasiveness.

Crestfallen, I creep away to my cavern, where I live with my aunt, er, ant, er, beetle, er, spider--

Once again my ravine, er, ravenous, er, raffish curiosity is destined to be rebuffed, soiled, and rejected.

When, O when, will Vmaroon stop putzing and futzing and swishing around, and gratify us with some actual instance of his brilliance and glory? When, O when, will my arousal find surcease?

Not today, I reckon.

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 31 2007,16:34

Quote (VMartin @ Oct. 31 2007,16:11)

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 30 2007,14:49)

your 'models' are just based on 'facts' anyway.

right martin?

Do you disbelieve in heredity, you dishonest coward?

If so, admit it.

But it is you who is a coward. It is you who run away from discussion about "ant's mimicry".

But Marty, it is you who run away from question: DO you disbelieve in heredity?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

VMartin

Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

Posted: Oct. 31 2007,16:59

Quote (Steviepinhead @ Oct. 31 2007,16:33)

Oh, the excitement as I open the AtBC main page, only to see that Vmaroon has again deigned to grace the discussion of coloration and mimicry he started, and on which his only point seems to be that evolution, natural selection, and the other natural mechanisms accepted by the world's scientists can't possibly be responsible for the colors and similarities we see in nature.

Once again, my anticipation rises! Arouses...! Er, whatever!

Once again, I turn to Vmaroon's latest post to see what it is instead of selection and other natural mechanisms he posits to explain the mysterious phenomena of the natural world...

When to my surprise what do I see, but yet another empty post, devoid of any semblance of an alternative mechanism--no hypothesis, no model, no theory, no arousal...

Just more blithering evasiveness.

Crestfallen, I creep away to my cavern, where I live with my aunt, er, ant, er, beetle, er, spider--

Once again my ravine, er, ravenous, er, raffish curiosity is destined to be rebuffed, soiled, and rejected.

When, O when, will Vmaroon stop putzing and futzing and swishing around, and gratify us with some actual instance of his brilliance and glory? When, O when, will my arousal find surcease?

Not today, I reckon.

Newtonian period:

Having two magnets that attract each other you would insist that it is gravity as the force behind the phenomena - because the magnetism and electricity was unknown in those times. When I had told you it is impossible, you would have believe it is gravity neverthenless - because I have no alternative explanation.

The same today. I tell you it is no way selection behind coloration of animals. I don't know what it is. But because I don't know you would insist it is natural selection.

Sometimes we might know it - it is transformational sequences. As in the case of beetles that look like ants but do not live with ants, or with Syrphidae that look like wasps but are not their mimics etc...

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 31 2007,17:07

Quote

The same today. I tell you it is no way selection behind coloration of animals. I don't know what it is. But because I don't know you would insist it is natural selection.

Is this your way of finally admitting that while you don't agree with natural selection, you have NO IDEA what alternative theory would explain the facts better?

So basically you're saying "I don't know shit about how to explain variation in nature, but I sure hate Darwinism" -- right?

We're dazzled Marty. You're an amazing scientific mind.

So, DO you disbelieve in heredity?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

Posted: Oct. 31 2007,18:31

So, you have no alternative, yet you know it is none of the posited factors that are responsible for whatever it is you are disputing at the moment?

C'mon Vicky. Unload that high octane tard on me. I wanna hear about morphic fields. Tell me what you know, and I'll hush until you are done. I'm dying inside to know just what is wrong with these materialists darwinistsists selectionists adaptationists whateverists.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

Posted: Oct. 31 2007,18:32

Walking past a derelict bum on the sidewalk that is in the process of shitting on himself is not 'running away' Vicky.

Now man up and deal with the issue.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Posts: 745
Joined: Feb. 2006

Posted: Oct. 31 2007,19:05

Erasmus, don't forget mounteverists.

To me, after studying a little about the human eye, perceiving
color is more fascinating than color's creation. Without distinguishing
color, one could not see a rainbow, even with 20/20.

--------------
360 miracles and more at:
http://www.hereoisreal.com/....eal.com

Great news. God’s wife is pregnant! (Rev. 12:5)

It's not over till the fat lady sings! (Isa. 54:1 & Zec 9:9)

Posts: 532
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 31 2007,19:15

I think the hero just made more sense in his one post that you have in all your posts to date, Vmaroon.

But at least you did admit you're clueless.

That's a place to start, at least.

It's not a place from which to condescend, to dismiss, or deride.

But it is a place to start...

VMartin

Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

Posted: Nov. 01 2007,03:45

Quote (hereoisreal @ Oct. 31 2007,19:05)

Erasmus, don't forget mounteverists.

To me, after studying a little about the human eye, perceiving
color is more fascinating than color's creation. Without distinguishing
color, one could not see a rainbow, even with 20/20.

That's another point. We don't know how exactly are colors perceived by animals. Consequently colors we see are many times different as those perceived by let say birds. The very good example was given by Majerus about peppered moths resting on some kind of lichens. "Cryptic" for human eye they were very conspicuous in UV light, which is visible for birds. You see than all darwinian explanation about mimicry coloration are wrong in such cases.

The problem is complicated bz the fact that we can see a color frequency not entering into our eye - Hering red-green channel is localized into deeper layers of retina.

The most intriguing Edwin Lands effect support the Goethian theory of color perception at most. Color perception is often the effect of the brain and is independent from the spectrum entering the eye.

Consequently all cryptic, warning coloratin etc are probably only darwinian antropomorphistic fantasies where much work has to be done instead.

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

Posts: 745
Joined: Feb. 2006

Posted: Nov. 01 2007,07:46

V, I’m confused. Reading between the lines, are you saying we
see something we don’t see?

My wife say’s I have perfect eyes in my AZ. She calls
it 20/20 hindsight.

There was this optimist that married a doubting Thomas.
They had a child who became an optometrist.

A wise queen and a dumb king had a child they named ‘Wisdom’.

Zero

--------------
360 miracles and more at:
http://www.hereoisreal.com/....eal.com

Great news. God’s wife is pregnant! (Rev. 12:5)

It's not over till the fat lady sings! (Isa. 54:1 & Zec 9:9)

Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

Posted: Nov. 01 2007,08:14

Much work, huh?

Listen asshole, the world is your oyster. Get out there and 'do all this much work' your god damn self. You know wny you won't? Because your are full of it.

You don't even have an alternative hypothesis. You don't even understand the nature of selection pressure, for you have an a priori commitment to arguing that it doesn't exist. You don't even grasp the mendelian nature of most character inheritance.

You are a joke. The fact that some birds eat some wasps sometimes doesn't mean a single thing that you say that it does.

<shrug> <shrug> <shrug>

fuck off.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

VMartin

Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

Posted: Nov. 04 2007,12:35

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Nov. 01 2007,08:14)

Much work, huh?

Listen asshole, the world is your oyster. Get out there and 'do all this much work' your god damn self. You know wny you won't? Because your are full of it.

You don't even have an alternative hypothesis. You don't even understand the nature of selection pressure, for you have an a priori commitment to arguing that it doesn't exist. You don't even grasp the mendelian nature of most character inheritance.

You are a joke. The fact that some birds eat some wasps sometimes doesn't mean a single thing that you say that it does.

<shrug> <shrug> <shrug>

fuck off.

Why do you believe that only "some birds eat some wasps"? Do you think that other birds are as afraid of wasps as you are? Because you shit into your neodarwinian pants seeing wasps it doesn't mean the birds do the same, what do you think stupido?

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

Posted: Nov. 04 2007,13:20

martin did you not pay any attention to the experimental results up thread where bids ate wasps, then avoided them thereafter? i don't think you were. perhaps someone will translate it into german for you.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

Posted: Nov. 04 2007,13:21

and your theory is? what experiments could you do to falsify it?

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Posts: 479
Joined: Nov. 2007

Posted: Nov. 04 2007,13:31

I'm sorry Martin i don't really see what you're trying to prove here. I don't think you're trying to disprove natural selection, because it's easely viewed in daily life, but i think you're trying to disprove that natural selection is leading to new species. Am i right?

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Nov. 04 2007,14:50

Quote (Assassinator @ Nov. 04 2007,13:31)

I'm sorry Martin i don't really see what you're trying to prove here. I don't think you're trying to disprove natural selection, because it's easely viewed in daily life, but i think you're trying to disprove that natural selection is leading to new species. Am i right?

For those of you who haven't watched VM's evasions, here's the lowdown:

a) he hates Darwinism and thinks that Darwinists are as bad as Stalinists,

b) he doesn't think natural selection exists, and cites various German authors of the 1920's and 1930's to back this up. His science reading seems to taper off around 1940,

c) he appears to have no training in biology or science in any form,

d) he claims to have NO clue as to what does cause variation in nature, but he's very adamant that natural selection is NOT responsible for any of it,

e) he refuses to say whether he believes in heredity,

f) he refuses to say whether he believes in common descent between humans and apes.

g) he can't remember the difference between 'arise' and 'arouse', and he thinks 'stupido' is a word,

h) he thinks we're supposed to be very ashamed and impressed by all this.

There. Now you understand VMartin.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Posts: 479
Joined: Nov. 2007

Posted: Nov. 04 2007,14:58

O dear...well, too bad for him. Our whole westren vacination program is based on natural selection. If natural selection didn't exist...how the hell would vacination work anyway?? I mean, bacterial strands who are not resistant to the medicne die and those who are do not die, so in the end only the one's who are resistant will live: voila, natural selection. And then we have to make new medicine etc etc etc.

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Nov. 04 2007,15:01

Quote (Assassinator @ Nov. 04 2007,14:58)

O dear...well, too bad for him. Our whole westren vacination program is based on natural selection. If natural selection didn't exist...how the hell would vacination work anyway?? I mean, bacterial strands who are not resistant to the medicne die and those who are do not die, so in the end only the one's who are resistant will live: voila, natural selection. And then we have to make new medicine etc etc etc.

Try addressing those concerns directly to VMartin. Perhaps you'll have better luck than everyone else.

(Or, maybe not.)

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Posts: 479
Joined: Nov. 2007

Posted: Nov. 04 2007,15:22

I'll be waiting for a reaction from him ;) I've had some experience with people claiming such things, but i'm still hoping he will be different. You may call it naïve, but i'm just trying to keep an open mind ^^ O well, the future will tell us.

Henry J

Posts: 5760
Joined: Mar. 2005

Posted: Nov. 04 2007,17:47

Re "If natural selection didn't exist... how the hell would vacination work anyway??"

Seems to me wouldn't it work a lot better if the bugs didn't have a tendency to develop ways to get around it?

Henry

Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

Posted: Nov. 04 2007,21:29

well assassin be prepared for the whole show. rhetorically he has the ESL thing down to a fine point and he milks it for every last drop of effect including playing dumb. i love it so!!! and for the record i think martin is a deep cover troll and it is probably a biologist getting his kicks like making prank calls or jacking off in seventh grade. so if that is true, and i work from the hypothesis that it is, i'm waiting for the next level of tard. i hope the actor known as VMartin is working on something new for us, maybe get past the pictures of ants and wasps. and tell us more about morphic fields, which i know he wants to get into and is scared to.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

VMartin

Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

Posted: Nov. 05 2007,00:18

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Nov. 04 2007,13:20)

martin did you not pay any attention to the experimental results up thread where bids ate wasps, then avoided them thereafter? i don't think you were. perhaps someone will translate it into german for you.

Any links to those "experimental results"? Were stressed birds held in small cages where they were feed regularly by dead fatty worms and sometimes living wasps were offered them instead? Because they did not touch them darwinists came to conclusion birds are avoiding wasps in countryside as well?

Give me some neodarwinian links for amusement. I like those experiments.

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

oldmanintheskydidntdoit

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: Nov. 05 2007,02:51

Quote (VMartin @ Nov. 05 2007,00:18)

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Nov. 04 2007,13:20)

martin did you not pay any attention to the experimental results up thread where bids ate wasps, then avoided them thereafter? i don't think you were. perhaps someone will translate it into german for you.

Any links to those "experimental results"? Were stressed birds held in small cages where they were feed regularly by dead fatty worms and sometimes living wasps were offered them instead? Because they did not touch them darwinists came to conclusion birds are avoiding wasps in countryside as well?

Give me some neodarwinian links for amusement. I like those experiments.

