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. 21 2007,11:31   

This is the picture of the Issoria lathonia, where  the reverse side of the butterfly wings can be observed:



The color patterns of front wings and hind wings make perfect harmony. But only in these resting position of wings, when the front wings are behind hind wings. We see only small parts of reverse side of front wings. The hided, covered part of them have almost the same coloration as front parts of butterfly wings coloration.



Do you see the white spots on the upper margin at the front wings? There are many black spots on wings which look like copy of spots on the upper part of wings.

So the harmony arise only in special position of wings. It seems like an artist painted the pattern in this exactly position. The phenomenon - neglected nowadays - is called after entomologist Oudemanse (or die Totalzeichnung, the term coined by Suffert) .

We often see animal coloration making the whole nice picture. This picture "is painted" over many parts of animal body which developes independently during ontogenesis.

Heikertinger considered "natural selection" as totally wrong explanatin of the phenomenon conceived in heads of "Hypothetiker" as he called proponents of natural selection.

I couldn't find a picture  of Papilio dolicaon where he made his issue about the Oudemanse effect. There are semi-circles on its front and hind wings that fit into each other and create circles in the resting position of wings. It is hardly imaginable (if you are not a darwinist of course) that predators left only those individuals where circles were perfect and eliminated all those individuals, which didn't create perfect circles. It would mean that predators have also some aesthetical feeling.

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2007,11:43   

Aw, Martin, is this your way of avoiding the other questions waiting for you?   :(

--------------
"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

  
Occam's Toothbrush



Posts: 554
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2007,11:44   

Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 21 2007,12:31)
This is the picture of the Issoria lathonia, where  the reverse side of the butterfly wings can be observed:



The color patterns of front wings and hind wings make perfect harmony. But only in these resting position of wings, when the front wings are behind hind wings. We see only small parts of reverse side of front wings. The hided, covered part of them have almost the same coloration as front parts of butterfly wings coloration.



Do you see the white spots on the upper margin at the front wings? There are many black spots on wings which look like copy of spots on the upper part of wings.

So the harmony arise only in special position of wings. It seems like an artist painted the pattern in this exactly position. The phenomenon - neglected nowadays - is called after entomologist Oudemanse (or die Totalzeichnung, the term coined by Suffert) .

We often see animal coloration making the whole nice picture. This picture "is painted" over many parts of animal body which developes independently during ontogenesis.

Heikertinger considered "natural selection" as totally wrong explanatin of the phenomenon conceived in heads of "Hypothetiker" as he called proponents of natural selection.

I couldn't find a picture  of Papilio dolicaon where he made his issue about the Oudemanse effect. There are semi-circles on its front and hind wings that fit into each other and create circles in the resting position of wings. It is hardly imaginable (if you are not a darwinist of course) that predators left only those individuals where circles were perfect and eliminated all those individuals, which didn't create perfect circles. It would mean that predators have also some aesthetical feeling.

VMartin can't understand how a particular butterfly evolved to look the way it does, therefore goddidit.

--------------
"Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life" --Creo nut Robert Byers
------
"You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?" --Anger Management Problem Concern Troll "Kris"

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2007,11:46   

Quote

VMartin can't understand how a particular butterfly evolved to look the way it does, therefore goddidit.


No, that's the fun part: VMartin can't understand how a particular butterfly evolved to look the way it does, therefore he refuses to tell you what he thinks really happened.

He has no solutions to anything, but he sure hates him some Darwinists.

--------------
"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

  
Henry J



Posts: 4078
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2007,12:12   

It's not as though the chemical that causes the coloration might have other effects of some benefit to the organism, or that the genes responsible might be linked to other genes, or that the impact of the pigment on number of descentdants might be small enough that genetic drift could produce variety.

After all, anybody claiming that coloration is a problem for current theory would have already been thorough about ruling out those hypotheses, right?

Henry

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1365
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2007,12:59   

Quote
the Oudemanse effect


Well, it had to happen. VMartin plays his trump card.

What can you say to the Oudemanse effect?

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1365
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2007,13:07   

I think I can counter with the Fibonacci phenomenon. Have you ever looked, I mean really looked, at the arrangement of leaves in a globe artichoke?

  
JonF



Posts: 571
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2007,17:23   

Quote (Alan Fox @ Sep. 21 2007,14:07)
I think I can counter with the Fibonacci phenomenon. Have you ever looked, I mean really looked, at the arrangement of leaves in a globe artichoke?

Like, wow, man ... deep!

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2007,12:33   

You have never heard about Oudemanse and after him called phenomenon of the total coloration of animals ("Totalzeichnung"). That's why Alan pursued me - instead of making his own research - to ISCID with his questions.  

Because you didn't find any information using google the phenomenon apparently does not exist for you.  

