RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (8) < 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... >   
  Topic: The evolution of coloration in fungi, are brightly colored fungi aposematic?< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 27 2007,13:59   

I edited my latest post removing all not-reccomended words.

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

  
stevestory



Posts: 9021
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 27 2007,14:02   

Icky, your box is full.

   
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 27 2007,14:29   

From Henry on the other thread
Quote
Maybe the coloration is caused by chemical(s) that serve some other purpose for the organism? In that case the color could be merely a side-effect.

Maybe, but as closely related species have different colors, its seems unlikely that they serve particular physiological purposes.
For example, the color of blood (a side effect) is the same in all mammals.

And color is often localized on the cap, so it looks like it's there to be seen. I think underground mycelia are devoid of pigments, although I don't know.

I'd be curious to know if some mushrooms grow in caves, and in that case, if they are colored.

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2779
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 27 2007,14:37   

Quote (VMartin @ June 27 2007,13:51)
I don't know why +++++ +++++++  sends his nonsense here like an automata. But I underestand him on the other side. Darwinists like him do not like the issue - that is also reason why there are so few researches on the colorarton of fruiting bodies of mushrooms. Because the results obviously do not support natural selection as the source of their coloration. And it is what darwinists hate -see +++++ Ichthyic who want to ban me because mentioning it. He would like to obscure problem with "signaling" babble even though I am discussing here COLORATION OF FRUITING BODIES OF MUSHROOMS only. Capito?

Another hypothesis about why nobody has done much research on the evolution of coloration and its relationship to toxicity in mushrooms might be that there is not a lot of funding for projects like that these days. I think you could find evidence for that hypothesis. Your conspiracy theory about "darwinists" is, per usual, evidence-free.

Did you read the paper you cited?  Do you understand that color cues might not be related to toxicity, but that odor and taste cues could be? Do you understand how that relates to natural selection?

Oh, and you might also want to address that other question that you have left hanging - the one about common descent.

thanks

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 27 2007,16:32   

Quote

Did you read the paper you cited?  Do you understand that color cues might not be related to toxicity, but that odor and taste cues could be? Do you understand how that relates to natural selection?


I don't argue with that. I would agree that toxicity of mushrooms are probably detected by wild animals by smell, by odor. You - and not only you - could have missed my standpoint. I said that origin of mushroom's coloration is not caused by natural selection, because there is not known selective pressure for their coloration. Subsequently some other force (sexual selection is out of game either) took place. I didn't said it was supranatural - but I can't refute it either. There is also another explanation proposed by great zoologist Adolf Portmann - self-representation, "die Selbstdarstellung". Such force can be innate to living organisms and could represent a force responsible for shapes and coloration of different species. You underestand that such a force have no place in neodarwinism.

Mushrooms are very good example of coloration of species because neither natural selection nor sexual selection could explain it plausibly. If you know about some connection between mushroom's color and it's toxicity feel free to educate us.

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

  
Kristine



Posts: 3046
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 27 2007,16:54   

Quote (VMartin @ June 27 2007,12:20)
Jeannot

     
Quote

Closely related species often have some very different colors (in Boletus) for instance. This is puzzling.


That's right. I would like to draw your attention also to genera Amanita. We can observe among them very different caps coloration. It might be of interest that one of the most delicious mushroom Amanita muscaria as well as one of the most poisonous Amanita phalloides
belongs to the Genera.

http://www.foto-net.sk/?idi=151&page=1

Red Amanita muscaria has toxic effects and are sought after not only by shamans also by deers. I have read that shamans used extract from it to lure deers.

Amanida phalloides has green cap. So do not follow darwinian rule of thumb that bright aposematic coloration means threat and vica versa with cryptic coloration. The rule will kill you. There is no rule how to recognize edible and poisonous mushrooms.

------------

I don't like to disturb cheerfull self-congratulation of darwinists here to Ichthyic great success - he won a prize from doctor of darwinism Meyeres who produces his "random biological ejaculation" at Pharongogola like an automata every two hours unless he sleeps. The last but one winner was dancerin and neodarwinist, surrealist and poet Kristine.

Well no, actually I shared that honor in February with theist Scott Hatfield, and then Blake Stacey and Hank Fox won in March, Torbjörn Larsson won in April, and then Kseniya and BronzeDog won in May. I mean, give shimmies where shimmies are due. :)

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
Henry J



Posts: 4112
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 27 2007,20:51   

Re "I would agree that toxicity of mushrooms are probably detected by wild animals by smell, by odor."

Re "I said that origin of mushroom's coloration is not caused by natural selection, because there is not known selective pressure for their coloration."

Uh - don't look now, but you just agreed with a probable cause of that natural selection.

Henry

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 28 2007,11:10   

Quote

Uh - don't look now, but you just agreed with a probable cause of that natural selection.


I don't see the point. I have never agreed that Natural selection is the cause of mushroom's coloration. If I agreed that toxicity of mushrooms is probably detected by wild animal by smell it would not necessary mean that I agree with NS as source of it either. It's only your logic you know.

Toxicity of mushrooms is another puzzle. I have mentioned Lethal webcaps. Digestion of this mushroom will destroy your liver - but sometimes first nuissances are detected only after 3 weeks. Anyway the poison will kill the animal that had eaten the mushroom. Obviously such type of poison was not created and maintained by Natural selection. It has no sense - no animal would be able to make relation between mushroom eating and its nuissance after so many days.

I have mentioned already Amanita muscaria as very delicious mushroom, Amanita phalloides  as most poisonous one and strangely enough - Amanita muscaria with its toxic effects. Due to its toxic effects the muhroom is sought for by some species (deers) and the others (didelphis) are avoiding it. So to find any darwinistic explanation of such diverse "survival strategy" in the same Genera is very difficult. To find out darwinistic explanation of toxicity of Amanita muscaria is impossible.

That's the reason why this thread is dying. Neodarwinists after first research - at least the intelligent among them - see that my point is correct. Natural and sexual selection as the cause of mushroom's coloration is wrong and misleading explanation (and of toxicity as well).

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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 28 2007,11:28   

Let us all remember that the mushroom is just a fruiting body and not the organism itself.  That seems to be getting lost here with all this 'self-representation' business.

Amanita muscaria should not be eaten.  Can kill you but probably just make you wish you hadn't eaten it.  At least according to the reports I have read.  

Amanita caesarea has a bright red cap and is delicious.

Many of the grisette group of Amanitas are safe and delicious, yet have phalliodes colored caps (but striations on margin and other characters denote grisette group).

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2779
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 28 2007,11:29   

Quote (VMartin @ June 28 2007,11:10)
   
Quote

Uh - don't look now, but you just agreed with a probable cause of that natural selection.


I don't see the point. I have never agreed that Natural selection is the cause of mushroom's coloration. If I agreed that toxicity of mushrooms is probably detected by wild animal by smell it would not necessary mean that I agree with NS as source of it either. It's only your logic you know.

Toxicity of mushrooms is another puzzle. I have mentioned Lethal webcaps. Digestion of this mushroom will destroy your liver - but sometimes first nuissances are detected only after 3 weeks. Anyway the poison will kill the animal that had eaten the mushroom. Obviously such type of poison was not created and maintained by Natural selection. It has no sense - no animal would be able to make relation between mushroom eating and its nuissance after so many days.

I have mentioned already Amanita muscaria as very delicious mushroom, Amanita phalloides  as most poisonous one and strangely enough - Amanita muscaria with its toxic effects. Due to its toxic effects the muhroom is sought for by some species (deers) and the others (didelphis) are avoiding it. So to find any darwinistic explanation of such diverse "survival strategy" in the same Genera is very difficult. To find out darwinistic explanation of toxicity of Amanita muscaria is impossible.

That's the reason why this thread is dying. Neodarwinists after first research - at least the intelligent among them - see that my point is correct. Natural and sexual selection as the cause of mushroom's coloration is wrong and misleading explanation (and of toxicity as well).

V

Let's back up and look at the bigger picture.