Heh, VMartin you are the amusing experiment here you know. Just a troll that knows a few more sciency words then the average gutter troll. Go crawl on your belly back to JAD.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

Posted: Nov. 05 2007,10:27

you could try here

http://www.jstor.org/view/09628452/sp020002/02x0022v/0

here is one where background contrast is important in affecting attack rates

http://beheco.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/12/6/768

here is another one showing decreased attacks and predator learning

http://www.springerlink.com/content/l29xg761k82857r4/

Now, the whole point of this is to demonstrate that there is a selective advantage to being noxious or cryptic, even if there is still a mortality risk. your totalitarian view of selection, ie that if you occasionally get eaten then there is no benefit to being cryptic or noxious, is a strawman. the real world (you should get out and see it sometime) is hypervariable in time and space.

i'm not interested in your juvenile bitching about experimental design. if you think that there are operational biases in these experiments, redo them yourself. otherwise you are just handwaving and ejaculating puerile bafflegab.

and you still haven't offered an alternative hypothesis. troll.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Posts: 479
Joined: Nov. 2007

Posted: Nov. 05 2007,11:55

Again VMartin, the whole medicinal industry is based on natural selection. I don't get it, natural selection doesn't exist?? It's the most easly spotted and easly observed in nature! You're saying natural fitness does not exist, huh?? You're basicly saying genetics is bullshit, odd. Another example of selection, out Biology Seventh Edition. Scientists had 2 pools with guppies. One pool had killifish as predators who prey on small guppies. Another pool had pike-cichlids as predators, who preyed on large guppies. The guppies in the killifish pool were larger at sexual maturity and the guppies in the piki-cichlid pool were smaller at a sexual mature age. Then they transplanted guppies from the pike-cichlid pool in another pool with just killifish. After 11 years, the average size and age at maturity of guppies in the transplanted population increased compared to those of guppies in control populations. The experiments were conducted by Reznick and Endler. That's natural selection, a transplant like that can happen in nature too. I'll try to look it up on the web.

Posts: 479
Joined: Nov. 2007

Posted: Nov. 05 2007,11:59

Ofcourse i'm talking about the offspring, forgot to say that.

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Nov. 05 2007,14:14

Quote

You're basicly saying genetics is bullshit, odd.

Precisely. It's not even clear if VM believes in heredity, or if he does, what on earth he thinks explains it.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Posts: 479
Joined: Nov. 2007

Posted: Nov. 05 2007,14:23

Haha now THAT would be really funny. Then he's also saying genetic diseases do not exist. How the hell would he support that statement, this is getting funnier by the minute.

Henry J

Posts: 5760
Joined: Mar. 2005

Posted: Nov. 05 2007,15:01

What's that old saying - to heir is human.

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Nov. 05 2007,15:23

Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 05 2007,15:01)

What's that old saying - to heir is human.

Henry J is here all week, and wants you to try the veal.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Nov. 05 2007,15:30

VTard is here to convert people to his backwards world view. What everyone else here recognizes right away (and eludes him) is that he's currently one of the dumbest and most poorly informed people here.

People are too busy making fun of him and pointing out how stupid his ideas are to bother converting to his fundy, JAD butt sucking viewpoint.

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Nov. 05 2007,15:38

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Nov. 05 2007,15:30)

VTard is here to convert people to his backwards world view.

The odd thing, tho, is that he refuses to say what his worldview is, other than "YOU DARWINISTS ALL SUCK!"

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Posts: 479
Joined: Nov. 2007

Posted: Nov. 06 2007,03:01

Nothing more then rants from him indeed. And still, no answer from him :)

oldmanintheskydidntdoit

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: Nov. 06 2007,03:05

Quote (Assassinator @ Nov. 06 2007,03:01)

Nothing more then rants from him indeed. And still, no answer from him :)

and it's the same old rant every time, nothing new for weeks from the dancing monkey.

Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

Posted: Nov. 06 2007,06:15

i thought for a while, perhaps he is working on some new material. but then it never 'materialized' and we got the same posts full of the same crap that he was unloading on EVC and i have pretty much forgotten about Martin having anything intelligent to say.

If you understand the papers that are not translated to English, Vicky, please share those points with us. Since, uh, you are holding all that knowledge, it is your responsibility.

If you have criticisms of a scientific theory, it is only reasonable to proffer an alternative theory. We are waiting for your take. With bated breath. And some of us have bait breath.

If all you have is a bunch of stupid nonsequitor blithering, by all means, i get a kick out of that too. It's kinda like going down to the center and beating up retards, though, a guilty pleasure. But, the world is your oyster.

Assassinator, ready to start swearing yet buddy? Stick around....

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Posts: 479
Joined: Nov. 2007

Posted: Nov. 06 2007,06:52

Haha, nah it won't come to that ;) I'll rather watch with a big grin on my face seeing how people totally make fun of themselfs without even realising.

Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Nov. 06 2007,09:31

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Nov. 05 2007,15:38)

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Nov. 05 2007,15:30)

VTard is here to convert people to his backwards world view.

The odd thing, tho, is that he refuses to say what his worldview is, other than "YOU DARWINISTS ALL SUCK!"

Isn't he from the 6,000 yo earth, godditit camp for intellectual retards?

I especially like the "kick me" sign he wears so proudly.

Is he also from the global warming is a left wing conspiracy camp as well? And does he also doubt the relationiship between HIV and AIDS? I'm trying to get an idea for the depth of his stupid infection.

Sorry to be so ignorant about one of our favorite poster boys of stupidity but I seldom read his nonsense.

Chris

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Nov. 06 2007,11:15

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Nov. 06 2007,09:31)

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Nov. 05 2007,15:38)

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Nov. 05 2007,15:30)

VTard is here to convert people to his backwards world view.

The odd thing, tho, is that he refuses to say what his worldview is, other than "YOU DARWINISTS ALL SUCK!"

Isn't he from the 6,000 yo earth, godditit camp for intellectual retards?

Actually, believe it or not, last summer, after weeks of repeated pounding, we at least ascertained that VMartin agrees with the reality-based community on the age of the earth. But it was like pulling teeth to get him to admit this.

He appears to have learned a lesson from this, tho, in that he has never made a single positive assertion since. Since then, it's been all "DARWINISMUS SUCKS YOU FOOLISH DARWIST ARE LIKE COMMUNIST HO HO".

Quote

Is he also from the global warming is a left wing conspiracy camp as well? And does he also doubt the relationiship between HIV and AIDS? I'm trying to get an idea for the depth of his stupid infection.

He has made no assertions on global warming or HIV, but no one's asked him. I suspect if you asked him, he would reply with a snide remark about how we came to hold the views we have, but would carefully offer no statement of his own.

Seeing the pattern?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

VMartin

Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

Posted: Nov. 06 2007,14:12

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Nov. 05 2007,10:27)

you could try here

http://www.jstor.org/view/09628452/sp020002/02x0022v/0

here is one where background contrast is important in affecting attack rates

http://beheco.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/12/6/768

here is another one showing decreased attacks and predator learning

http://www.springerlink.com/content/l29xg761k82857r4/

Now, the whole point of this is to demonstrate that there is a selective advantage to being noxious or cryptic, even if there is still a mortality risk. your totalitarian view of selection, ie that if you occasionally get eaten then there is no benefit to being cryptic or noxious, is a strawman. the real world (you should get out and see it sometime) is hypervariable in time and space.

i'm not interested in your juvenile bitching about experimental design. if you think that there are operational biases in these experiments, redo them yourself. otherwise you are just handwaving and ejaculating puerile bafflegab.

and you still haven't offered an alternative hypothesis. troll.

Good neodarwinian stuff as usually stupido. The last sentences of the third link:

Quote

This experiment shows that individual prey can benefit from being aposematic and indicates that individual selection can be a sufficient explanation for the evolution of aposematic coloration. It was concluded that, since the survivorship was 6.4 times higher for the aposematic prey, it could have a detection rate that is correspondingly higher than the cryptic in order for the two forms to have equal fitness.

Obviously the author is perplexed by the fact that aposematism do not gave such a "survival advantage" for it's bearer as to win "struggle for life" against cryptic forms. So the more aposematic you are the more you are attacked. One wonder what is the difference of being aposematc, cryptic or normal as to "survival advantage". Btw. my estimation is that 90% of insects are non aposematic and non cryptic species which thrive as well as poisonous aposematics.

The second link is off topic too, but the link it gives deals with wasps!

"Responses of domestic chicks (Gallus gallus domesticus) to multimodal aposematic signals"

Beside the fact what everything are domestic chicks able to eat (we can discuss it if you like) neodarwinists like to use them to support their fantasies about "natural selection".

Now they tried to support their fantasy that wasp's buzz deters poor chicks. But behold!

Quote

However, the only effect of sound found in analyses of learning was that buzzing prey was attacked more on an overall basis than silent prey.

One should ask - why do wasp buzz then? Those that buzz less should have had greater "survival advantage", you know.

Quote

This suggests that when the chick had been exposed to a yellow-colored prey, attacks on all prey were inhibited, also those not displaying the signals. That is, the fear of yellow became generalized to the brown prey.

So brown and yellow colored prey created something like mullerian mimicry ring, eh? What color of prey did scared chicks eat - if not yellow and brown? I suppose they did't starve to death because of this neodarwinian color experiment?

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Nov. 06 2007,14:20

For the record, Marty, you're still not offering any alternatives to 'Darwinsmus', right?

Care to finally tell us whether you believe in common descent? Or still too afraid to do so?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

Posted: Nov. 06 2007,14:21

aposematic larvae had a survivorship 6.4x greater than cryptic forms and you say there is no advantage to survival?

God you are dumb. in uninteresting ways.

martin, do you think you can find an eleven year old english speaker to read these papers to you? if you can't even understand the science then it is rather pointless to talk about it. of course, that has never stopped you before.

if you can get past the abstract, then we can talk. until then you have some reading to do troll.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Nov. 06 2007,14:57

Marty is still logged on, but silent:

Quote

41 guests, 25 Public Members and 2 Anonymous Members [ View Complete List ]
>Arden Chatfield >Dazza McTrazza >Jake >creeky belly >JohnW >Hermagoras >Doc Bill >Erasmus, FCD >Reciprocating Bill >oldmanintheskydidntdoit >someotherguy >ppb >keiths >Mr_Christopher >argystokes >Richardthughes >simmi >J-Dog >VMartin >Assassinator >Tom >Albatrossity2 >carlsonjok >Big D >Altabin

Working on his devastating rejoinder, no doubt.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

VMartin

Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

Posted: Nov. 06 2007,15:01

If they have survivorship 6.4x greater than cryptic forms after 1000 years there should have been only aposematics. Read your own basic neodarwinian shits about peppered moths where much lesser ratio of survivorship between melanica/carbonaria have led to almost full extinction of one morph.

Author of the article claimed that this advantge is counterbalanced by "detection rate that is correspondingly higher".

If it is beyond your comprehension I am so sorry stupido.

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

oldmanintheskydidntdoit

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: Nov. 06 2007,15:03

Quote (VMartin @ Nov. 06 2007,15:01)

If they have survivorship 6.4x greater than cryptic forms after 1000 years there should have been only aposematics. Read your own basic neodarwinian shits about peppered moths where much lesser ratio of survivorship between melanica/carbonaria have led to almost full extinction of one morph.

Author of the article claimed that this advantge is counterbalanced by "detection rate that is correspondingly higher".

If it is beyond your comprehension I am so sorry stupido.

Why don't you write that down (Boom Boom) and send it off to the authors. Then come back with what they say.

Or is that too "sciencY" for you?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

Posts: 479
Joined: Nov. 2007

Posted: Nov. 06 2007,15:06

Quote

If they have survivorship 6.4x greater than cryptic forms after 1000 years there should have been only aposematics.

Depends Martin, apperantly you forget that not every part of the planet is the same.

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Nov. 06 2007,15:20

Quote (VMartin @ Nov. 06 2007,15:01)

If they have survivorship 6.4x greater than cryptic forms after 1000 years there should have been only aposematics. Read your own basic neodarwinian shits about peppered moths where much lesser ratio of survivorship between melanica/carbonaria have led to almost full extinction of one morph.

Author of the article claimed that this advantge is counterbalanced by "detection rate that is correspondingly higher".

If it is beyond your comprehension I am so sorry stupido.

Hey, 'stupido', if 'Darwinismus' won't work, what will?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

Posted: Nov. 06 2007,15:22

Dumbass:

you apparently missed the part, while you were scanning the abstracts, that background contrast was a crucial part of the detection probability by predators.

We're waiting to hear your theory of inheritance, troll.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

VMartin

Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

Posted: Nov. 06 2007,15:28

Quote (Assassinator @ Nov. 06 2007,15:06)

Quote

If they have survivorship 6.4x greater than cryptic forms after 1000 years there should have been only aposematics.

Depends Martin, apperantly you forget that not every part of the planet is the same.

The problem is that the article deals with one species Lygaeus equestris which have two forms - one is normal red, second is mutant grey called "cryptic". I suppose they do not live in much different places.

But the poor stupido Erasmus is always like this. He put some links which he googles out in two minutes. He don't read them and he never discuss them. He only calls me name - in the best tradition of some "knowledgeable evolutionists" here - and then he buzz off leaving his ignorant stench.

Or sometimes he tried to back his own links. But the results you can see above. It is really sad.

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Nov. 06 2007,15:29

Hey, Marty, your input is being requested at the "4 Questions For Skeptic, FtK and VMartin" thread.

(A whole new venue for you to avoid answering questions!)

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Nov. 06 2007,15:37

Quote (VMartin @ Nov. 06 2007,15:28)

But the poor stupido Erasmus is always like this. He put some links which he googles out in two minutes. He don't read them and he never discuss them. He only calls me name - in the best tradition of some "knowledgeable evolutionists" here - and then he buzz off leaving his ignorant stench.

