Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Mimicry and neodarwinism
MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5828 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 16 of 188 (345471)
08-31-2006 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Wounded King
08-31-2006 1:11 PM


The only Heikertinger I can find is Franz Heikertinger and he was already publishing in 1911. Is there any reason to suspect that he was familiar with modern molecular developmental genetics when he made this pronouncement?
Yes. Its him. The last work he published was in East Germany in 1950ties. Anyway he was as much familiar with modern molecular developmental genetics as was Darwin in his time.
I do not underestand why to drag molecular genetics into phenomenon mimicry discussion at all. Whats the difference? Do you think, that if black and yellow strips on hornet moth are regulated by regulatory genes with pleiotropic effect it has some relation to the fact we are dealing with Batesian or Mullerian mimicry or even we can distinguish between them knowing molecular cascades in hornet moth?
On the other hand you are right: it seems to me, that 14 femals morphs of Papilio Dardanus most of which which mimic (admittedly) other species of butterflies are so baffling, that I personally do not believe, that it can evolved by random mutation. Others maybe can.
On the other hand darwinistic explanation of puzzled likeness between insect species can be explained only by selection, best if there is mimicry as phenomenon. But if there is no selective pressure to look alike than Heikertinger, Punnett, Suchantke(1994), Komarek(2001), Davison(2003) views should be reevaluated in the sense, that there is an unknown force behind this phenomen of likeness.
As far as I know, darwinists only claim, that selective pressure is
(or was) present in mimicry phenomenon in insect realm and do not go into depth of it, trying to corroborate the idea by an experiment. There is - on my opinion - only one reason: if the experiment shows, that the mimic is not protected by mimcry at all (as it seems in some cases be true) than what? Rather do not touch this.
Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.
Edited by MartinV, : grammar

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Wounded King, posted 08-31-2006 1:11 PM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by EZscience, posted 08-31-2006 3:57 PM MartinV has replied
 Message 19 by LinearAq, posted 08-31-2006 7:02 PM MartinV has replied
 Message 21 by Wounded King, posted 09-01-2006 6:04 AM MartinV has replied

EZscience
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 17 of 188 (345482)
08-31-2006 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by MartinV
08-31-2006 12:30 PM


FYI
Your selected examples of Batesian mimicry are mostly cases of highly specific mimics - those that resemble precisely certain other species that have aposematic protection. These are examples of very close ecological relationships, mostly from the tropics.
Were you aware that many other sorts of mimicry have evolved that are far less specific, but equally effective in enhancing survival under natural selection?
For example, many fly species in the family Syrphidae mimic wasps and bees - but they do so in a most general way. They do not mimic a specific wasp or bee, they just generally look like a wasp and that is enough to afford them protection, because most visually searching predators use a generalized image of certain things they want to avoid.
I know it seems unlikely on the surface that appearances of different organisms can converge to being so similar by mechanisms of mutation and random selection alone, but that is really the only explanation for it. The explanation, once properly understood, is quite adequate and no one has come up with anything more convincing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by MartinV, posted 08-31-2006 12:30 PM MartinV has not replied

EZscience
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 18 of 188 (345485)
08-31-2006 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by MartinV
08-31-2006 2:34 PM


There are plenty of examples where initially similar species evolve to look different.
It is a special case when taxonomically different species evolve to resemble one another.
In almost all the cases I know of, a clear advantage under natural selection can be demonstrated for at least one of the two species.
I submit there may have been cases where the proposed advantage was subsequently shown to be false, or where it has not yet been adequately identified, but that does not mean that no advantage for mimicry under natural selection exists in these cases.
You seem to want to infer some sort of underlying teleology that is unwarranted.
Edited by EZscience, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by MartinV, posted 08-31-2006 2:34 PM MartinV has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by MartinV, posted 09-01-2006 3:26 AM EZscience has replied

LinearAq
Member (Idle past 4675 days)
Posts: 598
From: Pocomoke City, MD
Joined: 11-03-2004


Message 19 of 188 (345517)
08-31-2006 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by MartinV
08-31-2006 2:34 PM


