Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,576 Year: 4,833/9,624 Month: 181/427 Week: 94/85 Day: 1/10 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Mimicry and neodarwinism
Belfry
Member (Idle past 5163 days)
Posts: 177
From: Ocala, FL
Joined: 11-05-2005


Message 106 of 188 (348488)
09-12-2006 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by MartinV
09-12-2006 11:40 AM


MartinV writes:
There are 11 results for "fungus evolution" at scholar.google. Which one of them would you reccomend me? Which one of them give comprehensive neodarwinian account for astonishing shape/colour diversity of mushroom sporocarps?
Thank you.
You have to take off the quotes when doing a google search, or you end up searching for that exact phrase. Without the quotes, you get well over 30,000 hits.
Remember, the statement you're defending is this one, from Message 88:
MartinV writes:
Mushroom are really interesting, totally overlooked by darwinists.
They did not exist for them.
{Edit: By the way, with regard to morphological diversity of mushrooms, you seem to be working on the assumption that within the evolutionary model, the different appearances of fungal fruiting bodies must serve some special adaptive function or purpose. In some cases that may be true, but it is not necessarily the case. Are you familiar with the term, "spandrel?"}
Edited by Belfry, : Marked addition

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by MartinV, posted 09-12-2006 11:40 AM MartinV has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by jar, posted 09-12-2006 5:53 PM Belfry has not replied

jar
Member
Posts: 34048
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 107 of 188 (348491)
09-12-2006 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Belfry
09-12-2006 5:46 PM


If you search for +fungus +evolution which will get pages that have both the terms the results are:
Results 1 - 10 of about 1,780,000 for +fungus +evolution. (0.16 seconds)
But that is simply yet another attempt to change the subject, to dance away from the thread topic.
I have yet to see any support for why mimicry would be a problem in anyway to the TOE.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Belfry, posted 09-12-2006 5:46 PM Belfry has not replied

MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5906 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 108 of 188 (348728)
09-13-2006 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by Belfry
09-12-2006 5:41 PM


Re: cryptic honeybees
Anyway aposematism like mimicry of Papilion dardanus (see Nijhout 2003 - my first message) did not evolve gradually as proposed by Darwin. Here is citation from Joron "Aposematism" 2002:
"Laboratory experiments using the “novel world” design (Figure 2) showed rather unequivocally that aposematic patterns cannot evolve gradually in unpalatable prey. Indeed, small increases in visibility in cryptic prey increased attack rates without enhancing learning."
http://zeldia.cap.ed.ac.uk/joron/joron02apo.pdf

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Belfry, posted 09-12-2006 5:41 PM Belfry has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by PaulK, posted 09-13-2006 1:15 PM MartinV has replied
 Message 110 by Wounded King, posted 09-13-2006 3:18 PM MartinV has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17838
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 4.1


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

Wounded King
Member (Idle past 110 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 110 of 188 (348801)
09-13-2006 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by MartinV
09-13-2006 11:29 AM


Re: cryptic honeybees
Since Darwin wasn't a proponent of neo-darwinism this seems pretty much completely irrelevant.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by MartinV, posted 09-13-2006 11:29 AM MartinV has not replied

MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5906 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 111 of 188 (348846)
09-13-2006 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by PaulK
09-13-2006 1:15 PM


Re: cryptic honeybees
I will continue cite from the same article (next sentences):
"Therefore, a gradual increase in conspicuousness towards aposematism seems unlikely. This means that the evolving population must undergo a sudden jump, both in phenotype (to get a pattern that predators categorize as a different item), and in numbers beyond a threshold frequency (to allow the local predators to learn about the new pattern)."
In other words: saltationism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by PaulK, posted 09-13-2006 1:15 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by PaulK, posted 09-13-2006 6:03 PM MartinV has not replied
 Message 116 by RAZD, posted 09-15-2006 8:09 PM MartinV has not replied

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5111 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 112 of 188 (348850)
09-13-2006 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by MartinV
09-10-2006 3:52 PM