Or sometimes he tried to back his own links. But the results you can see above. It is really sad.

What's sad, Marty, is a pathetic, ignorant Creationist like yourself avoiding answering questions and who's too cowardly/stupid to propose alternatives for any of the theories he's childishly trying to trash.

PS, dipshit, 'stupido' isn't a word. I've told you.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

Posted: Nov. 06 2007,15:40

I don't know, you could, uh, read the paper. You'll find out something about the gray form. i don't think you care if you can't find it in the abstract.

what you will find is more devastating to your thesis that 'natural selection she do not exist but in the inferior minds of darwinismus stupido'.

enjoy

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

VMartin

Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

Posted: Nov. 06 2007,16:21

Have you any arguments or have you sent the links without any effort to back them? Last time you did it with ants mimicry, you sent a link and then you buzz off without discussing it.

Now when I asked you some links about wasps - you have sent link to Lygaeus equestris instead which is a redbug.

So do you want actually to discuss anything particular, ants mimicry, wasps mimicry/aposematism or redbugs/ladybirds? Or what?

----------
Do you folks here know that "aposematics" Lygaeus equestris are the "insects of the year 2007"?

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Nov. 06 2007,16:30

Quote (VMartin @ Nov. 06 2007,16:21)

So do you want actually to discuss anything particular, ants mimicry, wasps mimicry/aposematism or redbugs/ladybirds? Or what?

Well, since you're asking, tell us what YOUR explanation of variation in nature is, Marty.

You know, since 'Darwinismus' is so wrong and all, you must have an alternative. Right?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Posts: 479
Joined: Nov. 2007

Posted: Nov. 06 2007,17:48

I still don't really fully understand you Martin. You're bassicly saying natural selection is pure bullcrap, but on what scientific base are you saying that? What's your scientific comment against all those countless numbers of experiments (I gave you one 1 or 2 pages ago, wich you completly ignored). You're bassicly whiping away the whole of genetics, now that's some serious stuff. So I'm asking again: on wich ground are you totally whiping away a major quantity of modern science, right into the dustbin. Our constant struggle to develop new antibiotics is actually proof for natural selection, to put in easy language: we pwn bacteria with antibiotics, then lots of bacteria die but not every single one of them because of certain biochemical properties because of certain genetic differences. They reproduce, and pwn our drugs. Then we develop new antibiotics to pwn those bacteria, but not every bacteria dies because of etc etc etc. And so the patern continue's. Now what's your scientific comment against all that? Are you saying we're making all those new antibiotics for nothing? What's actually happening then?

VMartin

Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

Posted: Nov. 06 2007,23:55

Assasinator.

There is a difference between natural and artificial selection. Of course you can observe extraordinary results achieved by artificial selection. Strangely enough ancient breeders never came to the conclusion that the same principle - selection - is responsible of diversity of living world. The idea occured first in 19 century to Darwin who's major was theology.

In reality the natural selection play no role in evolution. It removes only extremities. Read John Davison's Evolutionary manifesto. It was opinion of many scientists.

The topic is coloration of animals, mimicry etc... Mimicry and aposematism are favored childs of darwinism, because darwinists suppose the natural selection can be very easily proved here as the source of the phenomenons. Obviously the case is much more complicated and all "proofs" or "evidences" supporting this explanation are very weak and they only shows up ignorance of reality. See Erasmus thinking about survivorship of aposematics or read links he has given. There could be found very interesting admissions and facts. Often one research contradicts the other dealing the same case of aposematism - skim this thread.

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Nov. 07 2007,09:23

Quote (VMartin @ Nov. 06 2007,23:55)

In reality the natural selection play no role in evolution. It removes only extremities. Read John Davison's Evolutionary manifesto. It was opinion of many scientists.

Yeah, if only John was a born a hundred years earlier, he'd be hot stuff.

Quote

The topic is coloration of animals, mimicry etc... Mimicry and aposematism are favored childs of darwinism, because darwinists suppose the natural selection can be very easily proved here as the source of the phenomenons. Obviously the case is much more complicated and all "proofs" or "evidences" supporting this explanation are very weak and they only shows up ignorance of reality. See Erasmus thinking about survivorship of aposematics or read links he has given. There could be found very interesting admissions and facts. Often one research contradicts the other dealing the same case of aposematism - skim this thread.

How do YOU explain coloration of animals and mimicry, Marty?

Say what you like about 'Darwinists', Marty, at least they offer explanations, which is more than useless people like you ever do.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

Posted: Nov. 07 2007,09:24

Martin Castle and others showed that selection could change characteristics beyond the range of parental variation. this was shown to be consistent with mendelian inheritance. there were many biologists who fought this at the time, but lacked any mathematical rigor to their programs. fisher wright and haldane, among others, eliminated the confusion except for a few holdouts that could not assimilate their views into the evidence from statistical population genetics.

so, no one has ever showed that what you call 'artificial' selection is any different in principle from 'natural' selection. many studies of N.S. provide incontrovertible evidence for the process in nature. again, quantitative studies of pop genetics establish this over and over.

ploidy and lineage contact between genotypes or hybridizing species provides massive amounts of variation that is then fuel for selection. we know this is true from literally thousands of studies involving oeneothera, irises, spartina, populus, quercus, pinus, silene, and many many many more. also in Lycaeneid butterflies, Heliconia butterflies, Rana frogs and many reptiles (geckos invading Florida are a fine example). also Jim roman european green crab invasion in gulf of maine. the jury is not out.

now, the question 'how does mimicry arise' is not answered by these studies. but you don't ask that question honestly, because conflate it with 'how would it be maintained'. i don't know that anyone understands how mimicry arises, for the equation F(genotype)=a+ G(Phenotype) is not solved yet. but in order for you to argue that mimicry can't be maintained requires that you deny everything that is known about heredity and mathematical demonstrations of natural selection.

be honest. you want to know how 'mimicry' can arise, and we do too. but denying the obvious in attempts to disclaim the evo-devo explanations is a wrong tack and it really pisses off anyone who is honestly approaching this question.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Posts: 479
Joined: Nov. 2007

Posted: Nov. 07 2007,09:37

Quote

There is a difference between natural and artificial selection. Of course you can observe extraordinary results achieved by artificial selection.

The resistance against antibiotics is as natural as it can be, we're not doing anything there. That would be pure bullcrap too, because that would mean we're destroying our own medical systems. Also the guppy experiment is not artificial selection, it's purely natural. I don't think you actually know what artificial selection is.

Quote

In reality the natural selection play no role in evolution. It removes only extremities.

Wrong Martin, you're only talking about 1 kind of natural selection. Next to stabilizing selection, you've also got disruptive and directional selection. It would be nice if you would actually know something about the subject.

Quote

Obviously the case is much more complicated and all "proofs" or "evidences" supporting this explanation are very weak and they only shows up ignorance of reality.

They're very weak you say, tell us why, explain it yourself.

And like Arden Chatfield asks time and time again, how are you explaining the variaty between living creatures then? Take for example the Dubuatia plants on the Hawaiian islands collectivly known as the "silversword alliance". How do you explain those huge external differences without natural selection?

VMartin

Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

Posted: Nov. 07 2007,13:47

Quote (Assassinator @ Nov. 07 2007,09:37)

Quote

There is a difference between natural and artificial selection. Of course you can observe extraordinary results achieved by artificial selection.

The resistance against antibiotics is as natural as it can be, we're not doing anything there. That would be pure bullcrap too, because that would mean we're destroying our own medical systems. Also the guppy experiment is not artificial selection, it's purely natural. I don't think you actually know what artificial selection is.

Quote

In reality the natural selection play no role in evolution. It removes only extremities.

Wrong Martin, you're only talking about 1 kind of natural selection. Next to stabilizing selection, you've also got disruptive and directional selection. It would be nice if you would actually know something about the subject.

Quote

Obviously the case is much more complicated and all "proofs" or "evidences" supporting this explanation are very weak and they only shows up ignorance of reality.

They're very weak you say, tell us why, explain it yourself.

And like Arden Chatfield asks time and time again, how are you explaining the variaty between living creatures then? Take for example the Dubuatia plants on the Hawaiian islands collectivly known as the "silversword alliance". How do you explain those huge external differences without natural selection?

Because in your opinion I don't know anything about natural selection there is obviously no need to discuss the issue with me. In your opinion I am wrong and I don't know anything about the subject of my own thread.

Obviously your education level must be excellent when you deal with oponents of neodarwinism in such a way. I am sorry but preliminary this is my last response to your posts.

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Nov. 07 2007,13:50

Quote

Because ~~in your opinion~~ I don't know anything about natural selection there is obviously no need to discuss the issue with me. ~~In your opinion~~ I am wrong and I don't know anything about the subject of my own thread.

Fixed it for ya, Marty.

How do you like those road apples?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

Posted: Nov. 07 2007,14:02

Ahhhh but there is a need to discuss this with me, Vicky, because you keep saying I am running away from the topic. So please don't run away from my point, which is namely that you are conflating the origin and maintenance of mimicry, and secondly that for unknown reasons you seem to discount everything that is known about population genetics and heredity.

Make your case for abandoning those two fields and let us evaluate your claim. Until then, popping in and vomiting nonsense on the thread is not making me believe you. Or anyone else.

I'm serious. i want you to tell me about morphic fields or whatever magical german mystical mechanism you have that explains what darwinismus cannot.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Posts: 479
Joined: Nov. 2007

Posted: Nov. 07 2007,14:08

Quote

Because in your opinion I don't know anything about natural selection there is obviously no need to discuss the issue with me. In your opinion I am wrong and I don't know anything about the subject of my own thread.

Why don't you show us that you DO know something about it then? Instead of avoiding the contents of my post, you can easely counter then if you would know so much about the subject.

VMartin

Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

Posted: Nov. 07 2007,14:21

Erasmus, the problem of statistical population genetics play no role in the issue we are discussing now. Maybe you would like to discuss natural selection more generally and in models. But I would like to discuss natural selection exactly in the cases of aposematism and mimicry in insect realm.

You noticed ant-mimics first and you didn't address my point that there are beetles living in caverns which look like ants but obviously the similarity was not induced by predators who avoid ants (subsequently NS by the same predators is excluded in the similarity ).

Then you noticed wasps and you have given links to red bugs. Neither of them you discussed.
Anyway red bugs are good example. Even though I would prefer the example of so-called aposematism of ladybirds. You know Heikertinger presented his anti-selectionist view of so-called aposematism of ladybirds in his work having more than 40 pages which is available on inet in German language.

Now you have mentioned mimicry in butterflies. Eimer wrote more than 600 pages about the concept of butterfly mimicry where he explained his theory of orthogenesis. So the mimicry in butterflies led him to different conclusions as those accepted by neodarwinism.

Heikertinger devoted more than half of his book (1952) to the problem of the so-called mimicry in butterflies species. I think he addressed the most spectacular examples of mimicry and his observation are interesting.
He presented very original ideas about the issue.

Heikertinger spent more than 40 years studying the problem of mimicry refuting selectionists point of view. He was also a great systematic pointing out many cases where there were only coincidental similarities between transformational sequences of species of different taxa. Without those vast knowledge of systematics of insects realm one could come to a wrong conclusion that some species is mimicking another.

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

Posts: 479
Joined: Nov. 2007

Posted: Nov. 07 2007,14:30

Mimicry is a bad name for it imo. Because they're not really mimicking, they're just certain heritable colorpaterns wich were better suited then other paterns.

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Nov. 07 2007,14:31

Marty, how is it that you can go on at such great lengths at how wrong Darwinism is and how NS cannot explain variation without EVER ONCE saying what DOES explain variation?

Why are you incapable of offering actual explanations of anything? Did you have any kind of science education at all?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

Posted: Nov. 07 2007,15:12

Quote

the problem of statistical population genetics play no role in the issue we are discussing now.

care to explain why? this is exactly my point. these models detail the maintenance of mimic forms. but you are conflating the origin with the maintenance.

Quote

there are beetles living in caverns which look like ants but obviously the similarity was not induced by predators who avoid ants

this is irrelevant, since it may very well be the case that these species or immediate ancestors did live with ants. so it is much less than obvious that what you say is true.

Since you have read Eimer and Heikertinger, why don't you give us the explanation that these authors propose? why are you afraid to do this? i have asked you several times myself, and you never elaborate. the number of pages is irrelevant, dembski has published thousands of pages of B.S. about NFL theorems, it hasn't helped him since he is wrong.

It's really easy to say 'oh, that was explained long ago, in a language you can't read, but i can, so i know that this is true and you are silly selectionist'. that is what pisses me off. if you know what they are talking about, share it. otherwise i think you are lying.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

VMartin

Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

Posted: Nov. 09 2007,12:15

Eramus.

According Heikertinger 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".

McAtee:

Hence the fact that a given animal is indiffurent 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, what do you think?

http://elibrary.unm.edu/sora....48.html

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Nov. 09 2007,12:35

Quote

Hehe, what do you think?

We think you're long overdue to tell us what you think should replace 'Darwinismus', hehe.