Please clarify
MartinV writes:
On the other hand you are right: it seems to me, that 14 femals morphs of Papilio Dardanus most of which which mimic (admittedly) other species of butterflies are so baffling, that I personally do not believe, that it can evolved by random mutation. Others maybe can.
The information that you referenced here doesn't give much detail. So, I have a few questions.
Are all morphs of the female Papilio Dardanus equally selected for mating by any male of the species?
Does a female that mimics one species produce offspring females that mimic a different species?
Is the population of Papilio that mimics one particular species in the same geographic/ecological location as the population of Papilio
that mimics different butterfly species?
If wing shape and coloration on butterflies is a heritable trait why couldn't multiple species have similar sets of alleles?
Those alleles could combine in different ways within the Papilio Dardanus population producing many shapes and colorations. Over time the combinations that result in similarities to recognizable poisonous/unpalatable butterflies, being less likely to be eaten, could result in leaving only those combinations in the "gene pool".
Just some thoughts from a non-biologist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by MartinV, posted 08-31-2006 2:34 PM MartinV has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by MartinV, posted 09-03-2006 4:58 PM LinearAq has not replied

MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5828 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 20 of 188 (345636)
09-01-2006 3:26 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by EZscience
08-31-2006 3:57 PM


I submit there may have been cases where the proposed advantage was subsequently shown to be false, or where it has not yet been adequately identified, but that does not mean that no advantage for mimicry under natural selection exists in these cases.
You seem to want to infer some sort of underlying teleology that is unwarranted.
But the same do darwinists. They underlay to the phenomenons of mimicry their unwaranted myth of random mutation and natural selection as the only possible explanation.
Panaxia quadripunctaria for instance has patterns that it can completely "disappeared" amongst leaves of prickly plants. And how is it possible that insects with totaly different body plans as plants, that they can "mimics" plants with different logic of development? According Suchantke (1994) there must be presented related, allied forces, effect of which is this baffling similarity.
This opinion sounds as by Davison cited Nomogenesis theory proposed by Leo Berg. Yet Suchantke did not seem to know anything about Berg, but cited in liretarure sources Heikertinger.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by EZscience, posted 08-31-2006 3:57 PM EZscience has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by EZscience, posted 09-01-2006 8:54 AM MartinV has replied
 Message 23 by CACTUSJACKmankin, posted 09-01-2006 12:42 PM MartinV has not replied
 Message 79 by deerbreh, posted 09-10-2006 9:35 PM MartinV has not replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 21 of 188 (345653)
09-01-2006 6:04 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by MartinV
08-31-2006 2:34 PM