1) You cited some research by some real biologists pointing out that toxicity and color are not necessarily related in fungi.  These scientists pointed out this lack of relationship. You have not done any real scientific work here at all, but you are relying on actual scientists to look at actual data and get it published. Why don't you do some actual work, generate your own hypothesis about why some mushrooms are colored, test it, and get it published?  That would be a real contribution.

2) Pointing out how neo-Darwinian mechanisms fail to explain a phenomenon leads you into two corners. In the first place, it does not mean that your explanation is correct or even likely, unless you test that explanation and find evidence that is consistent with it. When hypothesis A fails it does not automatically provide support for hypothesis B. The second problem, if you are arguing that mushrooms were created this way, is that this is a god-of-the-gaps argument. If real scientists can do real experiments and find a natural explanation for the fact that some fungi have colorful fruiting bodies, your god just got a little smaller.

3) Science, unlike religion, does not claim to explain everything. There are lots of places where a real scientist, unlike a creationist, will say "I don't know". Such a statement, and such a situation, does not automatically cause the collapse of a theory which is abundantly supported by lots of other evidence. It also, as pointed out above, does not automatically provide support for alternative explanations; you need to do experiments and generate positive evidence for your explanation before anyone will give it more consideration. And even in that best-case scenario, you still have to generate a BETTER explanation for all of the other facts and evidence that support the rival explanation. There is a lot of evidence for common descent and evolution. Pointing out a single instance where scientists say "I don't know" is not enough to overthrow an explanation which is consistent with millions of other observations.

So why don't you give us your explanation of this observation, generate a testable hypothesis, and get busy testing it?

Or if that sounds like too much work, why don't you answer the other question - Do you agree with Davison on common descent?

Thanks in advance for ignoring that question yet one more time.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
BWE



Posts: 1896
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 28 2007,11:39   

Galerina autumnalis has a quite similar cap to psilocybe baeocystis and Armillaria mellea (depending on whose classification you are using) sometimes. In general, if you are not familiar with the organisms don't eat them. I have never seen mycelia with any coloration and I've examined a bit. I have seen rhizomorphs with colored tips but I have never heard any research that indicates that this is anything other than a byproduct of the way it grows. BTW, taxonomy in the fungi is no easy task. They are quite unlike other living things. Read this page: about the honey mushroom or just google fungi taxonomy. Students and fundys could get pretty confused. This page, if you've ever sat through an upper division biology class in any specialty, you will appreciate. There is quite a story not told.

Gets you high:


Gets you dead:


Tastes good:


--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 28 2007,11:54   

Erasmus:

Quote

Let us all remember that the mushroom is just a fruiting body and not the organism itself.  That seems to be getting lost here with all this 'self-representation' business.


You know concept of "self-representation" is based on the visibility. Internal organs of animals are not colored. External very often are. The same for mycelium/fruing body. I have read an opinion that probably as much as 90% of coloration of species have nothing to do with natural selection. If it is right we should reconsider natural selection as "omnipotent" evolutionary force.

 

Quote

Amanita muscaria should not be eaten.  Can kill you but probably just make you wish you hadn't eaten it.  At least according to the reports I have read.  


You are right.  It is Amanita caesarea of course.

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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 28 2007,12:05   

Visibility to what?  Slugs?  Bees?  Bats?  

Internal organs of animals are not colored?  I challenge you to cut your liver out and show me that this is true.  I'm blinded by the tard.

Beefsteak fungus looks just like an ox-tongue, down to the marbling.  Tastes better though.  Not sure where you think this is all going.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 28 2007,12:13   

Albatrossity2

Quote

Pointing out a single instance where scientists say "I don't know" is not enough to overthrow an explanation which is consistent with millions of other observations.


You are like a Newtonian insisting that all forces could be reduced to gravity. Of course gravity exists. My point is that there probably also is electro-magnetism you know. It doesn't mean that not knowing math behind electro-magnetism means we should dismiss it and hold on gravity even if it explain nothing.

The same for the natural selection. My point is - and not only my of course, there were greater man like me - is that Natural selection is conservative force that just removes extremities and no way play any significant or creative role in evolution.

Mushrooms are better example than the striking coloration and mimicry in butterfly kingdom. Here can darwinists resort to "natural selection" by birds etc... Of course in the case of aposematism and mimicry such an explanation is more claimed than proved. It was thanks Alan Fox who noticed me on the scientific research showing that eyspots on butterflis wing do not scare and deflect  predators as darwinists so self-assuredly claim.

But because mushrooms do not have any significant vision oriented predators such self-assured darwinistic claims can be verified much more easier as for butterflies.

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

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 28 2007,12:20   

Erasmus:

Quote

Internal organs of animals are not colored?  I challenge you to cut your liver out and show me that this is true.  I'm blinded by the tard.


Are they? Do you mean that liver is red, bladder if yellow, lungs blue and the heart is green or what?
Animals coloration is their represanation, colors are there where they can be seen, on the surface.

Another question is if such coloration has any "survival advantage" or serves purely to represantaion of species. Darwinists see everywhere crypsis or aposematism. And this is exactly what I disagree with giving curious cases
of buttefly mimicry and mushroom coloration as examples where natural/sexual selection is not plausible explanation of the coloration.

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

  
BWE



Posts: 1896
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 28 2007,12:26   

Muscaria has a long and honorable tradition of being eaten. The slightly similar looking Pantherina however, has quite short traditions of being eaten. Not that you would be likely to die if you only ate a little. I might not try it though





 
Quote
1730: A Swedish Colonel, Filip Johann von Strahlenberg, who spent 12 years in Siberia as a prisoner of war wrote a book titled "An Historico-Geographical Description of the North and Eastern Parts of Europe and Asia" which includes a detailed description of the practice of ingesting tea made from A. muscaria and the practice of drinking the urine of those who have ingested the mushroom in order to recycle the psychoactive ingredients.

   "The Russians who trade with them [Koryak - a tribe on the Kamchatka peninsula], carry thither a Kind of Mushrooms, called in the Russian Tongue, Muchumor, which they exchange for Squirils, Fox, Hermin, Sable, and other Furs: Those who are rich among them, lay up large Provisions of these Mushrooms, for the Winter. When they make feast, they pour water upon some of these Mushrooms and boil them. They then drink the Liquor, which intoxicates them; The poorer Sort who cannot afford to lay in a Store of these Mushrooms, post themselves on these occasions, round the huts of the rich and watch the opportunity of the guests comind down to make water. And then hold a wooden bowl to receive the urine which they drink off greedily, as having still some virtue of the mushroom in it and by this way they also get drunk." (Wasson 1968, pg 235)
link

VMartin, are you aware that in this statement:  
Quote
You know concept of "self-representation" is based on the visibility. Internal organs of animals are not colored. External very often are. The same for mycelium/fruing body. I have read an opinion that probably as much as 90% of coloration of species have nothing to do with natural selection. If it is right we should reconsider natural selection as "omnipotent" evolutionary force.

B doesn't follow from A?

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2779
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 28 2007,12:37   

Quote (VMartin @ June 28 2007,11:54)
Internal organs of animals are not colored.

V

Please cut out your kidneys or your liver and send me a scan or a photograph. I'm pretty sure that they have some color, and I'm pretty sure that there are valid, tested neo-Darwinian hypotheses that explain those colors.
   
Quote (VMartin @ June 28 2007,12:13)

You are like a Newtonian insisting that all forces could be reduced to gravity. Of course gravity exists. My point is that there probably also is electro-magnetism you know. It doesn't mean that not knowing math behind electro-magnetism means we should dismiss it and hold on gravity even if it explain nothing.

Well, no, that's a pretty bad analogy. I am merely pointing out that one hypothesis for colors in mushrooms (to warn animals that the fruiting bodies are toxic) has been shown to be incorrect. Perhaps you knew this already, but it may be worth pointing out that scientists generate lots of hypotheses that turn out to be incorrect. One invalid hypothesis is no big deal. Get over it.

Secondly, as I asked in my previous message, if you have an alternative testable hypothesis, I'd like to hear it. If you don't have one, or if it isn't testable, then you can keep that to yourself. But your silence on this matter is troubling. So let's try again.

Why don't you give us your explanation of this observation, generate a testable hypothesis, and get busy testing it?

Or if that sounds like too much work, why don't you answer the other question - Do you agree with Davison on common descent?

Thanks in advance for ignoring those questions one more time.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
BWE



Posts: 1896
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 28 2007,12:46   

Can we just ignore vmartin's ravings on this one tiny thread?

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
BWE



Posts: 1896
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 28 2007,12:54   

Speculation is difficult since there is virtually no way to determine a good phylogenic tree for fungi. If you don't know what is related to who, you can't tell what features were inherited and what features developed at what level. The fungi are horrible examples of any kind of evolution for that reason and because even the question of where one organism ends and a new one begins isn't always obvious. We don't know much about mushrooms because they are just weird.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 28 2007,14:20   

Quote (VMartin @ June 28 2007,12:20)
Darwinists see everywhere crypsis or aposematism.

"Darwinist" investigate and test the plausibility of crypsis/aposematism, as in the study you just quoted. Meanwhile, I have yet to see any creationist doing that. You are being dishonest, Martin.  
   
Quote
I disagree with giving curious cases of buttefly mimicry and mushroom coloration as examples where natural/sexual selection is not plausible explanation of the coloration.

Can't you really imagine a natural cause for the coloration of mushrooms, ie other than your [dubious and unexplained] PEH?
In the case of butterflies, the current theory explains the observation very well, but let's not derail this thread.

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 28 2007,14:27   

Quote (BWE @ June 28 2007,12:54)
Speculation is difficult since there is virtually no way to determine a good phylogenic tree for fungi.

Why is that? Molecular markers are not reliable?

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 28 2007,15:03   

A2
Quote

Please cut out your kidneys or your liver and send me a scan or a photograph.


Maybe your liver is as colorfull as a bright picture of Kandinskyi, but surely it is not my case.    

Quote

I am merely pointing out that one hypothesis for colors in mushrooms (to warn animals that the fruiting bodies are toxic) has been shown to be incorrect.


Thank you. That's my point.

Quote

Secondly, as I asked in my previous message, if you have an alternative testable hypothesis, I'd like to hear it. If you don't have one, or if it isn't testable, then you can keep that to yourself. But your silence on this matter is troubling. So let's try again.


My hypothesis are either frontloading or some unknown "internal forces" or Portmann's self-representation. All of them are non-darwinian explanations. They are untestable as well as darwinian explanations are. As far as I know nobody  has "tested" yet that mimicry arouse via Random mutation and Natural selection. It is only a darwinian hypothesis. How would you test that "Natural selection" created polymorhic mimicry of Papillio Dardanus? Your darwinian hypothesis of coloration as outcome of Natural selection is not backed by any experiment even if you think it is.
So you "can keep it for yourself" as well.

Quote

Do you agree with Davison on common descent?


It is forbidden to quote John Davison's thoughts here. On your part it is not correct to ask me questions that misinterpret John Davison thoughts on evolution because it is necessary for me to quote him or to give link to the sites where he addressed the issue. Otherwise your misinterpretation cannot be refuted. But my ban will probably follow imediately in such a case. Unless Wesley R. Elsberry permit me to answer your question quoting Davison's thoughts I will not respond to any questions full of misinterpretation of John ideas like this. I believe you are not a provocateur like Chatfield, but I am preliminary prudent.

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 28 2007,15:50   

Quote

Maybe your liver is as colorfull as a bright picture of Kandinskyi, but surely it is not my case.  


But how can you be SURE, V?

 
Quote

It is forbidden to quote John Davison's thoughts here.


Nonsense. We've already done it. Knock yourself out, V.

 
Quote
On your part it is not correct to ask me questions that misinterpret John Davison thoughts on evolution because it is necessary for me to quote him or to give link to the sites where he addressed the issue.


Coward.

Well how about our questions about who did the designing you posit, and what your 'scenario' is? We're quoting YOU there!

 
Quote

Otherwise your misinterpretation cannot be refuted. But my ban will probably follow imediately in such a case.


It's a simple question, V. Davison said there's no reason to doubt common descent.

Two answers, V:

1) I agree
2) I disagree

Why can't you answer that? What are you so terrified of?

Trust me, we all know your "Wesley will ban me" line is a lie.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2779
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 28 2007,15:58   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 28 2007,15:50)
 Two answers, V:

1) I agree
2) I disagree

Why can't you answer that? What are you so terrified of?

Trust me, we all know your "Wesley will ban me" line is a lie.

Not exactly - Personally I am hoping that it is not a lie.

But I always have unrequited hopes when it comes to whether or not creationists are lying...

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Paul Flocken



Posts: 290
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 28 2007,16:02   

Quote (VMartin @ June 27 2007,13:34)
What are you babbling about ######? What thread? Is it forbidden here to make fun of Meyers and Christine but it is reccomended to denigrate "Javison" in every post however you like? Calm down and go observe your colorful fish-ancestors in aquarium.

At my day job one of my duties is to feed the fish in the lounge(appropriately name The Aquarium Lounge).  Consequently I get to watch fish for a fairly substantial amount of time.  One of the cool things is watching them 'walk' around.  Now I know they are ray finned and not lobe finned fish(Sir Ichy I may need you to confirm this) but I watch them use their pectoral fins to move across the sandy/pebbly bottom.  Watching this leaves me in no doubt that limbs originated in something similar among the ancestors of these fish.

Sincerely,
Paul

--------------
"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie--deliberate, contrived, and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.  Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."-John F. Kennedy

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4519
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: June 28 2007,16:09   

Quote

Trust me, we all know your "Wesley will ban me" line is a lie.


I have warned him in the case of passing on insults from Davison. Telling people that Davison thinks ill of them will get VMartin booted the very next time he does it.

The discussion of technical details, should any be found relevant, in Davison's formal work is OK. So if VMartin or anyone else wants to quote from a peer-reviewed publication of Davison's, there is no issue there.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Paul Flocken



Posts: 290
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 28 2007,16:12   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ June 28 2007,12:05)
Visibility to what?  Slugs?  Bees?  Bats?  

Internal organs of animals are not colored?  I challenge you to cut your liver out and show me that this is true.  I'm blinded by the tard.

Beefsteak fungus looks just like an ox-tongue, down to the marbling.  Tastes better though.  Not sure where you think this is all going.

Could it be assumed that any color is inherent to the material of the internal organ.  External coloration strikes me as being due to pigments that exist for the purpose of changing the otherwise 'natural' color, something missing for internal organs.

Just asking.

--------------
"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie--deliberate, contrived, and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.  Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."-John F. Kennedy

  
BWE



Posts: 1896
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 28 2007,17:12   

Quote (jeannot @ June 28 2007,14:27)
Quote (BWE @ June 28 2007,12:54)
Speculation is difficult since there is virtually no way to determine a good phylogenic tree for fungi.

Why is that? Molecular markers are not reliable?

Well, maybe. This is a sample of what I mean:

Quote
Integrating molecular and morphological data in the systematics of fungi

Parmasto, E.
Department of Mycology, Estonian Agricultural University, Tartu, Estonia

The use of molecular characters in addition to morphological ones, and the use of cladistic methods has remarkably changed our knowledge on the phylogeny of fungi. A single classification, common for all users, which is based on all available data ought to be coined. Classifications using molecular characters (sequencing data a.o.) are in several cases congruent with the present system (of mainly genera). In other cases, due to the widespread parallelism in changes of morphological character states, the new phylogeny hypotheses are different from the classification in current use. In these cases, the main conclusion drawn from the contradiction of molecular and morphological data is that we have to re-evaluate the usefulness of the characters we used. But there are also cases when cladistic analyses based on molecular and morphological characters are giving extremely different topologies of phylogenetic trees. One of the examples is the system of Hymenochaetales (Basidiomycota, Hymenomycetes): if the tree based on rDNA LSU sequence data is accepted, there are almost no synapomorphic morphological characters supporting the branching pattern.
Molecular data taken from the GenBank used for a phylogenetic analysis are in many cases erroneous, mainly due to misidentifications. When only one or some representative species are used to characterize presumably monophyletic genera, the topology of the resulting tree depends on the selection of the species. The number of species included in a study is usually relatively small, causing sampling errors; when additional taxa and species of closely related genera are included, the resulting tree topology is changing. Many studies have been published where no attempts have been made to use combined datasets or to compare molecular data based trees with the morphology-based ones. Studies where changes of morphological characters are mapped on trees obtained using sequence data are surprisingly rare.
Shortly: phylogenetic studies of fungi based on molecular characters are extremely fruitful, but we are only halfway in compiling more or less stable classifications. Until that, the modern trend of using rankless taxonomy and denoting clades arbitrarily is causing some chaos. The so-called Linnean hierarchy is nothing more – and nothing less – than a way of showing the phylogenetic relations between species or species groups in an easily understandable way. A system of organisms is a way of communication between all biologists, not only among taxonomists themselves.

link

(emphasis mine)

Now I'm just a user, I don't do any research but when you genetic folks get it all sorted out, I suspect there will still be unhappy people. If morphology doesn't end up being represented in the final product then the product isn't very darn useful for people who are trying to use field guides.

FWIW.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
BWE



Posts: 1896
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 28 2007,17:27   

Perhaps this makes more sense:
Quote
Molecular systematic studies of the Agaricales have radically transformed our interpretations of the evolution and classification of gilled mushrooms and their relatives (Hibbett et al. 1997; Moncalvo et al. 2000, 2002; Matheny et al. 2006). The overwhelming majority of species produces fruit bodies with gills (lamellae), but the evolution of gills has arisen numerous times in the Agaricomycetes (Hibbet et al. 1997). Likewise, multiple lineages of “gasteromycetes” (puffballs, bird’s nest fungi, false truffles), species that produce spores in an enclosed fruiting structure, have evolved independently among the Agaricales (Peintner et al. 2001). Studies by Bodensteiner et al. (2004), Larsson et al. (2004), and Binder et al. (2005) have shown that some non-gilled fungi, including reduced or cup-like (cyphelloid) forms and crustose or resupinate forms, share their evolutionary histories with numerous lineages of Agaricales, including some lineages that evolved in aquatic or marine environments (Binder et al. 2001; Hibbett and Binder 2001; Binder et al. 2006). In short, the gross morphology of mushroom fruit bodies is highly plastic and often a poor phylogenetic indicator. These and other studies demonstrated that a broad concept of Agaricales (Singer 1986), including boletes, some polypores, and the genera Russula, Lactarius and their allies, does not form a monophyletic group. Thus, the clade containing predominantly genera and families from the suborder Agaricineae (Singer 1986) was labeled the euagarics clade and represents what we currently regard as the Agaricales (Moncalvo et al. 2002). Most family-level relationships based on morphological characters are artificial, but progress is being made to delimit higher-level monophyletic groups with multiple gene data sets (Matheny 2005; Aime et al. 2005; Hofstetter et al. 2002; Binder et al. 2006). Remarkably, new species and genera continue to be described or placed in the order by molecular phylogenetic analyses.
the agarics. Above the agarics isn't much better either but these pages are worth a read.

Molecular markers are more accurate for the mycologist who needs a name but for research on growth, chemical properties, ecological issues and etc. or for amateur mushroom enthusiasts, the fact that morphology is rarely related to molecularly derived phylogenetic trees can be a bit frustrating.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 29 2007,10:08   

Paul Flocken

Quote

Could it be assumed that any color is inherent to the material of the internal organ.  External coloration strikes me as being due to pigments that exist for the purpose of changing the otherwise 'natural' color, something missing for internal organs.


This is very good point. It represents the view of Adolf Portmann very well. The coloration as "addressed phenomenon" is for the others.

The question is what's the source of coloration. In the case of mushrooms it is not Natural selection obviously. Darwinists here agreed with it reluctantly too. But they claim with one breath that mushrooms are only some kind of exception. Of course mushrooms are not exceptions. Exceptions are cases where Natural selection can be considered as source of coloration. I have stated that development of 90% of coloration of extant species has nothing to do with Natural selection but with other, non-darwinian forces. Darwinists have pretended that the opposite is true having no support for their suppositon either - except belief to darwinism.

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

  
  215 replies since June 26 2007,15:36 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (8) < 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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