What does YOUR extensive and brutal research tell you?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

Posted: Nov. 09 2007,14:10

if you examine the stomachs of 80,000 2 year olds you are going to find paper clips, pennies, feces, pot seeds, etc etc etc. what does that prove? here is a hint: what is between 1 and -1?

so things that have aposematic coloring still get eaten sometimes. you have yet to understand the math behind selection pressure.

but why don't you answer my questions? you have repeated this comment before. all you do is wave your hands and say Heikertinger disproved this. how? with 80,000 bird stomachs? you are the one that can read german, why don't you post the data?

lions aren't protected by noxious chemicals and have no predators. why don't they people the whole earth? blue whales? brown tree snakes? grizzly bears? bahhh.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

VMartin

Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

Posted: Nov. 09 2007,14:52

Erasmus.

Lions? Interesting off-topic question. Now we are discussing here so called insects' "aposematics" and their predators - birds.

One observation is this:

Considering bird predation alone this principle predation in proportion to population leads to a high degree of indiscriminancy in attack upon the whole kingdom of animal life. The combined attack of birds plus all other predators still more closely approaches complete indiscriminancy. In other words there is utilization of animals of practically every kind for food approximately in proportion to their numbers. This means that predation takes place much the same as if there were no such thing as protective adaptations. And this is only another way of saying that the phenomena classed by theorists as protective adaptations have little or no effectiveness. “Natural Selection theories assume discrimination in the choice of prey. The principle of proportional predation so obvious from the data contained in this paper vitiates those theories for it denotes indiscrimination, the very antithesis of selection.

If you think the conclusions here are "outdated" (have birds change their feeding behaviour in last years?) take into consideration the fact that:

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.

http://elibrary.unm.edu/sora....198.pdf

---

btw "theoretists" is a mild description for neodarwinists. Heikertinger calls them "Hypothetiker".

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Nov. 09 2007,14:57

Marty, we're still waiting for the conclusions of your extensive and brutal research.

Is the Darwismus bad? Then instead should we what do?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

VMartin

Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

Posted: Nov. 09 2007,14:59

Add to my previous post:

Quote

The data presented in this report are
based on records of animals identified in
the stomach contents of about 80,000
Nearctic birds.

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Nov. 09 2007,15:21

Quote (VMartin @ Nov. 09 2007,14:59)

Add to my previous post:

Quote

The data presented in this report are
based on records of animals identified in
the stomach contents of about 80,000
Nearctic birds.

Martin, since the Darwinismus is bad, please to tell us what instead?

I mean. Don't you know??

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

Posted: Nov. 09 2007,15:53

Quote

It seems to me that it is important to know the ratios of indi-
viduals eaten to the total population of the species before one uses this as critical evidence one way or the other.

from the review (not very favorable review, either, marty). the argument that prey are taken in proportion to their abundance is pure conjecture. heikertinger didn't measure the abundance of prey! he just looked at bird guts. you should go read Schoener for a better method.

here is a take home point as if that review were written JUST FOR YOU MARTIN:

Quote

The reader should not be misled bv the positive manner in which Mr. McAtee attempts to force his point throughout the paper. He denounces emphatically the theories of protective adaptations and Natural Selection, but offers no alternative explanations in their stead. If we are to discard these theories, as Mr. McAtee would have us do, we should appreciate having him give us substitutes as good or better than the ones discarded.

Sounds familiar, huh? 10 pages later and you still can't do it.

Now, let's hear it.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

VMartin

Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

Posted: Nov. 09 2007,16:39

Quote

The reader should not be misled bv the positive manner in which Mr. McAtee attempts to force his point throughout the paper. He denounces emphatically the theories of protective adaptations and Natural Selection, but offers no alternative explanations in their stead. If we are to discard these theories, as Mr. McAtee would have us do, we should appreciate having him give us substitutes as good or better than the ones discarded.

So whatever the facts and reality is we should hold on
neodarwinian explanation of aposematism. Unless brand new theory is proposed, we will hold on, like brave soldiers, even if the reality clearly contradicts our theory .

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

Posts: 479
Joined: Nov. 2007

Posted: Nov. 09 2007,16:45

Well I'de like more reactions on Martin's examples too, instead of constantly repeating "Do you have something better?" (I sound like a traitor for some people now :P)

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Nov. 09 2007,17:00

Quote (VMartin @ Nov. 09 2007,16:39)

Quote

The reader should not be misled bv the positive manner in which Mr. McAtee attempts to force his point throughout the paper. He denounces emphatically the theories of protective adaptations and Natural Selection, but offers no alternative explanations in their stead. If we are to discard these theories, as Mr. McAtee would have us do, we should appreciate having him give us substitutes as good or better than the ones discarded.

So whatever the facts and reality is we should hold on
neodarwinian explanation of aposematism. Unless brand new theory is proposed, we will hold on, like brave soldiers, even if the reality clearly contradicts our theory .

Quote

So whatever the facts and reality is we should hold on
neodarwinian explanation of aposematism. Unless brand new theory is proposed, we will hold on, like brave soldiers, even if the reality clearly contradicts our theory .

So what is YOUR explanation of aposematism, Marty? What are the results of your brutal research?

Still don't have a theory?

No research?

Nothing?

PS: 'Darwinismus is stupid' is not a theory, Marty.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

Posted: Nov. 09 2007,17:29

your 'facts' aren't what you claim them to be. that's the whole problem.

from what you posted, mcatee collected absolutely no data about the relative abundances of prey items in the bird stomachs.

you can get nowhere from there.

now, if you have an alternate theory, let's hear it. you don't have to accept anything, of course. you are completely free in this world to be as dumb as you can make yourself.

but you claim things are incorrect for reasons which turn out to be incorrect themselves. that's a different story from the one you would wish to tell.

***edited 'heikertinger' to 'macatee'

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Nomad

Posts: 311
Joined: July 2007

Posted: Nov. 09 2007,17:32

Quote (VMartin @ Nov. 09 2007,16:39)

So whatever the facts and reality is we should hold on
neodarwinian explanation of aposematism. Unless brand new theory is proposed, we will hold on, like brave soldiers, even if the reality clearly contradicts our theory .

Yes, that's basically what they're saying. The "theory" that maggots were spontaneously created on decaying meat was disproven when it was shown that keeping flies off the meat kept them from showing up, and people realized that they were actually fly larva. It was known that Newtonian physics didn't accurately describe several things, including the orbit of Mercury. By your method, Newtonian physics should have been discarded, and replaced with.. well.. nothing.. I mean, yes, it described most things quite well. But what about Mercury?

One Einsteinien theory later we find Newtonian physics surviving with a very minor modification. What's the first example of physics taught to every school child? Projectile motion, a simple example of Newtonian physics.

Or do you feel that we're just holding on to Newtonian physics, like "brave little Newtonian soldiers"?

VMartin

Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

Posted: Nov. 09 2007,17:49

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Nov. 09 2007,17:29)

your 'facts' aren't what you claim them to be. that's the whole problem.

from what you posted, mcatee collected absolutely no data about the relative abundances of prey items in the bird stomachs.

you can get nowhere from there.

now, if you have an alternate theory, let's hear it. you don't have to accept anything, of course. you are completely free in this world to be as dumb as you can make yourself.

but you claim things are incorrect for reasons which turn out to be incorrect themselves. that's a different story from the one you would wish to tell.

***edited 'heikertinger' to 'macatee'

I see. You must be very wise. You must have been stung by a wasp as a child. Because of it ornitologist and entomologist McAtee was wrong and you are right. Sleep well.

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Nov. 09 2007,17:53

Quote (VMartin @ Nov. 09 2007,17:49)

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Nov. 09 2007,17:29)

your 'facts' aren't what you claim them to be. that's the whole problem.

from what you posted, mcatee collected absolutely no data about the relative abundances of prey items in the bird stomachs.

you can get nowhere from there.

now, if you have an alternate theory, let's hear it. you don't have to accept anything, of course. you are completely free in this world to be as dumb as you can make yourself.

but you claim things are incorrect for reasons which turn out to be incorrect themselves. that's a different story from the one you would wish to tell.

***edited 'heikertinger' to 'macatee'

I see. You must be very wise. You must have been stung by a wasp as a child. Because of it ornitologist and entomologist McAtee was wrong and you are right. Sleep well.

Marty, do you really think we should throw out the last hundred+ years of evolutionary biology and replace it with nothing?

Because, as long as you offer no alternative, that's what you're proposing.

I must say, Marty, 'Darwinism' correctly explains far far more than you do.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Posts: 479
Joined: Nov. 2007

Posted: Nov. 09 2007,18:09

I still wonder about one thing: what does the bird stomach research Marty quoted mean? What is the correct conclusion from it, based on what? (I'm here to learn remember)

Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

Posted: Nov. 09 2007,18:12

Martin why can't you deal with the facts?

Without knowing the relative abundance of prey, Macatee's assertion were just hand waving about bull shit.

Further, averaging over the entire N America bird fauna doesn't tell you a goddam thing about why things were or weren't eaten.

the only thing, from the limited amount of information you have posted about it (I mean, come on, a book review that trashes the book you are claiming destroys Darwinismus?) Macatee could say is that aposematic forms are sometimes eaten. And that is that. And no one ever disputed that.

Now, I really wish you would tell me more about what these mystical formalists wrote about in your own f***** words and stop evading the point.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

Posted: Nov. 09 2007,18:13

Assassin, it tells you that aposematic forms are sometimes eaten by birds.

That's it.

All of it.

It doesn't tell you anything more than that, and this is a point that we have never disputed.

Martin thinks it spells doom for Darwinismus materialist from ATBC. I will reiterate, this guy is a deep cover troll.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Posts: 5452
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Nov. 09 2007,18:26

I've noted his English has improved dramatically (again) over the few weeks I was unplugged.

Just sayin'.

(Edited to clarify that this is neither the first time, nor the first time I've noted it on this board.)

Edited by Lou FCD on Nov. 09 2007,19:27

--------------
â€œWhy do creationists have such a hard time with commas?

Linkyâ€œ. ~ Steve Story, Legend

Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

Posted: Nov. 09 2007,21:39

Quote

You are obviously missing the main point. "Unpalatability" is a concept conceived in selectionists heads to support their explanation of aposematism. No such phenomenon as unpalatability of wasps or ladybirds exists in reality (what's more there are predators specialised to mentioned insects).
To extend human perceived unpalatability of wasps/ladybirds to other animal species is utterly unscientific. It's pure anthropomorphism.

here is a good example of VMartin lapsing into good English.

Martin, is there something you want to tell us?

tard

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Nov. 09 2007,21:51

If Marty is a troll that we've already met before, I vote for Ghost of Paley.

I just don't buy Davison as bright or determined enough to pull this off.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

VMartin

Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

Posted: Nov. 10 2007,00:28

Lou

Quote

I've noted his English has improved dramatically (again) over the few weeks I was unplugged.

Now you are plugged in and you can support Erasmus giving some evidence backing neodarwinian fantasies about protective coloration of aposematic insects. The level of presented arguments by selectionists here hasn't increased so dramatically as you can see.

Some student would like to know contra arguments regarding the research done by US department of agriculture than those vague "birds sometimes eat some aposematics, but McAtee was obviously wrong".

The poor Arden has got even scared. Instead of asking the same off topic questions like automat he is asking now if he have to dismiss darwinism.

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Nov. 10 2007,00:33

Do I have to dismiss darwinism too? Even though I provided a really good example of Coloration of animals, mimicry, and aposematism with my octopus?

Just wondering. You talk in such advanced scientific language that I can't keep up sometimes VMartin.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Nov. 10 2007,02:02

Quote (VMartin @ Nov. 10 2007,00:28)

Lou

Quote

I've noted his English has improved dramatically (again) over the few weeks I was unplugged.

Now you are plugged in and you can support Erasmus giving some evidence backing neodarwinian fantasies about protective coloration of aposematic insects. The level of presented arguments by selectionists here hasn't increased so dramatically as you can see.

Some student would like to know contra arguments regarding the research done by US department of agriculture than those vague "birds sometimes eat some aposematics, but McAtee was obviously wrong".

The poor Arden has got even scared. Instead of asking the same off topic questions like automat he is asking now if he have to dismiss darwinism.

That's not what I'm asking, tho if having that fantasy makes you feel good, I suppose I can't stop you.

I'm asking why anyone should want to give up all that evolutionary biology has accomplished in the past century and replace it with...NOTHING!

Since that's what you have. You have no explanations for anything. No predictions. Nichevo.

You produce nothing, Marty. You seem to have NO IDEA what explains variation. You somehow think this is better than 'Darwinismus'.

Hasn't all your extensive and brutal research given you more that *that*?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Nov. 10 2007,02:04

Quote

asking off topic questions

Off topic?

Asking what will replace 'Darwinismus' is off topic?

Silly pitiful little child.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Posts: 532
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Nov. 10 2007,17:49

"We"--well, mostly Arden, but that's not such bad company--keep repeating the same question to Vmaroon because through long association with a long line of creationist maroons of his ilk, "we" have learned that--unless you focus very narrowly and repeat yourself incessantly--you will never get a straightforward answer to a question.

Without getting an answer to Q. A, it is very difficult to move, in any kind of rigorous manner, on to Point B.