But you should learn more about how to use google:

Quote

The independence of pattern formation mechanisms means that the coordination of united patterns of fore- and hindwings is accidental. This is remarkable, because from Oudemans’s principle [10] , patterns appearing on the exposed surface of fore- and hindwing at the natural resting position are often integrated to form a composite and united adaptive pattern with their surrounding environment.



http://www.springerlink.com/content/nu62h0580t697hn6/


Quote

VMartin can't understand how a particular butterfly evolved to look the way it does, therefore goddidit.


But we are pretty sure naturalselectiondidnotdoit.

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2007,12:47   

Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 24 2007,12:33)
But we are pretty sure naturalselectiondidnotdoit.

oldmanintheskydidntdoit asks if naturalselectiondidnotdoit then whatdiddoit?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2007,15:46   

Yes, Martin, what is your alternate explanation?

--------------
"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

  
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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,14:00   

Marty, you seem to really hate Darwinism for some reason, but you have yet to tell us what YOUR preferred explanation is. Why are you too afraid to do this?

PS: Just FYI, 'uf' isn't English.

PS2: No surprise, little Martin has been scared away *again*:

Quote
31 guests, 15 Public Members and 2 Anonymous Members   [ View Complete List ]
>Arden Chatfield >oldmanintheskydidntdoit >Albatrossity2 >Thought Provoker >creeky belly >Nerull >Tracy P. Hamilton >Gunthernacus >Richardthughes >factician >JohnW >Altabin >George >blipey >J-Dog


--------------
"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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,14:32   

i don't think VMartin is necessarily saying goddidit.

he is saying what the german school attempted to say during the early part of the 20th century, that there are channels of development.  some like eimer admitted that these could be a result of selection.  as far as i can tell from reading gould, eimer did search for material causes and was not positing supernatural or design explanations.  it's just an old rehash of the formalist/structuralist vs adaptationist/selectionist debate, not an argument for design per se.

of course, where did these channels come from was a question that some of the german school appealed to mystical forces to answer.

so, martin, you are not persuaded of weismanns view of selection.  where do orthogenetic channels come from?

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,14:40   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Sep. 26 2007,14:32)
i don't think VMartin is necessarily saying goddidit.

he is saying what the german school attempted to say during the early part of the 20th century, that there are channels of development.  some like eimer admitted that these could be a result of selection.  as far as i can tell from reading gould, eimer did search for material causes and was not positing supernatural or design explanations.  it's just an old rehash of the formalist/structuralist vs adaptationist/selectionist debate, not an argument for design per se.

of course, where did these channels come from was a question that some of the german school appealed to mystical forces to answer.

so, martin, you are not persuaded of weismanns view of selection.  where do orthogenetic channels come from?

Quote
he is saying what the german school attempted to say during the early part of the 20th century, that there are channels of development.  some like eimer admitted that these could be a result of selection.  as far as i can tell from reading gould, eimer did search for material causes and was not positing supernatural or design explanations.  it's just an old rehash of the formalist/structuralist vs adaptationist/selectionist debate, not an argument for design per se.


Maybe. But if so, I don't know why he refuses to say so.

--------------
"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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,17:08   

cause it is easier to play jester that way.

i don't think he will find his panselectionist boogey man here, but it is fun to yank his chain.

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,19:28   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Sep. 26 2007,17:08)
cause it is easier to play jester that way.

i don't think he will find his panselectionist boogey man here, but it is fun to yank his chain.

He still hasn't answered the question about common descent, tho. I have no intention of letting him off the hook on that one.

--------------
"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

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2007,12:31   

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 26 2007,17:08)
cause it is easier to play jester that way.

i don't think he will find his panselectionist boogey man here, but it is fun to yank his chain.

Erasmus, do you agree that natural selection play no role in aposematism and mimicry? That's great!

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

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2007,12:43   

Troll.

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2007,13:17   

Quote (guthrie @ Sep. 27 2007,12:43)
Troll.

Do you have any opinion on aposematism or mimicry? Are they caused by natural selection on your view?

Do you think that wasps are protected by their "warning coloration"?

Or do you just present your superioir manner having no idea about the problem?

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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2007,14:45   

No, I don't agree that 'no role' is even the issue.  We are discussing the relative importance of selection and internal constraints.  And I think you know that which is why you refuse to address the question.

One More Time:

Now, where the hell do orthogenetic channels come from?  Are they material in origin, or not?  

You have misrepresented even your own literary sources to make assertions that natural selection plays no role in coloration.  There are two questions here, namely 1) origin of patterning and 2) fixation of patterning in populations.  

You routinely jump between questions 1 and 2 either because you are dishonest or because you don't even understand what you are [not] saying.  answer the questions.

[stage whisper]  me thinks VMartin is Alan Sokal in deep cover.

--------------
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: Sep. 27 2007,15:14   

Erasmus, what the hell are you talking about? I haven't claimed that behind mimicry there are "orthogenetic channels".