Regarding mushrooming to a new place
Yes, it did happen that I crossed in my thought the realization that "the shape" of mushrooms did not fit my ideas of form-making generally that is based on diploids. But given an idea I (also, "also" becuase 'my' idea on leaves is too speculative to have been generalized subjectively by me so far but I doubt there is reason to doubt that it cant, etc) have had on haploid ferns ( i think I have expressed this on EVC if you are interested to follow THAT up) that-then, then the form of mushrooms can be related to a divided (taxanomically subjective) notion of phenotype that has (had in this case) different coincidence geometries for *genetically* (haploid vs diploid differences) differnt cases. Catastrophe theory may show instructive organonically in that case. But yes that is more of a guess than the thoughts I have on leaves and woody structures generally. I have given Lichens as well extensive thoughts so I think if I tried the same for mushrooms nothing out of the ordinary standard evos thought would occurr. Your guess is mine.
Edited by Brad McFall, : "proof" to "show" given recent evc comments on the word

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by MartinV, posted 09-10-2006 3:52 PM MartinV has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by MartinV, posted 09-13-2006 4:56 PM Brad McFall has replied

MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5906 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 113 of 188 (348871)
09-13-2006 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Brad McFall
09-13-2006 4:11 PM


Re: Regarding mushrooming to a new place
Brad McFall, thank you for your post.
In mushrooms - in my opinion - are interesting not only shapes, but also very different colors. In same area you can see green, yellow, white, red ones.
Yet I would like to ask you something on mimicry. In one thread with Davison you mentioned and cited article from Vaclav Petr "British metaphysics as reflected in Robert Broom's evolutionary theory". It is very good article - my favourite, especially interesting is also part about Snyder & Mitchell (1999) there on human abilities as observed on autistic savants.
Yet there is also this sentence: "Structuralist Frankfurt school of constructional morphologists deny the existence of camouflage and mimicry by saying that "the predator probably cannot see it" (Edlinger, Gutmann and Weingarten 1991)." It sounds like Heikertinger propostion, that mimicry does not exist at all.
Do you have any thougts on it?
http://www.natur.cuni.cz/~vpetr/Broom.htm

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Brad McFall, posted 09-13-2006 4:11 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Brad McFall, posted 09-14-2006 4:26 PM MartinV has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17838
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 4.1


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

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5111 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 115 of 188 (349095)
09-14-2006 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by MartinV
09-13-2006 4:56 PM


Re:"Frankfurt school"
Indeed I was thankful that Davison provided this link, because I had not read this (material/article) specifically before then. However, there was one passage that caught my attention, and somewhat negatively. I will explain.
Britska metafyzika zrcadlici se v evolucni teorii Roberta Brooma
*
Originally published in: Bulletin of the Czech Geological Survey, 75(1): 73-85. Praha 2000