Anyway he was as much familiar with modern molecular developmental genetics as was Darwin in his time.
Yes, and Darwin's lack of knowledge on genetics lead to him making several erroneous speculations. Did you have a point?
I do not underestand why to drag molecular genetics into phenomenon mimicry discussion at all. Whats the difference?
The difference is that if the recurrence of these similar phenotypes in at best distantly related species is due to some form of genetic front loading being derepressed in response to certain cues, or for whatever reason, then we would expect the genetic basis of the phenotypes to be the same in both cases.
The fact that the same patterns, and indeed the same patterns of mimicry, can have distinct genetic bases strongly suggests that rather than some prescribed genetic program the origins of these phenotypes has a random component although these mutations may cluster around specific signalling pathways important in the pattern specification for the wing pigmentation.
Do you think, that if black and yellow strips on hornet moth are regulated by regulatory genes with pleiotropic effect it has some relation to the fact we are dealing with Batesian or Mullerian mimicry or even we can distinguish between them knowing molecular cascades in hornet moth?
I don't think that whether the mimicry is Batesian or Mullerian has any relevance to the genetics or vice versa. I also don't think which type it is is an important evolutionary factor either. Batesian and Mullerian are simply artificial classifications we give to the relationships between animals that have similar colourings/phenotypes. In evolutionary terms the only issue is whether a specific pattern of markings confers some fitness advantage. We may be able to distinguish between these classification, but in and of themselves wht label we ascribe to them make very little difference and certainly a mis-classification is not some outstanding flaw in evolutionary theory.
As far as I know, darwinists only claim, that selective pressure is
(or was) present in mimicry phenomenon in insect realm and do not go into depth of it, trying to corroborate the idea by an experiment.
There has rather been extensive stufy of the general concept of discrimination of unpalatable prey with common patterns and the avoidance of the same. Indeed current theories seem to suggest that without some discriminatory ability on the parts of predators mimicry may be an unsustainable strategy (Gamberale-Stille and Guildford, 2004) and that a variety of cost benefit factors acting on the predator as well as other contingent factors are required for mimicry of an unpalatable aposematic signal to be beneficial. Similarly others have performed controlled empirical studies of palatable prey discrimination, several such are reviewed in an article by Mallet (2001). A number of these studies focus on automimicry rather than strict interspecies mullerian mimicry, but I see no reaon why the same factors would not apply.
...On the other hand you are right:....
...On the other hand darwinistic explanation ...
Wow, you have three hands!! Or maybe you chanegd what was in one of your hands halfway through.
TTFN,
WK
Edited by Wounded King, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by MartinV, posted 08-31-2006 2:34 PM MartinV has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by MartinV, posted 09-03-2006 5:09 PM Wounded King has not replied
 Message 136 by MartinV, posted 11-05-2006 1:53 PM Wounded King has replied

EZscience
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 22 of 188 (345673)
09-01-2006 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by MartinV
09-01-2006 3:26 AM


MV writes:
But the same do darwinists.
I am not sure if you understand what teleology is, but evolutionary biology has no part of it. Teleology refers to the implication that events happen for specific reasons and toward some sort of end goal. This seems to be what you are implying, but it is not consistent with a scientific explanation of anything biological.
MV writes:
They underlay to the phenomenons of mimicry their unwaranted myth of random mutation and natural selection as the only possible explanation.
We would not argue it is the only 'possible' explanation, only that it is the only adequate explanation based on the evidence. There is good evidence that both random mutations AND natural selection occur, and that living things are shaped by these processes. There is no evidence for teleology in all of biological science.
MV writes:
Panaxia quadripunctaria for instance has patterns that it can completely "disappeared" amongst leaves of prickly plants.
This is simple evolution of camouflage. Happens all the time. Every group of insect offspring are a little different from each other purely by chance. The more an insect happens to blend in with the background of its prefered habitat, the less often it happens to be eaten by visually-searching predators, hence such adaptive patterns are gradually adopted and improved on over many generations. I don't see what is so difficult to accept.
MV writes:
And how is it possible that insects with totaly different body plans as plants, that they can "mimics" plants with different logic of development?
Easy. You can paint the same portrait using watercolors, oil paints, or acrylic and still achieve much the same depiction of someone. There are multiple different developmental paths that can, under selection, evolve to produce things that are superficially similar in appearance, even though they are completely un-related and made up of different structures entirely.
Edited by EZscience, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by MartinV, posted 09-01-2006 3:26 AM MartinV has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by MartinV, posted 09-04-2006 12:38 PM EZscience has not replied

CACTUSJACKmankin
Member (Idle past 6273 days)
Posts: 48
Joined: 04-22-2006


Message 23 of 188 (345722)
09-01-2006 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by MartinV
09-01-2006 3:26 AM


quote:
They underlay to the phenomenons of mimicry their unwaranted myth of random mutation and natural selection as the only possible explanation.
I invite you to provide evidence that random mutation and natural selection do not occur, despite the countless experiments demonstrating both. Random mutations have been observed since the experiments of Thomas Hunt Morgan who observed a random mutation in the eye color gene of flies and the many experiments on bacteria showing how traits can be selected for with environmental factors including the current crisis of antibiotic resistance.
Edited by CACTUSJACKmankin, : grammer

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by MartinV, posted 09-01-2006 3:26 AM MartinV has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by CACTUSJACKmankin, posted 09-01-2006 1:05 PM CACTUSJACKmankin has not replied

