|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
MartinV  Suspended Member (Idle past 5856 days) Posts: 502 From: Slovakia, Bratislava Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Mimicry and neodarwinism | |||||||||||||||||||
MartinV  Suspended Member (Idle past 5856 days) Posts: 502 From: Slovakia, Bratislava Joined: |
My point is that it was Punnet (author of Punnet square) opinion that
butterflies mimicry aroused via saltationism. It seems that saltationism as a plausible explanation of mimicry recurs back in disguise of "macromutation", "punctuated evolution" or "mutation with great phenotypic effects".
|
|||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
The real problem "Martin" is your inability to deal with complexities and subtleties. There is a gradiation between very minor phenotypical effects and what is usually refered to as saltation.
Since we have known examples of what, I think, can legitimately be called saltation it can't be ruled out. However, once you are below speciation there is no firm line where we can stop calling it a large mutaion and simply refer to it as 'regular' mutation. The argument being discussed in the paper, as best as I can make out is whether a large jump is ever needed in the development of mimicry or not. However, I don't know where one would try to draw a line defining "large". Such subtle distinctions seem to be a bit difficult for you to grasp. Keep up the good work. Edited by NosyNed, : spelling again
|
|||||||||||||||||||
MartinV  Suspended Member (Idle past 5856 days) Posts: 502 From: Slovakia, Bratislava Joined: |
We have already discussed here polymorphic mimic Papilio Dardanus.
The differences between morphs are great - it requires on my opinion strong belief in darwinism to see behind evolution of it as its source "random mutations" - be it "macromutation" or "mutation with great phenotypic effect". Even accepting theory of "punctuated evolution" requires to believe that "macromutation" hit the resemblance of the model almost exactly in the first step (before "refinement" of it take place). Especially when wings pattern/coloration of model are complicated ones and differ considerably from the presumed ancestor of mimic darwinian scientists use very knotty explanation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
MartinV  Suspended Member (Idle past 5856 days) Posts: 502 From: Slovakia, Bratislava Joined: |
Richard Dawkins criticized in his Blind watchmaker another Richard - Richard Goldschmidt (together with Gould). Goldschmidt as prominent scientist explained mimicry like Punnett due saltationism. Dawkins:
quote: Dawkins continues his reasoning - as far as I can judge - postulating a brand new theory.
quote: So mimicry resemblances developed gradually in semidarkenss and dusks when distinction between mimic and its model was undetectable enough to confuse predator. Obviously in the case of Mullerian mimicry Dawkins would consider the predator to be still aware of patterns of the model - and yet the at the same time the predator (because of dusk) was probably unaware of the patterns of another unpalatable species - the mimic ancestor. Predator mistook in dusk one unpalatable butterfly for another unpalatable butterfly. Of course to such Dawkins phantasies believe only those who didn't read on mimicry anything. Because even darwinian scientists like Fr. Nijhout postulate first evolutionary step in resemblance towards the model as great one (mutation with big effects - darwinian newspeak for saltationism - in the case of Batesian mimicry I admit). Translating saltationism into neodarwinian newspeak:
quote: See my initial post in this thread. Edited by MartinV, : No reason given. Edited by MartinV, : Nijhout adressed Batesian mimicry of P.dardanus
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Zhimbo Member (Idle past 6039 days) Posts: 571 From: New Hampshire, USA Joined: |
I've only sampled this thread, so I'm sure I'm repeating someone, but it certainly needs to be repeated, if so.
"Large effects" of mutation are not a problem for Darwinian evolution, at all - if by "large effect" you mean large phenotypic effect. What *IS* a problem would be the necessity of multiple simultaneous mutations. That kind of "large" mutation is not part of Neodarwinian theory. "Large phenotypic effects" and "many simultaneous mutations" are different concepts. "Saltationism" that proposes "large effects" of the first kind are part of neodarwinian evolutionary theory. Simple as that. No conflict, whatsoever. "Saltationism" that proposes "large" mutations that require many *simultaneous* mutations are not part of neodarwinian theory. Personally, I don't see the need for either of these for the evolution of mimicry, as Dawkin's explanation that you quote seems like obvious common sense to me, but even if the first kind of "saltationism" is necessary, it presents exactly ZERO challenge to contemporary evolutionary theory. I can't imagine this hasn't been brought up in 13 pages, but there it is again. Edited by Zhimbo, : typo fix
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
We have already discussed here polymorphic mimic Papilio Dardanus. We certainly have and here you seem to be merely blindy restating your previous assumptions and assertions which have been addressed several times. The whole point is to move the debate on, not to take it right back to the beginning and start over again, as you have initiated since Zhimbo is now making many of the same points to you that I made on the first page of this thread. TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Zhimbo Member (Idle past 6039 days) Posts: 571 From: New Hampshire, USA Joined: |
Indeed, WK - MartinV's latest post showed no appreciation of the difference between large phenotypic effects vs. multiple mutations.
This discussion is pointless unless that distinction is recognized and understood and maintained. That's THE key point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3976 Joined: |
This topic has been judged to be a mess, and has been supplanted by the new topic Mimicry: Please help me understand how.
Closing this one down. Adminnemooseus Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Change ID. New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts. Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures Thread Reopen Requests Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], [thread=-17,-45], [thread=-19,-337], [thread=-14,-1073] Admin writes:
It really helps moderators figure out if a topic is disintegrating because of general misbehavior versus someone in particular if the originally non-misbehaving members kept it that way. When everyone is prickly and argumentative and off-topic and personal then it's just too difficult to tell. We have neither infinite time to untie the Gordian knot, nor the wisdom of Solomon. There used to be a comedian who presented his ideas for a better world, and one of them was to arm everyone on the highway with little rubber dart guns. Every time you see a driver doing something stupid, you fire a little dart at his car. When a state trooper sees someone driving down the highway with a bunch of darts all over his car he pulls him over for being an idiot. Please make it easy to tell you apart from the idiots. Source |
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024