quote:
(A) multitude of rather symbolic resemblances
would need to be “dissected” and physicalized.
It has always been curious to me as to whether Croizat specifically intended to keep spiritual issues out of his work (this seems to be result of New Zeland scholarship, which on the whole has spent more time with it than me, (they used the term “transgression” when writing about organic motion across Africa),
Gould speaks of talk with Grad Students during the 70s, the time I was most influenced by my Grandfather, about a notion of “petrification”, some other word, and the to be one, “pluification.” I will look up the footnote and edit it back in here.
The claim in the article that Broom was a finalist by Simpson is probably enough to work out Broom’s ideas outside the hierarchical extensions of Gould. People here on EvC however only individually take on the hierarchical issue itself but rather we remain somewhat constricted to the simple difference of standard evolutionary theory vs fundamental creation biology (the parts of EvC that I know the most about).
My Grandfather’s tradition in biology probably has something to do with Cope’s but I have not really tried to do some serious writing and digging on it. I just know that I retain a clear thought that growth and development are TWO different things.
I can comment on the whole article in some other place if you like(the issues with “plato” probably have to be worked out in the difference of “transient” and “immanent” reality of Cantor interpretations, but I am not sure).
quote:
Structuralist Frankfurt school of constructional morphologists deny the existence of camouflage and mimicry by saying that "the predator probably cannot see it" (Edlinger, Gutmann and Weingarten 1991).
While I was at Cornell, in the 80s, I was collecting all of the ideas on how snakes got their spots and stripes (Kraig Adler probably has one of the best personal libraries of herpetology in the World ( he loved to collect color books despite the protestations of his wife) etc and I re-call a German article, which I really could not read much of, that had the BEST pictures of snake skin patterns compared, I had ever seen. It might have been work from this “Frankfurt school.” The issues of mimicry did become odd to me AFTER I found THREE explanations in the library, one based on what the predator might see (relative to the speed of motion of the snake), standard genetically thought through mimicry and some idea that it was all a matter of embyrogeny.
I have not taken this work much further for a couple of reasons.
One, JD Murray told me that they (Oxford Mathematical Biology Dept) would simply (in the face of the three alternatives) assume that like a zebra so goes the snake.
Two, L.Pierce Williams - who was deeply interested in Faraday and British Science in general was unable to notice the ocular contrasts I was presenting in an independent study on color notions between Goethe and Newton.
Three, Will Provine had not been kind enough to Sewell Wright’s study and use of the Color Volume when working on Ginea Pig coat colors.
Fourth, I was prevented from continuing my thesis by a FORCED leave of absence and I have never had the money to return after the time limitations ran out.
It has been clear to me in the field that “some” of the bright colors of reptiles are probably NOT visible to predators and may serve during less violent interactions but I have never quantified the suspicision behaviorally somehow nor looked up other research on the topic.
The passage that I identified was,
quote:
The seventeeth-century neoplatonists (see e.g., Gould 1999b) advocated for a meaningful construction of nature that reveals wisdom and harmonious order of creative forces resulting in a multitude of rather symbolic resemblances. As a surprising consequence they did not identify the fossil fish as a former organism but suggested instead that plastic forces within the rocks can generate the same ideal (archetypal) form as is created by organic forces from the fish's egg. The search is not over.
NOW, if Aggasiz were rehabilitated THROUGH Gould’s use of Hyatt’s name then even this could be a tame phrasing. Let’s assume the worst instead however, since I know that I have not done this and I do not know of any one else with the kind of interest to attempt the same or similar, namely that it must be taken LITERALLY that “petrifaction” can create FISH shapes (Aggasiz simply had “dreams” about this, not literalisms as I understand it). I would have to admit that this idea is “wrong.” I personally have thought through the issues that Gould now calls “plurifcation” in terms of “forms of death” (by different physical routes) but this reading would cause my own writing to be a modern extention of the so-called “neoplatonists” but making this association is precisely the error that Ernst Mayr and Richard Boyd made on trying to understand what I was saying in the 80s so I would need to re-autobiographicalize MYSELF for this to be a viable narrative trajectory even for me.
I would need to see what the term “ Plastic” refers to more specifically.
Regardles my sole reservations in the article do not displace the comments that predators may not see the camouflage or other striking colors. They may well be. I have thought so myself indeed. I have no proof however. There has to be one step before one can walk however.
I have given the subject some more thought since then. Particularly I have thought that reptile head D'Arcy Thompsonian "Cartesian" Grids might be Cellular Automata and the patterns of colors based first on rule based determinations. But I have not carried this thought through the tough middle part which would then have implications for genetics of mimicry.

Click for full size image
Gould apparently doesnt index every use of a word that IS in his index. I will need to look harder for the footnote I referenced above.
Edited by Brad McFall, : update

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by MartinV, posted 09-13-2006 4:56 PM MartinV has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by MartinV, posted 09-17-2006 4:07 PM Brad McFall has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1483 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 116 of 188 (349468)
09-15-2006 8:09 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by MartinV
09-13-2006 4:07 PM