CACTUSJACKmankin
Member (Idle past 6273 days)
Posts: 48
Joined: 04-22-2006


Message 24 of 188 (345731)
09-01-2006 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by CACTUSJACKmankin
09-01-2006 12:42 PM


BTW Random mutation and natural selection can help us understand how mimicry evolves. The more an animal resebles the environment, the less likely it is that a predator is going to see it and thus it is less likely to get eaten and thus is more likely to live long enough to reproduce and those genes will survive. The interesting thing is that mimicry doesnt have to be perfect because often a vision-based predator such as a bird is going to be seeing its prey at a distance, so even mimicing only the color of the environment such as in chimpunks is sufficient to improve chances of survival.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by CACTUSJACKmankin, posted 09-01-2006 12:42 PM CACTUSJACKmankin has not replied

MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5828 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 25 of 188 (346268)
09-03-2006 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by LinearAq
08-31-2006 7:02 PM


Linearaq writes:
Does a female that mimics one species produce offspring females that mimic a different species? Is the population of Papilio that mimics one particular species in the same geographic/ecological location as the population of Papilio that mimics different butterfly species?
I did not go to depth of this yet. Nevertheless the mimic case of Papilio dardanus are one on the most frequented as to the number of publications and research.
What is interesting is also fact, that males have only one morph, polymorphic are the females.
According darwinism there is no need to have polymorphic males, because females are important for reproduction, selection pressure is working mostly on them.
Yet on Madagaskar males and females look same (P.d.meriones)and according analysis of the origin of drawings on the wings, the drawings on mimics are more archaic than those on non-mimetic males! How could be explained this, that - as I underestand it - drawings on the wings on males are younger (e.g, they undergone muation/selection changes most recently) is on my opinion puzzle for darwinism (males are non-mimics, so why the change?).
I would like add, that previously mentioned couple of Heliconius melpomene and H. errato forms on great areas of Amazonia in South America approximately 20 different races, but these races of couples in given places looks identical. Turner solved this phenomenon assuming, that during last glacial (20000 years ago) Amazonian primeval forest was fragmentet into many "islands" and during isolation these couples were created. I suppose, that this fancy have to do more with faith on darwinism as with an explanation.
Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by LinearAq, posted 08-31-2006 7:02 PM LinearAq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Wounded King, posted 09-05-2006 6:08 AM MartinV has replied

MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5828 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 26 of 188 (346270)
09-03-2006 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Wounded King
09-01-2006 6:04 AM


WoundedKing writes:
Similarly others have performed controlled empirical studies of palatable prey discrimination, several such are reviewed in an article by Mallet (2001).
Thank for link, very interesting. Anyway we see on Mullers calculation, how was his mathematic without any foundation - it looks like science and yet is based on wrong suppositions.
Mullerian mimicry or mentioned "mimetics rings" are complicated by the fact, that in the given region or part of its occurence we found also many different butterfly species with very different colourings and drawings - Mullerian/darwinian mathematic should require only one.
Muller never performed any experiment with predators. I do not know, if the experiment in link is a correct one - are we sure that every generation of birds attemts to taste butterfiles in order to learn which of them are distasteful (as Muller thought) or are there any inborn patterns (as Bates thought)?
There are so many questions, so many darwinian speculations (even with complicated maths to look more scientifically) and so few credible experiments in REAL conditions (if any).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Wounded King, posted 09-01-2006 6:04 AM Wounded King has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 27 of 188 (346285)
09-03-2006 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by MartinV
08-29-2006 12:34 PM