Creationists are past masters--though this is about all of which they are masters--of the Gish Gallop, of the evasive "response" which sounds vaguely like an answer, but which is not, immediately after which the subject is changed to some other stupidity, the problems with which will take much longer to elucidate than it did for the stupidity to be posed, and so on, and so on.

So please feel free to discuss wide-ranging matters with Vmaroon all you will. But, in doing so, please understand why others here take a more tedious, but ultimately more satisfying, approach: while they may never get anything like an actual answer, the maroon's inability or unwillingness to answer becomes undeniably documented.

Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

Posted: Nov. 11 2007,00:07

Quote

"We"--well, mostly Arden, but that's not such bad company--keep repeating the same question to Vmaroon because through long association with a long line of creationist maroons of his ilk, "we" have learned that--unless you focus very narrowly and repeat yourself incessantly--you will never get a straightforward answer to a question.

Without getting an answer to Q. A, it is very difficult to move, in any kind of rigorous manner, on to Point B.

Creationists are past masters--though this is about all of which they are masters--of the Gish Gallop, of the evasive "response" which sounds vaguely like an answer, but which is not, immediately after which the subject is changed to some other stupidity, the problems with which will take much longer to elucidate than it did for the stupidity to be posed, and so on, and so on.

So please feel free to discuss wide-ranging matters with Vmaroon all you will. But, in doing so, please understand why others here take a more tedious, but ultimately more satisfying, approach: while they may never get anything like an actual answer, the maroon's inability or unwillingness to answer becomes undeniably documented.

I love it so!!!

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

Posted: Nov. 11 2007,07:36

martin the only point you have made is to be able to say that birds sometimes eat aposematic prey. and we never claimed otherwise.

you routinely conflate the origin and maintenance of mimicry when it is convenient for you to play ignorant denier or uber-informed-formalistkiksiditidosorkitiestorthogenetiskeist. stop it.

'senescence' of races or species is more typological bullshit 'species are individuals' nonsense philosophy. it doesn't explain the data. it's based on a simple statistical error, but thanks for the paper (it's a good reference for antiquated and incorrect arguments framed by post-victorian rhetoric and NO DATA. good choice, it's a caricature of what you do here). species are not individuals at all, and it is unclear what you think you gain by introducing that idea (for one it denies the vertical aspect of evolution).

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Henry J

Posts: 5760
Joined: Mar. 2005

Posted: Nov. 11 2007,20:36

Re "birds sometimes eat aposematic prey"

Something occurs to me about that. A prey species that develops a defense mechaniam (whether mimicry or something else) might cut down on average predation rate over the whole species, but then again it might not. Presumably the ones that a bit easier to see get eaten first, but that doesn't necessarily mean the predator can't see (or otherwise sense) those with the more effective camouflage, just that it takes it a bit longer to do so. (Also of course the predator species may have been counter-evolving over the same time period that the prey species was evolving its defense mechanism.)

Henry

VMartin

Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

Posted: Nov. 12 2007,11:00

Erasmus

Quote

martin the only point you have made is to be able to say that birds sometimes eat aposematic prey. and we never claimed otherwise.

Yes. And birds eat also sometimes cryptic prey and they eat sometimes also prey that isn't cryptic nor aposematic. They eat everything.

They eat all of them and they do not distinguish between them (except their size). There is no need to suppose that aposematism arose thanks "natural selection".

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Nov. 12 2007,12:09

Quote

There is no need to suppose that aposematism arose thanks "natural selection".

If aposematism didn't arose thanks 'natural selection', why did it arouse?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

Posted: Nov. 12 2007,12:29

arden roflmao

Martin, you haven't shown that birds don't differentiate. many people have shown that they do in fact differentiate, varying with predator experience, background contrast, etc etc.

you're just making shit up. the only data you have is a bunch of bird guts, and that can't tell you what you need to know in order to make your claim that birds aren't preying selectively.

but you can keep lying. or you could try to tell us what eimer and the rest of your magical german mysticorskeingakkewiezenss says. in your own words of course.

i bet it's something like 'only in selectionist heads' or some other rhetorical gem.

who are you again? ghost of paley?

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

VMartin

Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

Posted: Nov. 12 2007,17:48

Quote

the only data you have is a bunch of bird guts, and that can't tell you what you need to know in order to make your claim that birds aren't preying selectively.

If you consider 80.000 birds stomachs carefully examined by US Agriculture survey for "bunch of birds guts" I don't take you your opinion. I understand that in order to hold "natural selection" intact you have to dismiss all arguments that do not fit it. Instead of this great research (done btw. also by Csiki in Hungary 1905-1910 in 2.800 birds) you would inisist that "many people have shown that they do in fact differentiate".

Why on the Earth you don't pick up one of those fantastic articles about wasp's aposematism from JSTOR or PubMed and why don't you put it here? Why don't you defend it like JAM defend his articles and VISTA charts against Daniel?

Are you afraid something?

JeaNot done it but it took no more than 5 minutes to find another article in those scientific peer-reviewed journals that claimed opposite.

You are probably very well aware of it, so you babbling only something like "many people have shown that they do in fact differentiate".

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Nov. 12 2007,19:01

Quote

Are you afraid something?

You're a regular laff riot, Marty.

Quote

Why don't you defend it like JAM defend his articles and VISTA charts against Daniel?

Why don't you tell us what really causes mimicry? Are you afraid something?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

Posted: Nov. 12 2007,19:01

martin, you can't evaluate prey choice if you don't know the background levels of prey available to each predator. so, since 80,000 birds from N America averages over all sorts of factors that contribute to unequal prey species distribution and abundances (biogeography, latitudinal, elevational, forest type, etc factors), AND there was no attempt to measure prey abundances with respect to each predator stomach, you simply cannot make the inferences from these data that you wish to.

so your claims are falling flat without having to evaluate a specific paper. you have no way to even show what you are claiming is shown. that is my point, that you are simply waving hands. further, you don't even have an alternate hypothesis, just 'darwismus is wrong for natural selection can not arouse mimicry just like great Eimer said in 1914 in german'.

Daniel has a set of specific positive claims (although it took a while for him to formulate them positively, and not like you are doing, ie 'selection cannot explain X'). we have been trying to get you to make your claims for months now, and you refuse to do so. bring it, don't sing it.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

Posted: Nov. 12 2007,19:06

re jeannot and the paper that claimed opposite:

many natural processes work in both one and the opposite direction. directional selection, for instance.

stabilizing vs disruptive selection are another.

of course, if selection is all in the darwinismus heads then we have another problem.

here's another. fire promotes diversity of some communities and extinguishes others. predators enhance species richness and diversity of some communities, destroy others.

orthogeneticists were always looking for a single deterministic rule that would explain it all. is this what you need Martin? A fundamental law of everything?

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

VMartin

Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

Posted: Nov. 13 2007,00:04

Quote

martin, you can't evaluate prey choice if you don't know the background levels of prey available to each predator.

You don't know it as well. But you are convinced that your a priori armchair hypothesis is correct neverthenless. Of course I am not surprised by it. The research done by US survey was dismissed using different arguments by the great Poulton himself. There was a heated discussion between McAtee and Poulton about it. Neverthenless Poulton was by this research much more ill-natured as you are now. He know more about mimicry and aposematism as anyone of you here know. His name is quoted almost in all materails "discussed" here. So darwinists did what do they do everytime when facts do not support their hypothesis - they pretend they do no exist. The greatest neodarwinian hypocrisy is then words "every students should know about this vast research of feeding behaviour of nearctic birds full of facts". There was never done such great outdoor research you know.

Quote

many natural processes work in both one and the opposite direction.

Yes. Dragonflies in one experiments were scared seeing wasps coloration and in the second experiment they didn' care. Having work in both one and the opposite direction the experiments prove natural selection as the source of aposematism.

Quote

Daniel has a set of specific positive claims (although it took a while for him to formulate them positively, and not like you are doing, ie 'selection cannot explain X'). we have been trying to get you to make your claims for months now, and you refuse to do so. bring it, don't sing it.

It is neodarwinian positive claims that aposematism was induced and is maintained by natural selection. I am discussing here this positive neodarwinian hypothesis an well as you are discussing Daniel positive claims there.

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Nov. 13 2007,01:40

Quote

It is neodarwinian positive claims that aposematism was induced and is maintained by natural selection. I am discussing here this positive neodarwinian hypothesis an well as you are discussing Daniel positive claims there.

You obviously dont believe that "aposematism was induced and is maintained by natural selection" -- so what IS the origin of aposematism? You have yet to offer a theory for that even once. All you've done is bitch about the imagined shortcomings of 'Darwinismus'.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

Posted: Nov. 13 2007,07:40

Quote

You don't know it as well. But you are convinced that your a priori armchair hypothesis is correct neverthenless.

Wrong, stupid troll. I am saying that you are not even offering a hypothesis yourself, and the data you are using to try to feebly attack something you don't understand DON'T EVEN SAY WHAT YOU ARE CLAIMING THEY SAY.

What you claim is the 'neodarwinian claim' has two parts, as I keep reminding you. the 'origin' of mimicry is very different from the 'maintenance' of mimicry, yet you refuse to do anything but conflate the two.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

Posted: Nov. 13 2007,07:41

Bring it, don't sing it.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

VMartin

Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

Posted: Nov. 13 2007,14:00

Quote

Wrong, stupid troll.

I've received an internal AtBC post warning me not to use abusive words here.
I've been informed that other participants have been warned as well. But I don't see a purpose of such warnings if some participants like you do not to obey them.

Quote

I am saying that you are not even offering a hypothesis yourself, and the data you are using to try to feebly attack something you don't understand...

I wouldn't say that data about 80.000 contets of birds stomachs "feebly attack" darwinian concept of aposematism. I would say these data attack it so strongly that even Poulton and his colleagues were forced to deal with them.

Quote

... DON'T EVEN SAY WHAT YOU ARE CLAIMING THEY SAY.

McAtee concluded from those data that warning coloration of so called aposemtic insects is ineffective because these insects were surprisingly often found in birds stomachs. I don't know how you came to the weird conclusion "DON'T EVEN SAY WHAT YOU ARE CLAIMING THEY SAY". Probably you have made this bold conclusion about the McAtee's research after reading that neo-darwinian would-be critic the link to which I have sent you above.

(Btw. I didn't find the whole research on-line. Internet is lousy with 2nd class neodarwinian "researches" and "explanations" but nobody bothered to put this research on-line).

Quote

What you claim is the 'neodarwinian claim' has two parts, as I keep reminding you. the 'origin' of mimicry is very different from the 'maintenance' of mimicry, yet you refuse to do anything but conflate the two.

I would preliminary stick to the fact that wasps "aposematic" coloration is ineffective. If you claim opposite you should support it perhaps using some evidence. Because you are still only repeating neodarwinian mantras like a broken automat. I suppose you are honest enough to admitt that arguments like your latest "fire promotes diversity of some communities and extinguishes others" don't adress the issue of aposematism of wasps at all.

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

Posted: Nov. 13 2007,14:25

80000 bird stomachs doesn't make a damn. it wasn't an experiment. there was no control group. all that can be said is "sometimes birds eat aposematic forms". we have never denied this.

ineffective in toto is a very different thing from ineffective sometimes. all that your bird guts show is that it is ineffective sometimes.

you assume, in order to wave your arms at the point:

1 all bird species and prey species are equally distributed in abundance, range size and habitats (we know this is not true, care to argue about it?)

2 bird predation are the only selective force that prey respond to (again, care to argue about this one?)

3 all birds have the same preferences for palatability (care to argue this one? perhaps summarize mcatee data for aposematic prey by species of predator?) my little boy doesn't like carrots. my neighbors does. there is also variation in the toxic compounds manufactured by aposematic caterpillars (in my lab, today, i was told about varying amounts of aristolochic acid sequestered by caterpillars that was explained by brood membership. in other words, offspring of different females had different toxic compound sequestration. clearly prey vary in toxicity).

the point about fire is certainly appropriate. if you are like every other non-magical formalist/orthogeneticist, you probably believe there are deterministic laws that apply to the phenomena of biology. if this is true, you need to catch up on 20th century biology.

Let me summarize it for you: Things vary. It matters. Sometimes.

There is no fundamental law in ecology evolution or biology (just ask Bob O'H!!!)

I'm not repeating any mantra, except that your data cannot possibly be used to make the conclusion you wish to make, for simple reasons above.

I retract the stupid part. You are obviously smart enough to know better than the argument you are making, this is a rhetorical game for you. I've seen better, though.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

VMartin

Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

Posted: Nov. 15 2007,14:44

Quote

3 all birds have the same preferences for palatability (care to argue this one? perhaps summarize mcatee data for aposematic prey by species of predator?)

As far as I know McAtee created tables according birds families and species. Unfortunatelly his work is not available at internet, only it's darwinian criticism.

But this is the main point neverthenless. We know from many experiments and observations that stings do not give protection to wasps against birds. To save the theory of aposematism neodarwinists invented this lame explanation instead (see the article about Imperfect mimicry):

Quote

"It is the terrible taste that the venom imparts to the abdomen that is the main deterrent for birds."