mountains and molehills
I will continue cite from the same article (next sentences):
"Therefore, a gradual increase in conspicuousness towards aposematism seems unlikely. ...."
In other words: saltationism.
That's quite a jump ... in logic. A logical fallacy, as what this says is that {A} can't become {B} therefore {B} cannot exist, when it has not been shown that {B} cannot come from any NOT{A} -- as PaulK pointed out. (That's the molehill that you think is such a big barrier)
But I'll add to the comment that PaulK said, something that may clarify the distinction for you:
Both cryptic coloration and aposematic coloration are responses to selection by predation, one to become more camouflaged and the other to become more flambouyant - and badtasting(1).
For one to evolve to the become the other they have to climb down the Dawkins Mountain of Fitness to the valley (where their common ancestors with the other insects evolved from), and then evolve up the other mountainside: they must become less fit first.(That's the mountain that is the barrier -- for the conditions in the study you cited)
You would get a similar result if you tested aposematic insects to evolve into cryptic by making them taste better first. The tastier ones would get eaten before they could evolve into cryptic forms.
To properly test for the effect of natural selection you need to start with an insect that is neutral for visibility and taste. This was not done by the study cited, therefore it doesn't test for this type of evolution.
Enjoy.

(1) - plants are known to have evolved bad taste as a response to being eaten, logical that bugs would do that as well with proper selection pressure. The bad taste is the selected defense mechanism to predation for the aposematic insects, a defense that the cryptic insects don't need.

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 111 by MartinV, posted 09-13-2006 4:07 PM MartinV has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 362 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 117 of 188 (349506)
09-15-2006 10:08 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by MartinV
09-12-2006 11:47 AM


Yrs, "tropical zones in the Old World" includes southeast Asia, but is not limited to that region. So one of your statements was a misleading half-truth, rather than a downright lie.
You have given no excuses to explain away your other blunders. Why not?
By the way, have you noticed that your argument is essentially what I call the "Argument From Undesign"? You are claiming that some aspect of nature is stupid and therefore can't have evolved. Should we therefore credit this blunder to a perfect and omnipotent designer?
quote:
(and not opposite as is the claim in totaly incompetent and speculative response in point 3).
My point (3) was based entirely on the link which you supplied. If you believe this link to be "totally incompetent and speculative", I await your apology for supplying us with misinformation.
Can you supply us with hard evidence for anything in your post?
If you had read more carefully my post, you could noticed, that this case of mimetism was described by Poulton.
No, I only notice that you say so. Given your other blunders, I want to see evidence.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by MartinV, posted 09-12-2006 11:47 AM MartinV has not replied

MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5906 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 118 of 188 (349808)
09-17-2006 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Brad McFall
09-14-2006 4:26 PM


Re: Re:"Frankfurt school"
Let’s assume the worst instead however, since I know that I have not done this and I do not know of any one else with the kind of interest to attempt the same or similar, namely that it must be taken LITERALLY that “petrifaction” can create FISH shapes (Aggasiz simply had “dreams” about this, not literalisms as I understand it).
But it does not mean, that if petrification cannot create fish shapes in stones (are we sure?), that "petrification" cannot create other similar shapes in insect realm. If petrification is changed for "internal forces" or "creative forces" nature of which is not material, these forces can represents themselves for instance in hornet moth and hornet. For some people resemlances of these are due "mimicry", "mutation/selection", but maybe there is no selection advantage or - selection advantage only as "akcidentia" but "substantia" of these two species.
After reading some philosophy of Giordano Bruno I have no problem accept Brooms "spiritual forces" as sommething unreal. Giordano Bruno believed - in denial of Ptolemaios - that planets and stars are not steady but are moved by "internal forces" that later becomes gravity. So he was right.
If we now in biology know nothing about "internal forces" it does not mean, that sometimes they cannot be discovered or better described. Anyway explanation may be more adequate - especially for me - as neodarwinism ("modern neoptolemaionism").
Edited by MartinV, : Ptolemaios

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Brad McFall, posted 09-14-2006 4:26 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Brad McFall, posted 09-17-2006 10:16 PM MartinV has replied

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5111 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 119 of 188 (349880)
09-17-2006 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by MartinV
09-17-2006 4:07 PM