You are right - industrial melanism as icon of evolution is also mimicry so to say.
(Yet I dont know if industrial melanism after it has been proved to be pre-arranged is still used in textbooks).
Are you claiming that this was all a fraud and does not in fact exist as a verified phenomenon? If so, you can support that assertion at Peppered Moths and Natural Selection -- it will be interesting to see if you can do any better than randman.
It is - for me - hard to believe, that ...
Sorry but your incredulity and lack of imagination are not a refutation of observed facts, nor will they have any effect on the theory of evolution. Or any other science. Life goes on regardless of your opinions.
I have no doubt, that behind this phenomenon are genes, alleles...Yet the origin of these genes are to be explained as you mentioned - now we see only "could".
What is wrong with "could"? It certainly doesn't amount to "could not" eh?
What I find missing (other than the lack of genetic information that the study itself notes) is any study of the predators in the different areas. If there is selection going on (as demonstrated by the different patterns) the question is what is causing that selection eh?
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by MartinV, posted 08-29-2006 12:34 PM MartinV has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by MartinV, posted 09-04-2006 11:46 AM RAZD has replied

MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5828 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 28 of 188 (346422)
09-04-2006 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by RAZD
09-03-2006 6:44 PM


RAZD writes:
Sorry but your incredulity and lack of imagination are not a refutation of observed facts, nor will they have any effect on the theory of evolution. Or any other science. Life goes on regardless of your opinions.
I do not overestimate importance of my opinions, yet same opinions share scientists as Punnet, Heikertinger, Suchantke...Suchantke, who visited Amazonia and teach on University has no problem to criticize darwinistic explanation. But maybe he also suffers from lack of swelled darwinian imagination.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by RAZD, posted 09-03-2006 6:44 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by RAZD, posted 09-04-2006 8:17 PM MartinV has replied

MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5828 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 29 of 188 (346439)
09-04-2006 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by EZscience
09-01-2006 8:54 AM


EZscience writes:
Easy. You can paint the same portrait using watercolors, oil paints, or acrylic and still achieve much the same depiction of someone. There are multiple different developmental paths that can, under selection, evolve to produce things that are superficially similar in appearance, even though they are completely un-related and made up of different structures entirely.
Look at these pictures, especially at the bottom you see males (Mannchen) and female (Weibchen). It is - my opinion - by no way any "superficially similarity" but a baffling ones:
http://www.phyllium.de/html/ph__pu__bioculatum.html
On the page you can see many examples of mimicry of group Phyllium, they even mimics nibbled leaves, fading leaves with brown spots (leaf veining is always present of course):
http://www.phyllium.de/html/gallerie.html

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by EZscience, posted 09-01-2006 8:54 AM EZscience has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 30 of 188 (346545)
09-04-2006 8:17 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by MartinV
09-04-2006 11:46 AM


Lack of Imagination is not evidence
I do not overestimate importance of my opinions, ...
You thought it was important enough to post here, and it was demonstrably a logical fallacy -- as was noted upthread.
... yet same opinions share scientists as Punnet, Heikertinger, Suchantke...Suchantke, who visited Amazonia and teach on University ...
Which has no bearing on the validity of the opinion. This is the "argument from authority" -- another logical fallacy. Who says {X} has no bearing on the truth of statement {X}.
... ..Suchantke ... has no problem to criticize darwinistic explanation.
Interesting man.
Creations Magazine article "The Rainforests: Beyond Black and White" (click to read)
The Nature Institute article "Seeing the Rainforest" (click to read)
Anthro Press excepted introduction to his book "Eco-Geography - What We See When We Look at Landscapes" (click to read .doc version) or (click to read googles html version)
Excerpts from the last link above:
quote:
On the modification side the Goethean approach generates a view of evolution that considerably circumscribes the role of natural selection in the process as a whole. A direct consequence of the language of form, for instance, is that evolution is not a unidirectional process driven solely by natural selection. In addition to development and adaptive radiation arising out of the selective refining of established lines -- essentially a process of evolutionary aging -- there is a countertendency, which Suchantke, following Julian Huxley, calls juvenilization.
... So Goethe’s approach to science can be construed as using imagination to read the language of polarity in nature.
This realization, not as a theory, but as a living experience, is the moving thread that runs through all the essays in this volume. They are the fruits of Andreas Suchantke’s dedicated efforts on his many journeys to take Goethe’s method seriously as a tool of knowledge, to be a living exponent of the ecology of imagination.
Talk of macroorganisms also points to the kinship Suchantke’s work has with James Lovelock’s Gaia theory. Adherents of the Gaia theory pride themselves on its being a "top-down" approach to planetary ecology, and to a certain extent they are justified in doing so. But there comes a point in any "Gaian" presentation when a reversal will take place and the normal "bottom-up" approach of the neo-Darwinian narrative will reassert itself. ... But weak or strong there will be a cutoff point, and this will usually have to do with the place of mind in this giant organism, and more particularly, the place of humankind as the carrier of mind. In this connection mind is likely to be described as an "emergent property" of Gaia. While this represents a significant modification of the Darwinian position, the implication is nevertheless still there that matter came first, and this leaves the "bottom line" of meaninglessness expressed in the passage by Richard Dawkins quoted earlier firmly in position, no matter how much we move the Darwinian goalposts.
The clear implication of this is that evolution is a noetic as well as a biotic process, that it is not consciousness, but the forms of consciousness that are emergent, and that the history of this planet is the story of the mutual interactions of these two strands of evolution. This is also a major theme of these essays.
If Andreas Suchantke is right and the process of juvenilization has created in us the potential to enter into such a partnership with the natural world, this lays a great responsibility on us. It means we have the freedom to develop the sensibilities that meet the needs of the planet -- or not. In this we see the full significance of the ecology of imagination. If there is ever to be a viable threefold organism encompassing the polarity of culture and nature, then imagination will have the role of mediator. Andreas Suchantke, as these essays bear witness, is someone we might emulate on this score