This claim stands on unproved pressuposition that a birds' taste is somehow sensitive to this "terrible (?) taste" . Obviously other researches which are not focused to prove neodarwinian explanation of aposematism show that birds behave much more relaxed towards "bad taste". No wonder, having only few taste buds:

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.

So the results are obvious (but not in experiments proving aposematism where birds always surpass themselves and prove themselves as true gourmands):

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.

or

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.

See : The chemical senses of birds 1970:

http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi....control

Anyway feel free to call me again "stupid troll" and support your selectionist stance using vague questions or arguments how your neighbour dislike carrots.

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

Posted: Nov. 15 2007,14:55

so Vicky, it appears from what you have posted that some birds don't like bad tasting things, and some do.

sounds like there is still room for selective pressure to work. we know that aposematic caterpillars vary in the amount of toxic compounds sequestered from host plants, and that has a heritable component.

did you find any studies where birds were offered venomous abdomens, or are you just waving your hands again?

so, you agree that you cannot possibly conclude from the McAtee work anything other than 'sometimes aposematic forms get eaten'? do you understand how there is no comparative framework in that dataset?

call me a selectionist if you want, it's irrelevant. my entire point is that you are lying about the conclusions from the data you attempt to present, and also that you don't even have an idea about an alternative hypothesis. just handwaving. and using words like 'gourmand'. Who are you really vicky?

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

VMartin

Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

Posted: Nov. 16 2007,02:13

Quote

so Vicky, it appears from what you have posted that some birds don't like bad tasting things, and some do.

Yes Stupo. You missed the point as usually. Birds have only fraction of taste buds comparing to mammals. But because some mammals eat wasps as well there is no reason to believe that the "terrible taste" of wasp's abdomen is so "terrible" as darwinists would like us to believe.

Quote

sounds like there is still room for selective pressure to work.

I know. Even if all birds species eat nothing else as wasps there will be still enough room in your head for selective advantage of aposematism.

Quote

we know that aposematic caterpillars vary in the amount of toxic compounds sequestered from host plants, and that has a heritable component.

OK Stupo. After trying ants, redbugs and wasps you offer aposematic caterpillars. Are you able to defend this new example of aposematism? I am afraid as soon as I adressed the point you buzz off as usually.

Quote

did you find any studies where birds were offered venomous abdomens, or are you just waving your hands again?

And did you find any research where foxes were offered not chickens but only their feathers? Because foxes do not touch them feathers prove to offer some protection against predators?

Quote

so, you agree that you cannot possibly conclude from the McAtee work anything other than 'sometimes aposematic forms get eaten'? do you understand how there is no comparative framework in that dataset?

Birds in free eat wasps as well as they eat flyies, beetles, catterpilars, fruits and grains. There is no reason to believe that wasps are somehow protected, because some armchair selectionist claims so.

Quote

call me a selectionist if you want, it's irrelevant. my entire point is that you are lying about the conclusions from the data you attempt to present, and also that you don't even have an idea about an alternative hypothesis.

I am lying and you are right. Because you believe in selection you will be always right in your eyes.

Quote

just handwaving.

Maybe you would like to offer some facts to my "handwaving" eventually. I would like to know what kind of "selective pressure" led to the rise of wasps' stings from their ovipositors. I would like to know your opinion or explanation of it.

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

Posts: 5452
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Nov. 16 2007,07:05

I've made this request privately to avoid embarrassment, now I'm saying it publicly.

Enough with the name calling of other commenters on this board, and this applies to all commenters.

If you can back it up, "you're lying" is one thing.

Personal attacks like "Stupid troll", "Stupo", and the like will not be tolerated.

Any questions can be directed to me by PM.

--------------
â€œWhy do creationists have such a hard time with commas?

Linkyâ€œ. ~ Steve Story, Legend

Posts: 479
Joined: Nov. 2007

Posted: Nov. 16 2007,07:31

Quote

Birds in free eat wasps as well as they eat flyies, beetles, catterpilars, fruits and grains. There is no reason to believe that wasps are somehow protected, because some armchair selectionist claims so.

Are you forgetting that not all birds are the same, and not all insects are equally spread throughout the world? The world is DIFFERENT remember, and so are bird-species and insect-species.

Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

Posted: Nov. 16 2007,07:33

It's boring to have the same old nonsense rehashed over and over again.

Martin, if I can't verbally abuse you then I don't even want to talk to you anymore. Until you grow a pair and present your hypothesis, there is not much else to say. After reading examples of your logic I harbor grave doubts about your capacity to do that. Or much else.

Sorry Lou. When you are walking through the sewer, don't touch the walls.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Henry J

Posts: 5760
Joined: Mar. 2005

Posted: Nov. 16 2007,10:41

Quote (VMartin @ Nov. 16 2007,01:13)

But because some mammals eat wasps as well [...]

Maybe you should look at what's implied by your own statement there? I.e., birds are not the only predators relevant to the question.

VMartin

Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

Posted: Nov. 18 2007,11:18

No one of you have addressed the problem of "protective coloration" or so-called aposematism of wasps yet. Probably you take it for granted without any outdoor researches (which in fact prove opposite). You just suppose it to be right and basta.

And yet:

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).

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 convenient explanation of difference of coloration of these Hymenoptera as those neodarwinian babbling about aposematic or "protective coloration".

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[U][/U][B][/B]

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

Posted: Nov. 18 2007,21:15

yawn...

and, remind me Vicky, what is your explanation? kthanxbai.

are you Ghost of Paley? I've been taking notes on how to be an effective troll, and you are a model system (note, this is mimicry in action).

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Nov. 22 2007,14:26

Quote

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".

Martin, according to all your brutal research, what is the correct explanation for the mimicry in the nature?

You've already many times told us why is wrong the Darwinismus. What explanation is the true?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

VMartin

Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

Posted: Nov. 23 2007,11:18

One should have to ask why wasps having so many predators are protected by neodarwinian hypothesis of "warning coloration" where there is a whole family of birds specialised on bees, wasps and hornets (google out "Meropidae" if you like) .

One should have to ask why honeybees having their venom more effective than the venom of wasps are not protected by "warning coloration" either. Did "natural selection" forget to give them "protective coloration" or what?

Even some nowadays researches are asking the same question about supposedly poisonous "protection" of bees:

Quote

Many researchers seem to assume that predators avoid
bees, the most commonly observed pollinators, due to
their sting. This belief is in disagreement with the long list
of species that prey on bees, most notably, bee eaters
(Meropidae) (Fry 1983), Old and New World ¯ycatchers
(Muscicapidae and Tyrannidae) (Ambrose 1990), beewolves
(Philanthus spp.) (Evans & O'Neill 1988), some
social wasps (Evans & Eberhard 1970; De Jong 1990),
crab spiders (Thomisidae) (Morse 1981; Morse 1986),
predacious bugs (Hemiptera) (Balduf 1939; Greco &
Kevan 1995) and praying mantids (Mantidae) (Caron 1990).
.
.
.
Research in other systems, a long list of bee predators and
formal theory all suggest that bees and other pollinators
should show antipredatory behaviour, which may affect
pollinator±plant interactions (Dukas, in press).

I suppose those biologists are terrains' biologists and
no armchair neodarwinists.

http://psych.mcmaster.ca/dukas/Dukas%202001.pdf

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Nov. 23 2007,11:33

Martin, you're boring. Very very boring.

You've already told us ad nauseum how stupid is the Darwinismus and the Stalinist selectionists. So tell us: what is the correct explanation for mimicry and variation?

Something tells me you have a preferred explanation but don't want to say so.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Henry J

Posts: 5760
Joined: Mar. 2005

Posted: Nov. 23 2007,13:21

Re "One should have to ask why honeybees having their venom more effective than the venom of wasps are not protected by "warning coloration" either."

Maybe because traits don't appear just because they'd be useful to that species?

As for that warning coloration, maybe it discourages some of the predators but not all of them?

Henry

Posts: 479
Joined: Nov. 2007

Posted: Nov. 23 2007,16:59

Indeed, what's better: some protection, or no protection? Yes there is a bird family devoted to those nasty lil' stingers, but how big is the % of that family compared to all bird family's? Those bees still have that protective coloring, but that bird family simply doesn't fall for it. The rest still does, still shrinking the chance of getting eaten and increasing the chances of a population to reproduce better. Only a fraction of all animals alive today doesn't have natural enemies (except from it's own kind and us).

VMartin

Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

Posted: Nov. 24 2007,14:46

Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 23 2007,13:21)

Re "One should have to ask why honeybees having their venom more effective than the venom of wasps are not protected by "warning coloration" either."

Maybe because traits don't appear just because they'd be useful to that species?

As for that warning coloration, maybe it discourages some of the predators but not all of them?

Henry

What predators do you have in your mind? Eagles, hawks or owls? Maybe eagles do not prey upon wasps but I doubt it is because "warning coloration" of wasps. Other species have no problem to get rid of "poison" of wasps beating or rubbing them on the branches (but some of birds do not care about neodarwinian "terrible taste of wasps venom" at all):

Four of the flycatchers (three of
Tyrannus and Gubernetes yetapa), the two orioles
(Icteridae) and the oven-bird (Furnarius rufus)
spent 10 to 35s beating each prey on a branch or
on the ground and examining is before swallowing,
while the Great Kiskadee (Pitangus sulphuratus),
Burrowing Owl (Speotyto cunicularia),
Smooth-billed Ani ( Crotophaga ani), Rufoustailed
Jacamar (Galbula ruficauda) and Whiteeared
Puffbird (Nystalus chacuru) spent 2 to 5s
beating the prey on a branch. In contrast, the
kestrel (Falco sparverius), Blue-crowned Motmot
(Momotus momota), two species of woodpeckers
(Picidae), two of the cuckoos (Piaya cayana and
Guira guira) and sometimes the rufous-tailed
jacamar and white-eared puffbird appeared to
have no difficulty in swallowing the wasps immediately
they captured them.

http://elibrary.unm.edu/sora/ON/v008n01/p0089-p0092.pdf

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

VMartin

Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

Posted: Nov. 24 2007,14:59

Erasmus

Quote

... we know that aposematic caterpillars vary in the amount of toxic compounds sequestered from host plants, and that has a heritable component.

Uff, that must be a very effective poison which deters predators and gives some "survival advantage" to the catterpilars. Btw. what kind of caterpillars do you have in your mind? Maybe Eupseudosoma involutum?

Eupseudosoma involutum (Sepp ).
The venom of this caterpillar is so strong that if
its hairs touch the skin of an adult person the
pain is severe and often the person suffers from
delirium for several hours.

But oddly enough:

On one occasíon
a squirrel cuckoo hunted systematically
through guava trees from which it gleaned and
ate more than a dozen larvae of the notorious
arctiid moth Eupseudosoma involutum (Sepp ).

Hehe, maybe the poor squirell hasn't read neodarwinian armchair's treatise about aposematism or what?

http://elibrary.unm.edu/sora/ON/v008n01/p0089-p0092.pdf

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Nov. 24 2007,16:28

Martin, your last message makes no sense and proves nothing. I hope you're not *really* stupid enough to think it's an effective rebuttal.

So, what is the correct explanation for mimicry and variation?

Do you not know?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Nov. 24 2007,16:30

Quote

Uff, that must be a very effective poison which deters predators and gives some "survival advantage" to the catterpilars

a) people don't use 'uff' in English. We've told you this.

b) why the scare quotes around "survival advantage"? Do you think there's no such thing as a species having a survival advantage at all?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Henry J

Posts: 5760
Joined: Mar. 2005

Posted: Nov. 24 2007,16:44

Re "What predators do you have in your mind? Eagles, hawks or owls?"

Insect eaters. Given the subject matter here, I thought that would be obvious.

Henry

Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

Posted: Nov. 24 2007,19:51

Hey Martin, here is a cogent reply to your questions. It has the same empirical content of your last forty seven posts.

Quote

sadgh;asdklbnvadslkcn basdcmvweitu2340qtgha;sldg hq2qe8typq iweghvdsjgn;ladsgpq8ygerdaihvaldsljfpqwe8qtyweapohdsvnasdkfuqwepagiofawehdffyouarestupid8t
uq038947t-q348yeutgioaewty9384067t1-8347rt89q374-1743-8r7et9q34t834t-34t

At first I thought you were interested in discussing biology. Now I know better. Toodles, dumbass. Stay ignorant.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

VMartin

Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

Posted: Nov. 24 2007,21:29

Quote

Insect eaters. Given the subject matter here, I thought that would be obvious.

Henry

Could you be more specific? Swallows perhaps? But I am afraid even swallows have been observed to prey upon wasps. So be rather as general as possible so no one could check your neodarwinian claims.

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

VMartin

Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

Posted: Nov. 24 2007,21:30

Erasmus.

What are you afraid of? Why don't you give me the name of the poisonous caterpillar you were talking about? Are you afraid that everyone could check your nonsenses or what?