Regarding "above" vs "outside"
Are you sure that one would want to go so far as to suggest that the fine structure of a fossil fish like this:
is causable by the fairly large scale forces that separate the forms of igneous, metamorphic and sedimentary rocks no matter the likeness to biological shape?
I do not doubt that there is unused information about mineral distributions relative to sorting out taxonomic relations and some that is colossally and inexcusably unused so perhaps you and I have a different idea of what is “outside” and what is “external.”
I took it that whatever the determination was to have been that it would proceed via the notion of crystal formation force generalized by Kant here.
It is unclear to me what you mean when comparing insect and fish contouring. If I use Kant here I could include slime compared to fish if I reflected on that.
If there is no issue here the exchange is probably only about various inclinations from “misology.” That’s my guess.
quote:
The picture is from “The Book of Life” by gen. ed. Stephen Gould and the other thumbnails from Kant (the either “The Critique of Judgment” or “Introduction to Logic”)
There is no problem with the existence of "internal forces" only I am not sure that they apply, in the case of the particulars of fossil fish, to rocks forming apparent fish or insect "artifacts", as Agassiz is not against a "commanding spirit" in principle but wanted to bring fossil fish studies through the fact first. That done it seems possible to discuss what you call "unreal" and Agassiz attributed to Oken. But what it has to do with "mimicry", well, I am not as sure.
quote:

Edited by Brad McFall, : added internal info (Agassiz's)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by MartinV, posted 09-17-2006 4:07 PM MartinV has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by MartinV, posted 09-18-2006 11:57 AM Brad McFall has replied

MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5906 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 120 of 188 (349960)
09-18-2006 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by Brad McFall
09-17-2006 10:16 PM


Re: Regarding "above" vs "outside"
Thanks for response and materials.
Are you sure that one would want to go so far as to suggest that the fine structure of a fossil fish like this
is causable by the fairly large scale forces that separate the forms of igneous, metamorphic and sedimentary rocks no matter the likeness to biological shape?
I do not have book from D'Arcy Wentworth Thompson yet I know he compares for instance jellyfish and the forms of drops of liquid falling into viscous fluid and many more surprising resemblances of forms in living and inanimate world.
It is too far audacious to assume, that fossil fish was created by no-fossilization process, but where is the boundary of which shapes are intrinsic to inanimate and which to living world I do not know.
Anyway even if fossil fish was not created by "internal forces" it does not mean, that these forces does not exist at all.
If there is no issue here the exchange is probably only about various inclinations from “misology.” That’s my guess.
You might be right. Yet in one of your sended copy pages is a proposition, that earth is a living organism. Of the same opinion, that earth lives was G.Bruno and this conception is recurring throughout ages, in 20th century again as Gaia. I am not sure, how to define truth, but assuming that living earth give us more deeper insight into reality, why condemn it or even call it misology? Btw. it is reflected in orthodox lands (as Russia) as custom of kissing her (Dostoevskys hero Raskolnikoff before confession of committing murder kissed earth. Sonja told him:"Go to the crossroads, bow to people and kiss the earth, because you sinned before her too.." - and he was commented by pedestrians as beeing drunk - or misolog by a bypassing philosopher?)
I am afraid, that almost all phylosophical speculation can be marked as misology. Yet on Bruno opinion it is big fortune to have the right philosophy even though others philosophies can give also good results too.
But what it has to do with "mimicry", well, I am not as sure.
If there are "internal forces" or "vegetative soul", than they can explain homology and Batesian/Mullerian mimicry as well.
I have cited Suchantke, that resemblances between some insects and leaves are very elaborated, detailed. This phenomenon so to say goes against natural appearance of the insect, against its logic of development according Suchantke (it might be originally Adolf Portmann opinion, I would guess). Assuming influence - my opinion - of internal forces or even influence of "vegetative soul" it could have led to the given outcome. In that case also Batesian/Mullerian mimicry can be detected and even some selective advantage can be even proved to be a fact.
Yet the origin of resemblances or mimicry is in internal forces and not in mutative/selective dyada even though it seems so. Selection is only accident that occurs and that can mislead a darwinian naturalist as to the reason of resemblance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Brad McFall, posted 09-17-2006 10:16 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Brad McFall, posted 09-18-2006 6:13 PM MartinV 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