RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (13) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Coloration of animals, mimicry, aposematism, Is really natural selection behind it?< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,13:49   

I hit on the neodarwinian article "The evolution of imperfect mimicry in hoverflies". That's a good reading! There is  much more confusion than there was 50 years before. But no wonder,  selectionists insist on aposematism whatever the facts are.


In 2002 are selectionists as lost as they were in 1954. It is so ridiculous that I must share some ideas from the above mentioned "up-to-date" material.  

First selectionists have to admit sting play no role in aposematism:

       
Quote

The evidence that birds are also deterred by the sting is very weak and unconvincing. Mostler (1935) recorded no stings suffered by experienced adult birds, and of 70 prolonged contacts between bumblebees and young naive birds trying to eat them, there were only three stings.


Uf! And what nowadays, those research must be outdated!

       
Quote

Likewise Evans & Waldbauer (1982) thought that the sting of Bombus pennsylvanicus americanorum was not the main protection against birds. Only two of their birds were stung; the others avoided eating bumblebees only after having eaten the “middle segments of the abdomen”, presumably with the venom sac. In this case unpalatability may be due to distasteful venom.


Uf.

       
Quote

but birds appear to be rarely if ever stung (Mostler, 1935; Liepelt, 1963), and probably the sting is not a significant deterrent (Liepelt, 1963).


So darwinists are obviously lost, because stings are inneficient (they are only "secondary source of noxiousness" in their newspeak). But darwinian fantasy is still efficient:


       
Quote

Mostler considered the unpalatability of the abdomen to be the major source of noxiousness for wasps, and the sting was only secondary: subsequently Liepelt (1963) found that venom-free abdominal tissue evoked none of the typical unpalatability reactions. It is the terrible taste that the venom imparts to the abdomen that is the main deterrent for birds.


You would think: no problem. If no sting, that venom is the reason of unpalatability. But behold, not even this:

       
Quote

The basis of the ‘noxiousness’ of a model need not be unpalatability or stings, despite the fact that most discussions about mimicry have focused upon these elements.


Unbelievable! Not stings? Not even unpalatability? What then? Hold your breath now! :

       
Quote

In Brower & Brower’s (1965) experiments with toads feeding on honeybees and their Palpada mimics, for example, producing a buzz with the wings caused a 38% drop in predation, whereas the use of the sting caused only a 21% decrease in the mortality of the mimic. Thus sound seems to be a very important component of the signal that toads associate with noxiousness


Bingo! It is a buzz! Something that scientists of past weren't aware of and therefore their research is nowadays outdated!

(But frankly speaking -  would you believe such nonsense except you are a darwinist?)

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

  
  365 replies since Sep. 21 2007,11:31 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (13) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]