I am afraid your mysterious poisonous caterpillar is the same neodarwinian bullshit as poisonous and stinging wasps. If some insect species had been so poisonous as to get rid of predators there would have been full earth of them (as Darwin predicted). Obviously there are still predators that check every insect populations of "poisonous aposematics". Obviously in other case "aposematism" would give those species "small survival advantage" to other species and they will populate the Earth in few generations.

So don't be angry with me. It's not my fault that every "poisonous aposematic" have dozens predators that do not care about their venoms.

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Nov. 24 2007,21:44

Quote (VMartin @ Nov. 24 2007,21:30)

Erasmus.

What are you afraid of? Why don't you give me the name of the poisonous caterpillar you were talking about? Are you afraid that everyone could check your nonsenses or what?

I am afraid your mysterious poisonous caterpillar is the same neodarwinian bullshit as poisonous and stinging wasps. If some insect species had been so poisonous as to get rid of predators there would have been full earth of them (as Darwin predicted). Obviously there are still predators that check every insect populations of "poisonous aposematics". Obviously in other case "aposematism" would give those species "small survival advantage" to other species and they will populate the Earth in few generations.

So don't be angry with me. It's not my fault that every "poisonous aposematic" have dozens predators that do not care about their venoms.

Marty, please to be telling us with what we are to replace the Darwinismus.

What are you afraid of?

Why did you have those scare quotes around "survival advantage"? Do you think there's no such thing as survival advantage?

What are you afraid of?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Henry J

Posts: 5760
Joined: Mar. 2005

Posted: Nov. 24 2007,22:58

Quote

Could you be more specific? Swallows perhaps? But I am afraid even swallows have been observed to prey upon wasps. So be rather as general as possible so no one could check your neodarwinian claims.

I didn't make a claim, I asked a question.

Besides which, you seem to have answered the question, more or less:

Quote

It's not my fault that every "poisonous aposematic" have dozens predators that do not care about their venoms.

Henry

Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

Posted: Nov. 24 2007,23:41

Marty, see the bathroom wall for an apropos discussion of your line of reasoning.

toodles

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

VMartin

Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

Posted: Nov. 25 2007,03:14

Erasmus

Obviously you have no arguments. The whole neodarwinian teaching about insects' aposematism is as unsubstantiated as neodarwinism itself.

You got angry because you see that "small survival advantage" and "natural selection" gibberish is a nonsense par excellence in the case.

Perhaps you could give us some explanation of the forces hindering non-controlled proliferation of wasps. If birds and other predators are so afraid of them as you suppose (except a small fraction as you has admitted dialectically - "yes, some birds eat some wasps sometimes".).

Maybe there isn't enough food for them or there are limited amount of insect that wasps oviposit in at meadows and forests? Maybe you have something better.

Never mind if your fantasy isn't good enough to invent some explanation of it. You can preach neodawinian eternal truth at other more friendly threads. Somewhere where nobody doubts about efficency of your beloved "small survival advantages".

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

Posts: 1552
Joined: Aug. 2005

Posted: Nov. 25 2007,05:54

Quote

Obviously you have no arguments. The whole neodarwinian teaching about insects' aposematism is as unsubstantiated as neodarwinism itself.

I doubt anyone has any argument that is going to change your antipathy to Darwinism. Mind you, your utter inability to produce any coherent argument in support of whatever your alternative is suggests both we and you are all wasting our time. I think you have the bigger hill to climb.

Quote

You got angry because you see that "small survival advantage" and "natural selection" gibberish is a nonsense par excellence in the case.

People are irritated by you because your posts are agenda-based whereas others are interested in evidence.

Quote

Perhaps you could give us some explanation of the forces hindering non-controlled proliferation of wasps. If birds and other predators are as afraid of them as you suppose (except a small fraction as you has admitted dialectically - "yes, some birds eat some wasps sometimes".).

Maybe there isn't enough food for them or there are limited amount of insect that wasps oviposit in at meadows and forests? Maybe you have something better some explanation of it..

What would be the point as you appear uninterested in evolutionary explanations?

Quote

You can preach neodawinian eternal truth at other more friendly threads. Somewhere where nobody doubts about efficency of your beloved "small survival advantages".

I think Erasmus has already told you:

Quote

It's boring to have the same old nonsense rehashed over and over again.

Martin, if I can't verbally abuse you then I don't even want to talk to you anymore.

oldmanintheskydidntdoit

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: Nov. 25 2007,05:57

Quote (VMartin @ Nov. 25 2007,03:14)

Erasmus

Obviously you have no arguments. The whole neodarwinian teaching about insects' aposematism is as unsubstantiated as neodarwinism itself.

You got angry because you see that "small survival advantage" and "natural selection" gibberish is a nonsense par excellence in the case.

Perhaps you could give us some explanation of the forces hindering non-controlled proliferation of wasps. If birds and other predators are so afraid of them as you suppose (except a small fraction as you has admitted dialectically - "yes, some birds eat some wasps sometimes".).

Maybe there isn't enough food for them or there are limited amount of insect that wasps oviposit in at meadows and forests? Maybe you have something better.

Never mind if your fantasy isn't good enough to invent some explanation of it. You can preach neodawinian eternal truth at other more friendly threads. Somewhere where nobody doubts about efficency of your beloved "small survival advantages".

VMartin,
There are some threads at the moment over at http://www.uncommondescent.com/ that could really use your input.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

Posted: Nov. 25 2007,08:27

Martin, you have never even presented an argument to even dispute over. I'm not mad at you because I have even lower expectations of you than you could ever hope to fulfill.

I am really not interested in exploring your ignorance of evolutionary biology. It's really only fun for gits and shiggles, and I'm over that.

But, you are an interesting case, probably from many perspectives. Certainly the psychological one, and you might want to get that checked out.

But, if you are not a deep deep cover troll, perhaps ghost of paley or some disgruntled castoff former professor at some ag school who no one ever listened to, playing games on the interwebz, and you really are some layman autodidact from croatia just interested in biology, then I want to hear more about this deterministic european orthogenetic view.

But you don't talk about that.

Share your views marty. We've all seen how you are incapable of understanding others.

Quote

Why don't you start a thread about laws in biology? We are all (see every single one of Arden's posts) dying to know what YOU (that's right, YOU, GoP or whoever you are) have concluded from your study of google and conservapedia about the entire edifice of biological investigation. Starting with Neanderthal cave depictions, moving to Lao Tse and Diogenes and Moses and the rest, and then the apex of the culmination of biological thought, David Icke.

If you really are who you say you are, no doubt you have scribbled a handwritten manifesto that is somewhere between a doctrine of heresy and a detailed list of who you would like to see dead the most in science. This is your chance. Since you have absolutely no positive arguments, only semantics and quibbling about experimental designs (all the while whistling past the graveyard that contains 80,000 bird guts that say absolutely nothing about what you wish they said), start a thread that lays out your mechanical idealistic determined conception of the history of life.

Until then, don't bother me with your misunderstandings of selection (that includes your extremely perverted parody of Sewall Wright and Haldane and mathematical models of outbreeding that you have simplified into some tribal cosmology).

and if you won't do that, i'll just have to keep verbally abusing you. kinda of like mowing the lawn or keeping your rear end clean, it's a chore but someone has to do it. well, you might not understand the second example there.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

VMartin

Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

Posted: Nov. 25 2007,09:49

Nice to see you Alan.

Your post is only a generall replay of no value - as is a good custom here. Last time you buzzed off when I attacked Jeanot's link about dragonflies. You were very excited, because you had some feeling that ancient dragonflies should have been the selective agent responsible for aposematisms of wasps. It shows up to be a nonsense - dragonflies are not deterred by wasps.

Now you claim that I have given no evidence. You are really amusing. I have given here so many links and so many quotations, but nothing is enough for you - and never will be. You will hold to your hypothesis like a dog to a bone.

Last time I sent an outdoor research 2001 where many different bird species (and no bee-eaters) were described eating wasps. Some of them eat wasps immediately, some of them beat and rub them to get rid of their poisonous sacks.
Many bird species have been observed beating and rubbing wasps but it is not evidence for you.

And - Erasmus caught a fit of anger and chceck it yourself what he had sent. He simply don't want to hear such evidence. It is no evidence according his opinion.

I have also examples and links where mammals were observed eating wasps, but it is of no value apparently. Using them you will call me "ignorant", "psycho", "a retired teacher"or whatever...

You would insist on your "aposematism gives wasps small survival advantage" and no evidence wil persuade you of opposite.

No one here was able to discuss any example of wasps eaters. The only answer you were able to give is this : "Yes there are some birds that eat some wasps sometimes. But it is no evidence." Everything I have sent is "sometimes" for you. But there are too many "sometimes" you know.

You are unable to address the problem of proliferation of wasps if it is not scared predators which check their populations.

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Nov. 25 2007,10:16

Marty, why are you incapable of offering an alternative to your much-hated Darwinism?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

VMartin

Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

Posted: Nov. 25 2007,10:47

If you don't like evidence proving that wasps have many predators I can offer you another one, more philosophical for discussion - so also Henry can add something.

There is abundance of "imperfect" mimic species of wasps. The simplest explanation seems to me that wasps have so many predators that for their imperfect mimics to look more waspish is even dangerous. Or at least individuals of imperfect mimic species that look more waspish do not change their frequency in population of imperfect mimic species during time. There is obviously counter balancing force hindering spread of their wasping-more-similarity alleles in population. Maybe it it selective pressure of wasps predators they hit upon looking more waspish. Consequently more waspish mimics are eliminated from population. What do you mean (except that I am ignorant as usually)?

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

Richard Simons

Posts: 425
Joined: Oct. 2006

Posted: Nov. 25 2007,10:53

VMartin,
I have been following this thread for a while, and have yet to find out what your alternative is to the theory of evolution. Do you have one? And no, I am not interested in links to places where you link to Davison. I want to learn about your views.

--------------
All sweeping statements are wrong.

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Nov. 25 2007,10:57

That doesn't answer the question, Martin. And you know it doesn't.

Since you think natural selection is Stalinist, what DO you think causes variation in nature? All you've done is disingenous nitpicking, and offer nothing constructive. Oh yes, and to insult the foolish Darwinists, uff.

Okay Marty, the floor is yours: variation in nature is explained by: ____.

Go.

[Fill in the blank.]

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Posts: 1552
Joined: Aug. 2005

Posted: Nov. 25 2007,15:20

Quote

Nice to see you Alan.

Well, having dug in well rotted sheep manure into our veg. patch and cooked a nice green thai curry for supper, my wife has unlocked the keyboard for a limited foray.

Quote

Your post is only a generall replay of no value - as is a good custom here.

Oh the irony!

Quote

Last time you buzzed off

Punning in a second language? I commend you (although it might arouse suspicion in those who doubt your Bratislavan credentials)

Quote

when I attacked Jeanot's link about dragonflies. You were very excited, because you had some feeling that ancient dragonflies should have been the selective agent responsible for aposematisms of wasps. It shows up to be a nonsense - dragonflies are not deterred by wasps.

Are you referring to this comment?

Quote

Now you claim that I have given no evidence.

Which you can now refute with a citation or two.

Quote

You are really amusing.

Thanks

Quote

I have given here so many links and so many quotations, but nothing is enough for you - and never will be.

Which you can now demonstrate with a citation or two.

Quote

You will hold to your hypothesis like a dog to a bone.

I do not have a hypothesis, although I am hoping for one for Christmas.

Quote

Last time I sent an outdoor research 2001 where many different bird species (and no bee-eaters) were described eating wasps. Some of them eat wasps immediately, some of them beat and rub them to get rid of their poisonous sacks.

I have never disputed that individual birds may or may not have strategies to deal with wasp stings. Whilst I have never seen such behaviour, I don't doubt it occurs.

Quote

Many bird species have been observed beating and rubbing wasps but it is not evidence for you.

Au contraire, my Slovakian friend, I have never disputed such behaviour. How does it impinge on Darwinian evolution. and how does it better explain your hypothesis? Which is what, by the way?

Posts: 479
Joined: Nov. 2007

Posted: Nov. 25 2007,15:22

Quote

If you don't like evidence proving that wasps have many predators I can offer you another one

Everyone can see that Martin, we're not saying they don't. There is no perfect mimicry, but what's better: imperfect mimicry wich offers some protection against a certain number of predators or no mimicry wich offers no protection against at all. Besides, mimicry is just another form of camouflage.

Posts: 5452
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Nov. 26 2007,13:01

Alrighty,

I'm not entirely sure I understand both sides of this discussion, but as far as I can tell this thread is going around in circles.

So with the caveat that I am not a biologist, but much like VMartin just some dude with a keyboard and an intertube connection, let's see if I can

a. understand, and
b. summarize

the thread thus far and help move things along to something more productive.

Please do not hesitate to correct/educate me if I fail to understand or properly summarize the science involved or the thrust of this thread. In fact, if I'm missing the point I'd appreciate a little help, because I can't for the life of me figure out what the problem is here.

So:

Modern Evolutionary Theory (or whatever the proper name is) currently holds that in certain species, butterflies that develop wing patterns that look unappetizing to predators tend to live long enough to reproduce and pass on their genes to another generation, while butterflies that develop wing patterns that resemble lunch tend to get eaten before they reproduce. In this way, the butterflies in question have evolved populations that look unappetizing to predators.

