Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,060 Year: 5,317/9,624 Month: 342/323 Week: 186/160 Day: 3/19 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Mimicry and neodarwinism
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17848
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 7 of 188 (344732)
08-29-2006 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by MartinV
08-29-2006 12:34 PM


quote:
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).
I don't know what you are talking about. There's been no "proof" that there is any real problem with industrial melanism as an example of natural selection in action.
The Mocker Swallowtail is interesting, but I really don't see how it is supposed to support JAD's ideas.

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 9 by MartinV, posted 08-30-2006 1:53 PM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17848
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 10 of 188 (345064)
08-30-2006 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by MartinV
08-30-2006 1:53 PM


quote:
Yes, maybe we see natural selection in action, but not evolution itself
Well ity is pointed out as an example of a mutation which spread by natural selection, and then disappeared again as a result of natural selection as the smoke decreased.
quote:
I have read - I have no reference now - that the number of light moths outnumered many times dark ones in other, clear parts of England.
As it should be by evolutionary theory.
quote:
More about how Kettlewell placed laboratory-bred moths or dead ones were glued to a tree to scientifically demonstrate industrial melanism as known fraud is on answeringenesis.
Missing Link | Answers in Genesis
It does nothing of the sort. It just shows that Answers in Genesis like to make unfounded accusations of fraud. All too typical of the amorality of too many creationists.
ANd I don't see how your discussion of mimicry is supposed to support JAD"s hypothesis. Perhaps an example of mimicry where there is no identiifable advantage to the mimic would be of interest, but unless JAD's hypothesis predicts such a thing it is hard to see how it could help his ideas.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by MartinV, posted 08-30-2006 1:53 PM MartinV has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17848
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 43 of 188 (347062)
09-06-2006 6:06 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by MartinV
09-05-2006 4:09 PM


quote:
But I can glue as well dead moths on the tree trunk, photograph them and presented them as support of my conception, that there are no changes in population of moths.
Essentially the argumment here is that because you could claim that staged phpotographs support a false claim that any claim based on a staged photograph must be false. Of course the claim here is to to with the relative visibility of the moths which is adequately demonstrated by a staged photograph - which is the only practical way of producing such an illustration. Thus your argument is refuted in both the general case and in this specific case.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by MartinV, posted 09-05-2006 4:09 PM MartinV has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17848
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 68 of 188 (347585)
09-08-2006 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by MartinV
09-08-2006 1:35 PM


Re: Heliconius
quote:
Because to look conspicuous in these cases of Helioconus means, that unpalatable species (as this is the thread of Heliconius and therefore of Mullerian mimicry) "want" to look like another unpalatable aposematic species. Whats the point? Couldnot birds remember the original colour pattern of mimic as aposematic pattern too? They are unpalatable. Or taste birds occassionaly both of them - then I do not know, if the signal is aposematic, if it does not protect before tasting.
It is quite simple if you think about it. Fewer patterns to learn and remember means fewer insects get eaten. Instead of learning each species individually the predator will learn the pattern from both species. Thus if two species use the same pattern their losses to predation will be - on average - halved.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by MartinV, posted 09-08-2006 1:35 PM MartinV has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by MartinV, posted 09-10-2006 1:28 PM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17848
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 72 of 188 (347940)
09-10-2006 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by MartinV
09-10-2006 1:28 PM


Re: Heliconius
quote:
Then I do not see any meaninng of word "aposematic". Every unpalateble creature accroding this assumtion is aposematic, even if it is green.
Since "aposematic" specifically refers to the use of bold and easily recognisable colours as a warning it is hard to see how two unplalatable creatures using the same warning pattern could undermine the definition. The definition does not claim that it is limited to a specific species and explicitly excludes colours that ae not easily seen.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by MartinV, posted 09-10-2006 1:28 PM MartinV has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by AdminNosy, posted 09-10-2006 2:24 PM PaulK has not replied
 Message 74 by MartinV, posted 09-10-2006 3:23 PM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17848
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 77 of 188 (347959)
09-10-2006 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by MartinV
09-10-2006 3:23 PM


Re: Heliconius
Selection is not omnipotent. It is contingent on the environment and on the material it has to work with. If crypsis is the most effective strategy available for some bees then it will be selected for by definition.
And your own comments indicate that non-visual warnings may serve in place of aposematic colouration.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by MartinV, posted 09-10-2006 3:23 PM MartinV has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17848
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 109 of 188 (348750)
09-13-2006 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by MartinV
09-13-2006 11:29 AM


Re: cryptic honeybees
You do realise that our quote is inadequate to support your position ? It is explicitly about gradual evolution from cryptic patterning to an aposematic pattern. It doesn't take much thought to see that the result is unsurprising - without an easily distinguishable pattern the loss of crypsis will not be offset by aposematism. So all it says is that you can't gradually evolve aposematism if you start with a cryptic pattern.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by MartinV, posted 09-13-2006 11:29 AM MartinV has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by MartinV, posted 09-13-2006 4:07 PM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17848
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 114 of 188 (348897)
09-13-2006 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by MartinV
09-13-2006 4:07 PM


Re: cryptic honeybees
This does not address the fact that the argument assumes cryptic colouration as the starting point. It the starting point were something else then the problem need not arise.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by MartinV, posted 09-13-2006 4:07 PM 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