RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

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

(Permalink) 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

(Permalink) 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

(Permalink) 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

(Permalink) 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: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) 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

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1391
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) 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?

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1391
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) 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: 632
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) 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

(Permalink) 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

(Permalink) 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

(Permalink) 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

(Permalink) 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

(Permalink) 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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) 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

(Permalink) 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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) 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

(Permalink) 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

(Permalink) 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

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2007,12:43   

Troll.

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) 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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) 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

(Permalink) 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

(Permalink) 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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) 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

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1391
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) 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)

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) 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

(Permalink) 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

(Permalink) 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

(Permalink) 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?

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) 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

(Permalink) 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

(Permalink) 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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) 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

(Permalink) 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

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) 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.

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) 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

(Permalink) 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

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2007,15:06   

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

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) 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

   
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) 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.  :)

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) 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.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) 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

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) 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?

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) 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.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1391
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) 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?

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) 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

(Permalink) 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

(Permalink) 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

(Permalink) 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

(Permalink) 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

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1391
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2007,07:58   

Seems both Dragonfly papers require a subscription for full access.

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) 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.

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) 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.

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) 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

(Permalink) 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

(Permalink) 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

(Permalink) 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

(Permalink) 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

(Permalink) 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

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) 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

(Permalink) 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

(Permalink) 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

(Permalink) 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

(Permalink) 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

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) 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

(Permalink) 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

(Permalink) 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

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) 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

   
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) 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

(Permalink) 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

(Permalink) 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

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) 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

   
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) 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

   
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) 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

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) 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

(Permalink) 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

(Permalink) 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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) 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

(Permalink) 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

  
Steviepinhead



Posts: 532
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) 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.

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) 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

(Permalink) 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: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) 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

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) 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.

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) 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.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) 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

  
Steviepinhead



Posts: 532
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) 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

(Permalink) 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

(Permalink) 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

(Permalink) 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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) 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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) 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

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) 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.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) 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

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) 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.

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) 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: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) 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

(Permalink) 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

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) 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

(Permalink) 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

(Permalink) 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

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) 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

(Permalink) 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

(Permalink) 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

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) 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

   
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) 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

(Permalink) 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

(Permalink) 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

  
Steviepinhead



Posts: 532
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) 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).

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) 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: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) 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

(Permalink) 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

(Permalink) 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

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) 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.

   
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) 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

(Permalink) 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: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) 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

(Permalink) 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

(Permalink) 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

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) 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

(Permalink) 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

(Permalink) 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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) 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

(Permalink) 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

(Permalink) 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

(Permalink) 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

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) 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.

  
Steviepinhead



Posts: 532
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) 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: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) 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

(Permalink) 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

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) 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

(Permalink) 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

(Permalink) 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

(Permalink) 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

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) 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

(Permalink) 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

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) 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

(Permalink) 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

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) 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.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) 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: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2007,15:21   

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

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) 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: 2767
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) 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"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) 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

(Permalink) 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

(Permalink) 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

(Permalink) 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

(Permalink) 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

(Permalink) 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

(Permalink) 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

(Permalink) 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

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) 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

(Permalink) 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

(Permalink) 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

(Permalink) 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

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) 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

(Permalink) 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

(Permalink) 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

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) 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

(Permalink) 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

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1391
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) 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.

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) 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

(Permalink) 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

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) 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

(Permalink) 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

(Permalink) 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

(Permalink) 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

(Permalink) 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

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) 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

(Permalink) 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

(Permalink) 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

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) 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

(Permalink) 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

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) 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

(Permalink) 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

(Permalink) 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

  
Steviepinhead



Posts: 532
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) 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...

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) 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

(Permalink) 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

(Permalink) 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

(Permalink) 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

  
Steviepinhead



Posts: 532
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) 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.

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) 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.

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) 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

(Permalink) 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

(Permalink) 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

(Permalink) 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

(Permalink) 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

(Permalink) 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

(Permalink) 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

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) 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: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) 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

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) 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

(Permalink) 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

(Permalink) 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

(Permalink) 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

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) 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.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) 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

(Permalink) 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

(Permalink) 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

  
Steviepinhead



Posts: 532
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) 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

(Permalink) 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

(Permalink) 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

(Permalink) 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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) 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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) 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

  
hereoisreal



Posts: 745
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) 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)

   
Steviepinhead



Posts: 532
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) 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

(Permalink) 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

  
hereoisreal



Posts: 745
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) 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)

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) 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

(Permalink) 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