VMartin on the other hand, contends that this is not how butterflies came to appear the way they do.

Assuming (and I realize how large an assumption this is) that the two statements above are accurate summations of this thread:

VMartin - Do you have an alternate hypothesis for how the coloration of these butterflies has come about, and if so, what is it, how does it work, and how do we test it? What evidence can you present to support your hypothesis?

Again, if I've missed the boat, feel free to throw me a life preserver anyone.

--------------
â€œWhy do creationists have such a hard time with commas?

Linkyâ€œ. ~ Steve Story, Legend

VMartin

Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

Posted: Nov. 26 2007,14:58

First Erasmus

Quote

But, you are an interesting case, probably from many perspectives...
...i'll just have to keep verbally abusing you. kinda of like mowing the lawn or keeping your rear end clean, it's a chore but someone has to do it.

Erasmus also works as a volunteer bus-driver for the "Museum of the Natural selection". He drives children to the Museum of Natural Selection in his free time. He likes to discuss with children what they saw.
"So children how did you like it?"
Small Jane: "I liked department of warning coloration. There were so many colourful animals. But I was surprised to hear that birds are afraid of wasps.
I have seen birds eating and attacking wasps in our garden. "
Erasmus: "Of course. You know some birds eat sometimes wasps. But only sometimes. Sometimes. Remember it."
("What an annoying girl" he thinks for himself).
Small John: "I liked department of mimicry. But why there were so many imperfect mimics of wasps? Spieces looking more waspish would obtain more protection, wouldn´t they uncle bus driver?

Erasmus: "What the hell is going on ? Are you all European creationists or what? Stupid small German mystics!"

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

Posts: 479
Joined: Nov. 2007

Posted: Nov. 26 2007,15:05

If you would actually KNOW what's being sad here, you would know you're talking out of your ass.
The question is still open though:
If natural selection does not explain mimicry, what does then? What's another viable, testable hypotheses?

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Nov. 26 2007,15:07

I think we should step back and let VMartin answer Lou FCD's questions.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Posts: 5452
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Nov. 26 2007,15:12

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Nov. 26 2007,16:07)

I think we should step back and let VMartin answer Lou FCD's questions.

Thanks Arden, I'd appreciate that.

--------------
â€œWhy do creationists have such a hard time with commas?

Linkyâ€œ. ~ Steve Story, Legend

Posts: 5452
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Nov. 26 2007,15:43

Quote (VMartin @ Nov. 26 2007,15:58)

First Erasmus

Quote

But, you are an interesting case, probably from many perspectives...
...i'll just have to keep verbally abusing you. kinda of like mowing the lawn or keeping your rear end clean, it's a chore but someone has to do it.

Erasmus also works as a volunteer bus-driver for the "Museum of the Natural selection". He drives children to the Museum of Natural Selection in his free time. He likes to discuss with children what they saw.
"So children how did you like it?"
Small Jane: "I liked department of warning coloration. There were so many colourful animals. But I was surprised to hear that birds are afraid of wasps.
I have seen birds eating and attacking wasps in our garden. "
Erasmus: "Of course. You know some birds eat sometimes wasps. But only sometimes. Sometimes. Remember it."
("What an annoying girl" he thinks for himself).
Small John: "I liked department of mimicry. But why there were so many imperfect mimics of wasps? Spieces looking more waspish would obtain more protection, wouldn´t they uncle bus driver?

Erasmus: "What the hell is going on ? Are you all European creationists or what? Stupid small German mystics!"

VMartin,

I found this comment entirely unhelpful in the discussion of a topic which you yourself started. I have asked for your assistance in understanding what this discussion hinges upon generally and your alternative to current Evolutionary Theory specifically.

Rather than assist in the furtherance of discussion of your ideas, you have again chosen to simply duck a rather straightforward attempt to understand just what you are proposing, and then log off and bug out.

Unless I'm mistaken, this tactic can accurately be described as "drive-by trolling".

Please take the opportunity to address my previous comments and questions with your very next comment or find another bridge.

Thanks,

Lou

--------------
â€œWhy do creationists have such a hard time with commas?

Linkyâ€œ. ~ Steve Story, Legend

Posts: 479
Joined: Nov. 2007

Posted: Nov. 26 2007,15:44

A fresh start would be a good idea indeed, I'm waiting like a little boy who is waiting for Christmas :)

Henry J

Posts: 5760
Joined: Mar. 2005

Posted: Nov. 26 2007,15:58

Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 26 2007,12:01)

Alrighty,
[...]
Again, if I've missed the boat, feel free to throw me a life preserver anyone.

That's the generally idea, near as I can tell. There's also the point that the coloration or mimicry (or any other defensive mechanism, for that matter) might be effective against only one or a few predators - i.e., the critter still gets eaten by the others. Another point is that most defenses are not 100%, in which case it only reduces the damage by that predator, it doesn't elimiate it entirely.

A third point that might or might not have been mentioned as yet (I don't recall seeing it), is that selection of a defense doesn't necessarily even mean that fewer of the species get eaten, just that those with less of the defense get eaten more, and those with more of it get eaten less. So it's more or less a case of less is more. (heh heh)

Henry

Posts: 5452
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Nov. 26 2007,16:18

Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 26 2007,16:58)

Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 26 2007,12:01)

Alrighty,
[...]
Again, if I've missed the boat, feel free to throw me a life preserver anyone.

That's the generally idea, near as I can tell. There's also the point that the coloration or mimicry (or any other defensive mechanism, for that matter) might be effective against only one or a few predators - i.e., the critter still gets eaten by the others. Another point is that most defenses are not 100%, in which case it only reduces the damage by that predator, it doesn't elimiate it entirely.

A third point that might or might not have been mentioned as yet (I don't recall seeing it), is that selection of a defense doesn't necessarily even mean that fewer of the species get eaten, just that those with less of the defense get eaten more, and those with more of it get eaten less. So it's more or less a case of less is more. (heh heh)

Henry

Thank you Henry. I appreciate knowing that I'm at least on the right track, and I kinda figured that it was somewhat more nuanced and subtle (hence the "tend to"s in my comment).

One of the traits that JanieBelle inherited directly from me is the desire to break down the intricacies to silly, simple examples such as her analogies involving Snuffleupagi and Transgendered Purple Octopus Aliens from 55 Cancri (aka The TraPOA). It helps for me to understand all the subtleties and nuances of the extreme close-up if I first understand the generalities of the big picture.

With all that in mind, let me reiterate:

VMartin - Do you have an alternate hypothesis for how the coloration of these butterflies has come about, and if so, what is it, how does it work, and how do we test it? What evidence can you present to support your hypothesis?

Please take the opportunity to address my comments and questions with your very next comment or find another bridge.

--------------
â€œWhy do creationists have such a hard time with commas?

Linkyâ€œ. ~ Steve Story, Legend

Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

Posted: Nov. 26 2007,20:01

Lou I would just add, on my break from driving the kiddies on the bus to the Selection Museum, that there are really two issues here and we would all be better off to set them apart.

A: 'How do traits like mimicry arise (arouse)?'

B: 'Can selection maintain mimic phenotypes in a population'

Note that Martin has routinely conflated the two. All that I have ever positively argued here (and I think this covers the objections from all other participants) is that the answer to B is yes, and that we have good mathematical models that explain this type of selection.

Martin's example is not any sort of rigorous analysis but an anecdotal account of bird stomachs that cannot be successfully utilized to argue either position. The rest of his 'examples' are also anecdotal non sequitors. THAT DOESN'T MEAN THEY ARE WRONG. It means that they are formulated imprecisely. As a wise British expatriate once said, One cannot do formal logic with sloppy propositions.

So, I hope that cleans up those loose ends. I would be happy enough for Martin to parse A and B separately, and I think in order to do so he would have to deal with your request anyway. So let's hear it. If not the Darwinismus, then what?

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Nov. 27 2007,12:19

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Nov. 26 2007,21:01)

Lou I would just add, on my break from driving the kiddies on the bus to the Selection Museum, that there are really two issues here and we would all be better off to set them apart.

A: 'How do traits like mimicry arise (arouse)?'

B: 'Can selection maintain mimic phenotypes in a population'

I thought he was going a step further and claiming that there are simply no examples of mimicry.

--------------

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)

Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

Posted: Nov. 27 2007,14:49

Improvius that is certainly true and I had overlooked it.

How about we add 'define mimicry' to the list?

'Selection cannot produce mimic forms' is quite a different argument than 'Mimic forms do not exist'. VMartin has argued both positions here.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Nov. 27 2007,16:02

I would actually recommend that VMartin answer Lou's original message first.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

Posted: Nov. 28 2007,19:13

While we're waiting, does this look familiar?

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Posts: 532
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Nov. 28 2007,20:18

Also, as a pure aside while we're thumb-twiddling, waiting for Vroom to arouse his great intellect, does anybody know whether "Darwinismus" takes der, die, or das?

Thanks!

VMartin

Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

Posted: Nov. 29 2007,13:35

Lou FCD,

I know you would like to ban me. But give me a little more time for my more precise answer. Using words of J.W.Goethe “Theory my friend is gray, but ever green is the tree of life” I would like to continue refuting neodarwinain concept of "warning coloration".

Preliminary - discussing the point of effectiveness of "warning coloration" of wasps, here is the quotation of a terrain scientist who studied wasps in Costa Rica for 25 years ( Jeanne 2002):

Quote

Predation on swarm-founding wasp nests by bats (Jeanne, 1970a), birds (Skutch, 1971; Windsor, 1976), and primates (Vecht, 1967) has been documented. Vertebrate predation can be a major source of epiponine colony mortality.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=355903

If you think that my sources (Franz Heikertinger or McAtee from US Agriculture survey) are "outdated" take into consideration please that their concept of ineffectiviness of warning coloration of wasps is backed up by some nowadays researches. It is no "warning coloration" of wasps, but only the size of insects that counts:

Quote

Birds probably don't prey upon bees, wasps, and other stinging insects as frequently as other insects - and not so much because they sting, but because they are fast and often large and therefore inconvenient for many small insectivorous birds to eat. Nonetheless, many songbirds, especially flycatchers and tanagers, do eat bees and wasps without apparent ill effect.

http://www.birdersworld.com/brd/default.aspx?c=a&id=817

Any response to it?

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

Posts: 5452
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Nov. 29 2007,16:07

No, sorry.

Please answer the question.

Do you have an alternate hypothesis for how the coloration of these butterflies has come about, and if so, what is it, how does it work, and how do we test it? What evidence can you present to support your hypothesis?

"This one guy says evolution sucks" is not a valid scientific hypothesis.

Answer the questions, or go bother someone else.

The end.

--------------
â€œWhy do creationists have such a hard time with commas?

Linkyâ€œ. ~ Steve Story, Legend

VMartin

Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

Posted: Nov. 29 2007,18:16

Lou FCD

Quote

Do you have an alternate hypothesis for how the coloration of these butterflies has come about, and if so, what is it, how does it work, and how do we test it? What evidence can you present to support your hypothesis?

I suppose you know that there is a small difference between wasps and butterflies. I answered your questions. We have discussed aposematism of wasps. I am surprised that you changed the topic to the butterflies now. Of course I have no problem to address aposematism of ladybirds, poisonous catterpilars or butterflies as well. Do you want me to discuss aposematism of Monarchs butterflies or other "poisonous" butterflies?

Just a question: if you see a colorfull butterfly how do you know it is "aposematic" or "non-aposematic"? Do you have any key which butterfly species are "aposematic" and having "warning coloration" and which not- just seeing their wing patterns? I can explain you something about so called aposematism of butterflies. I can address the problem of aposematism on examples or generally. It's on you.

But I suppose that we are discusssing "aposematism" of wasps preliminary. Anyway no problem to discuss "poisonous" butterflies, ants or whatever - and their mimics.

But if you are lost in the problem of aposematism and mimicry maybe it's you who should "go bother someone else", don't you think so Lou FCD?

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

Posts: 5452
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Nov. 29 2007,18:21

Buh bye, Fluff Fluff.

Your trolling days here are finished.

--------------
â€œWhy do creationists have such a hard time with commas?

Linkyâ€œ. ~ Steve Story, Legend

VMartin

Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

Posted: Nov. 29 2007,18:27

No arguments? Just banning instead or what?

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

Posts: 5452
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Nov. 29 2007,18:27

--------------
â€œWhy do creationists have such a hard time with commas?

Linkyâ€œ. ~ Steve Story, Legend

Posts: 5452
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Nov. 29 2007,19:47

As it is unlikely in the extreme that this conversation will ever go anywhere, I'm locking the thread.

Should anyone (other than VMartin) wish to discuss the topic generally for the sake of actual interest, PM me and I'll either re-open this one or start a fresh one sans VTrolling.

--------------
â€œWhy do creationists have such a hard time with commas?

Linkyâ€œ. ~ Steve Story, Legend

365 replies since Sep. 21 2007,11:31

< Next Oldest | Next Newest >

Pages: (13) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >


Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org
Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard