Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 48 (9179 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,248 Year: 5,505/9,624 Month: 530/323 Week: 27/143 Day: 0/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Mimicry and neodarwinism
nwr
Member
Posts: 6445
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 4 of 188 (344666)
08-29-2006 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by MartinV
08-29-2006 7:00 AM


I'm a bit surprised to see this topic. I would have thought the existence of mimicry was supportive of evolution, so I find it strange that it is used here as an objection.
If there is no mention on talk origins, I would be inclined to guess that is because there is little credible criticism of evolution based on the existence of mimicry.
What is most interesting is his - Nijhout - darwinian explanation of this phenomenon: big initial mutation and subsequent refinement of these mutations.
"Initial step in the evolution of mimicry is likely to have been due to a genetic effect of large magnitude".
Looking at the Nijhout article you cited, I see:
Batesian mimicry is believed to originate by means of an initial mutation that has a sufficiently big effect on the phenotype to give a passable resemblance to a protected model.
This could be a small mutation with a big effect on the phenotype. Don't jump to the conclusion that it had to be a big mutation. I don't see a basis for saying that saltation is involved. On page 589 of the cited article, Nijhout says "So the first step in the evolution of mimicry could involve only a single locus." That would make it a small mutation.
Edited by nwr, : fix typo (inserted closing quote that was missing in last paragraph)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by MartinV, posted 08-29-2006 7:00 AM MartinV has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024