Why don't you answer a simple question and why do you put your off-topic questions instead like poor Arden?

Are so you afraid accepting "natural selection" as the source of mimicry? I have supposed that you are a selectionist...

But to be clear: "warning coloration" of wasps and ladybugs do not exists actually. It exists only as armchair darwinian preconception in heads and in "primary literature" of darwinists. They need  to explain bright coloration of insects. So they see aposematism and mimicry everywhere. They consider their fantasies about coloration to be real. They suppose "warning coloration" to be outcome of "natural selection" that gives their bearer "survival advantage".

Of course such fantasies about ladybugs, wasps, bees, bumple-bees etc. contradicts reality. But oddly enough such fantasies still penetrate into peer-reviewed journals, publications etc...

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2007,15:15   

Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 27 2007,15:14)
Erasmus, what the hell are you talking about? I haven't claimed that behind mimicry there are "orthogenetic channels".


Why don't you answer a simple question and why do you put your off-topic questions instead like poor Arden?

Are so you afraid accepting "natural selection" as the source of mimicry? I have supposed that you are a selectionist...

But to be clear: "warning coloration" of wasps and ladybugs do not exists actually. It exists only as armchair darwinian preconception in heads and in "primary literature" of darwinists. They need  to explain bright coloration of insects. So they see aposematism and mimicry everywhere. They consider their fantasies about coloration to be real. They suppose "warning coloration" to be outcome of "natural selection" that gives their bearer "survival advantage".

Of course such fantasies about ladybugs, wasps, bees, bumple-bees etc. contradicts reality. But oddly enough such fantasies still penetrate into peer-reviewed journals, publications etc...

The real answer, of course, is that the "designer" simply likes things to be pretty.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2007,15:22   

VMartin more dishonesty.  Every appeal to anti-selection you have made has been straight from the german school.  This school has two camps:  materialist and mystic.

Where does aposematic coloration come from?  

Remember this is two questions:  I think you are interested in the primary (from where does the coloration or patterning arise).  This is not a selective issue.  Your antiselectionist lit examples (convenient how your best stuff 'is not available in english', eh?) that i am familiar with posit channels or furrows of development that are more or less hard wired.  

The question 'how does mimicry become fixed in populations' is clearly answered by selection.  While I could be convinced otherwise and sometimes have, I find it hard to believe you could be so thick as to deny this.

So, back to the question.  Where does aposematic coloration come from?  I wanna hear it.  Mind precedes matter and butterflies think it into existence?  Or is it a spandrel?

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

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1365
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2007,15:22   

Quote
Of course such fantasies about ladybugs, wasps, bees, bumple-bees etc. contradicts reality. But oddly enough such fantasies still penetrate into peer-reviewed journals, publications etc...


And your alternative explanation to random mutation and natural selection is - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -*

(*please fill in blank)

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2007,15:24   

VMartin

Why do hybrid butterflies exhibit intergrading wing patterns?

(see Heliconias, Lyceades)

If it is heritable it is selectable, buffoon.

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2007,17:10   

Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 27 2007,13:17)
Quote (guthrie @ Sep. 27 2007,12:43)
Troll.

Do you have any opinion on aposematism or mimicry? Are they caused by natural selection on your view?

Do you think that wasps are protected by their "warning coloration"?

Or do you just present your superioir manner having no idea about the problem?

'Projection', Marty. Look it up in your English-Slovak dictionary.

For a person who hates Darwinism but has absolutely nothing to offer instead, you're not in the position to be bitching here, dimwit.

--------------
"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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2007,17:11   

Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 27 2007,15:14)
But to be clear: "warning coloration" of wasps and ladybugs do not exists actually. It exists only as armchair darwinian preconception in heads and in "primary literature" of darwinists. They need  to explain bright coloration of insects. So they see aposematism and mimicry everywhere. They consider their fantasies about coloration to be real. They suppose "warning coloration" to be outcome of "natural selection" that gives their bearer "survival advantage".

Have an alternate explanation, dipshit?

Didn't think so.

--------------
"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

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2007,17:18   

Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 27 2007,13:17)
Quote (guthrie @ Sep. 27 2007,12:43)
Troll.

Do you have any opinion on aposematism or mimicry? Are they caused by natural selection on your view?

Do you think that wasps are protected by their "warning coloration"?

Or do you just present your superioir manner having no idea about the problem?

Variation and natural selection, of course.  

I call you a troll because you continually fail to communicate your side of the argument, guaranteeing that well meaning people will waste time trying to work out what you are on about.  (or alternatively laughing at you)

So, want to try again to explain what you are talking about?

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2007,17:25   

Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 27 2007,15:14)
Erasmus, what the hell are you talking about? I haven't claimed that behind mimicry there are "orthogenetic channels".

You haven't claimed anything actually, except "darwinism can't explain...".
We're trying to guess what your theory is, but you're not helping.  ???

  
  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]