So we have a sort of new age scientist proposing a theory for an additional evolutionary mechanism to natural selection based an emergent consciousness, which is based on his gestalt {experience\view\imagination} perception: "that evolution is a noetic as well as a biotic process" ...
... it seems to me that he is making the same logical error that IDists and creationists make, that because evolution doesn't (yet) explain {X} that {my pet theory, fill in the blank} is correct (in spite of an absolute absence of evidence that any mechanism of pet theory exists).
Criticizing theory is part of science. Criticizing the different mechanisms and theories is part of how science advances. Offering alternate explanations and testing the differences in the results to see which is better is part of how science advances.
The test is how well they stand up to the evidence, what they can predict that the other theory(ies) cannot. The question is whether the method can add to the knowledge of how things work.
Now all we need are a couple of predictions based on his concept that would test it's validity ... something that seems to be in short supply -- do you know of one?
On the other hand, I'll bet I have a fair idea what his response would be if you asked him directly if this particular problem puts the whole concept of evolution into jeopardy or if this only involves whether we should consider a "noetic" mechanism in addition to all other known mechanisms for evolution ...
But maybe he also suffers from lack of swelled darwinian imagination.
Ah yes the "swelled darwinian imagination" that says things like -- "we observe {X} to happen in case {Y}, and we think it happened in other cases similar to {Y}, let's test that and see ..."
No theory (whether "darwinian" or any other science) is based on an {absence of evidence} as a foundation, nor is imagination unchecked by testing and validation.
Versus your approach that says -- "we have case {Z} that is not explained by current theory {W}, therefore (because we don't know how, and we just can't THINK how it might happen) that it just CAN'T happen and therefore evolution is wrong and the answer MUST be supernatural!
BTW, I also noticed that you didn't respond to anything else in my previous post, specifically to:
Message 27
You are right - industrial melanism as icon of evolution is also mimicry so to say.
(Yet I dont know if industrial melanism after it has been proved to be pre-arranged is still used in textbooks).
Are you claiming that this was all a fraud and does not in fact exist as a verified phenomenon? If so, you can support that assertion at Peppered Moths and Natural Selection -- it will be interesting to see if you can do any better than randman.
I'll take your non-response to this (and your failure to posting on the above thread) as a tacit admission that you were completely wrong in your statement, and that you hope it goes away if you ignore it so you don't have to admit that you were wrong.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by MartinV, posted 09-04-2006 11:46 AM MartinV has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by MartinV, posted 09-05-2006 4:09 PM RAZD has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024