Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 48 (9179 total)
1 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
mark24
Member (Idle past 5311 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 33 of 188 (346780)
09-05-2006 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by MartinV
09-05-2006 4:09 PM


MartinV,
You are right. Mimicry cannot be explained - my opinion - by neodarwinistic play of mutation and selection.
Why not?
As a predator, wouldn't a slight enough similarity to something benign to enable a slight advantage to gain a food item? Why wouldn't this similarity be reinforced by RM&NS? As prey, wouldn't a slight similarity to a non-food item or a harmful thing give a slight advantage to not being eaten? Why wouldn't this similarity be reinforced by RM&NS to look more like the non-food item, or harmful thing?
Mimicry, after all, is merely camouflage. Poor camouflage is better than none at all, & I fail to see why you express such incredulity at camouflage getting better by RM&NS. Put another way, I fail to see why a slight advantage can't be turned into a greater one by further mutations that increase the level of mimicry.
But I did claim nothing about supernatural yet.
So what better explanations do you have for the known mechanisms of RM&NS increasing differential reproductive success by appearing more & more like something else as time goes by?
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by MartinV, posted 09-05-2006 4:09 PM MartinV has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by MartinV, posted 09-06-2006 2:38 PM mark24 has replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5311 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 44 of 188 (347096)
09-06-2006 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by MartinV
09-06-2006 2:38 PM


MartinV,
You assume that accumulation of little changes ("more and more like") would have led to the startling resemblance of different species.
Irrelevant to the question posed. You made the following statement:
Martin writes:
Mimicry cannot be explained - my opinion - by neodarwinistic play of mutation and selection.
I replied:
As a predator, wouldn't a slight enough similarity to something benign to enable a slight advantage to gain a food item? Why wouldn't this similarity be reinforced by RM&NS? As prey, wouldn't a slight similarity to a non-food item or a harmful thing give a slight advantage to not being eaten? Why wouldn't this similarity be reinforced by RM&NS to look more like the non-food item, or harmful thing?
Mimicry, after all, is merely camouflage. Poor camouflage is better than none at all, & I fail to see why you express such incredulity at camouflage getting better by RM&NS. Put another way, I fail to see why a slight advantage can't be turned into a greater one by further mutations that increase the level of mimicry.
You're response in no way addressed the questions put to you. In fact, your response consisted entirely of questions.
Please respond directly to the original questions.
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by MartinV, posted 09-06-2006 2:38 PM MartinV has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5311 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 62 of 188 (347503)
09-08-2006 5:26 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by MartinV
09-07-2006 3:29 PM


MartinV,
Post 44, please.
Thanks,
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by MartinV, posted 09-07-2006 3:29 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