RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (13) < 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... >   
  Topic: Coloration of animals, mimicry, aposematism, Is really natural selection behind it?< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2007,11:08   

Martin, you're a pathetic fraud. We're tired of your whiny bitching about how wicked Darwinists are, and your refusal to answer questions. STFU and go back to brownnosing Davison and leave the science to the grownups.

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

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2007,11:15   

Quote (VMartin @ Oct. 12 2007,12:05)
The poor darwinist is either an ignorant or a hypocrite. He is only comparing some similarities from transformation sequences.

You're completely disregarding location (among other things).  Meditate on that for a while.

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2007,11:42   

Quote (VMartin @ Oct. 12 2007,11:05)
By comparing color patterns of whole  insect families we can often immediately dismiss many cases of mimicry as it is presented by darwinists. We are often facing convergent evolution or pure coincidence and not "mimicry".

So write it up in a paper, get it peer reviewed and publish it.

Or you could publish in ISCID's journal? I hear they are looking for new papers, and have been for some time.

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

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2007,12:09   

Quote (improvius @ Oct. 12 2007,11:15)
   
Quote (VMartin @ Oct. 12 2007,12:05)
The poor darwinist is either an ignorant or a hypocrite. He is only comparing some similarities from transformation sequences.

You're completely disregarding location (among other things).  Meditate on that for a while.

Am I? One of the prominent founding fathers of selectionist's explanation of "mimicry" Poulton was of different opinion. He considered Limenitis albomaculata which lives in West China and their models - males Hypolimnas misippus - which lives in southeast Asia to be model and mimic.

http://main2.amu.edu.pl/~skoracka/china/tn_49.html

http://www.inra.fr/papillon/papilion/nymphali/texteng/h_misipp.htm

And his explanation of the "mimicry"? Unspecified migratory birds!
Would you believe it?

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2007,12:35   

Quote (VMartin @ Oct. 12 2007,12:09)
And his explanation of the "mimicry"? Unspecified migratory birds!
Would you believe it?

what's your explanation?

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

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2007,12:43   

Quote (VMartin @ Oct. 12 2007,13:09)
Am I? One of the prominent founding fathers of selectionist's explanation of "mimicry" Poulton was of different opinion. He considered Limenitis albomaculata which lives in West China and their models - males Hypolimnas misippus - which lives in southeast Asia to be model and mimic.

http://main2.amu.edu.pl/~skoracka/china/tn_49.html

http://www.inra.fr/papillon/papilion/nymphali/texteng/h_misipp.htm

And his explanation of the "mimicry"? Unspecified migratory birds!
Would you believe it?

Instead of arguing against and misrepresenting a paper from a century ago, why don't you take a look at the recent frog example I posted?

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2007,14:53   

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 07 2007,10:03)
Martin

go here for someone who has reviewed the cases of spiders that are ant mimics.  If you are at the public library computer you may be able to download it, but if you are sitting under the bushes in your neighbors backyard pirating bandwith from their wireless you may not get JSTOR.  

but simply put there is a shitpile of evidence for morphological and behavioral mimicry adaptations.  

and you still never said WHAT YOUR OPINION IS about how mimicry arises.  Dishonest asshole.

Erasmus, are you sleeping or what? You have called me "an idiot" and "asshole", do you remember cretine?  I have read your article. Let's discuss it. It is not necessary to have access to JSTOR cretine, everybody could read it here:

http://www.fcla.edu/FlaEnt/fe80p165.pdf  

So according the article spiders are mimicking ants only when there are no predators present. It is very weird, isn't it?

     
Quote

Ants, when disturbed, tend to respond aggressively to the threat, whereas spiders tend to dodge the threat, hiding beneath a leaf or in a crevice, or dropping on a drag line. It has been noted that spider myrmecomorphs, which are also behavioral mimics, abandon their ant-like gait when disturbed (Emerton 1911, Marson 1947, Fowler 1984, Brignoli 1984). This sudden, unexpected change in the behavior of the spider would most likely facilitate its escape from an ant predator.


I would say if they didn't use an ant-like gait at all it would give them even more protection, he?

This sentence is also very interesting:

     
Quote

However, myrmecophiles may not mimic their hosts in any way and may simply be tolerated by their otherwise aggressive hosts because they are either neutral in odor or are below some critical size to be recognized by the hosts as intruders (Cushing 1995a).


So, there is no reason to mimic ants to be tolerated by ants in their colonies? Why the "mimicry"?

The fig.1 is also interesting. What species of ants are those spiders mimicking?

     
Quote

In many cases, the extent to which the mimics resemble a particular model is extraordinary (see Fig. 1).


Maybe. But what models has the author on her mind? You know, I would like to see them.

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2007,16:01   

'Cretine' isn't a word, Marty.

Dictionaries are your friend, Marty.

So, our lovable little creationist troll, what is YOUR explanation of what's really going on with mimicry?

Any idea?

Oh, and do you agree with Davison that God is now dead?

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

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2007,16:05   

Quote (VMartin @ Oct. 12 2007,15:53)
So according the article spiders are mimicking ants only when there are no predators present. It is very weird, isn't it?

     
Quote

Ants, when disturbed, tend to respond aggressively to the threat, whereas spiders tend to dodge the threat, hiding beneath a leaf or in a crevice, or dropping on a drag line. It has been noted that spider myrmecomorphs, which are also behavioral mimics, abandon their ant-like gait when disturbed (Emerton 1911, Marson 1947, Fowler 1984, Brignoli 1984). This sudden, unexpected change in the behavior of the spider would most likely facilitate its escape from an ant predator.


I would say if they didn't use an ant-like gait at all it would give them even more protection, he?

You are misunderstanding the article.  The spiders mimic ants when there are no ant predators present.  When a predator is present that specifically feeds on ants, the spiders change their signals to indicate that they are not ants.

I pointed this out days ago, but apparently you never bothered to read my post.

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2007,00:55   

Quote (improvius @ Oct. 12 2007,16:05)
 
Quote (VMartin @ Oct. 12 2007,15:53)
So according the article spiders are mimicking ants only when there are no predators present. It is very weird, isn't it?

         
Quote

Ants, when disturbed, tend to respond aggressively to the threat, whereas spiders tend to dodge the threat, hiding beneath a leaf or in a crevice, or dropping on a drag line. It has been noted that spider myrmecomorphs, which are also behavioral mimics, abandon their ant-like gait when disturbed (Emerton 1911, Marson 1947, Fowler 1984, Brignoli 1984). This sudden, unexpected change in the behavior of the spider would most likely facilitate its escape from an ant predator.


I would say if they didn't use an ant-like gait at all it would give them even more protection, he?

You are misunderstanding the article.  The spiders mimic ants when there are no ant predators present.  When a predator is present that specifically feeds on ants, the spiders change their signals to indicate that they are not ants.

I pointed this out days ago, but apparently you never bothered to read my post.

I have read your post. The point is this one: spiders are according the article mimicking ants because:

1) they want to eat ants (selectionists speciality: wolf in sheep's clothing among insects hehe)

2) they want deceive predators pretending to be ants.
In this case it is ridiculous to assume that spiders are mimicking ants only when their predators do not observe them.  

Anyway the mess by telling apart myrmecomorphs and myrmecophiles is great. But English division is more simple than German - Wassmann defined three groups.

I was also wrong that author didn't present models in figure 1. The models are listed in tables. Anyway she prudently used terms "putative models".

Some reason of mimcry is very curious - see the column
"Notes on the Natural History of the Mimics".
We can often read this explanation:"mimic running with model". Are they having some running competitions or what?

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

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1357
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2007,06:15   

VMartin

Just wondering why you post here, so I am trying my explanatory filter.

Is it because:

1) You wish to improve your English,

2) You have an alternative theory which better explains examples of apparent mimicry than does RM + NS, and you are soon to enlighten us,

3) You have an innate dislike of evolutionary theory.

As the evidence for 1) is patchy, and the evidence for 2) is non-existent, I am forced to conclude 3). Unless I am falling for the fallacy of not considering the unknown explanation.

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2007,08:33   

Quote (VMartin @ Oct. 13 2007,01:55)
2) they want deceive predators pretending to be ants.
In this case it is ridiculous to assume that spiders are mimicking ants only when their predators do not observe them.

I suspect you're being intentionally obtuse here.

The spiders mimic ants, which keeps most insectivore predators away.

Any predator that shows interest is likely to be one that prefers ants.

When a predator does show interest, the spider tries to look more like spider.  Since the predator prefers ants, it loses interest in the spider.

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2007,15:14   

Quote

The spiders mimic ants, which keeps most insectivore predators away.


This is only an unproved pressuposition. It is not as clear as it is presented, it is no way  "eternal truth". Do you have any links, any evidence? The same authors you quoted have written also about Myrmarachne another article:

"Out of the Frying Pan and into the Fire: a Novel Trade-Off for Batesian Mimics".

So you can see the problem is more complicated and I would say unresolved yet. There should have been very strong selective pressure driving some spiders towards ants and to look like them.

As to the article itself: some displaying Myrmarachne were eaten neverthenless. Some of them didn't display at all. One should ask - why some individuals didn't display? Individuals that don't display should have been
already eradicated by natural selection. Why they survived, having no reflex when dangerous Salticidae is stalking? Btw. as far as I can judge this experiment has researched something never observed outside, it only wants to prove a hypothesis. Quoting: "...but there are, besides several hundred records of ant-eating salticids eating ants, 14 records of ant-eating salticids eating ant-like salticids". I suppose no displaying Myrmarachne was observed in coutryside.  

The validity of these indoors experiments can be better showed in another reserach done by the same authors:

"Living with the enemy: jumping spiders that mimic weaver ants".

There they put together for 10 hours weaver ants with Myramachne assimilis and different individuals representing Myrmecophagic, Myrmecomorphic, Myrmecophilic and ordinary species . Oddly enough when 40 ants were present  "few salticids survived when confined with groups of 40 ants, regardless of category".

The problem is that all those species in countryside survive very well, even in anthills. So I do not see a point of these researches, except to prove "mimicry"  
in artificial conditions. Results of these experiments sometimes contradicts reality outdoors - but proved "mimicry" as conceived in armchairs of Universities.
All tested species couldn't have acquired any host-specific cuticular hydrocarbons, because individuals used never encountered ants before being tested. The scientists researched if "M. assimilis might have evolved adaptations that make it especially proficient at surviving in the presence of it model even in the absence of opportunity to acquire nest-mates cues."



----------
Another problem is probably division on Myrmecophagic, Myrmecomorphic and Myrmecophilic species. The pre-war German school used different categorization of ant "mimics". We should be aware that also myrmecomorphic probably have to be myrmecophilic (and that's why the whole article the poor Erasmus has given link to should be discussed more deeply) because - according the same authors - "Batesian mimics of ants may be forced to "walk a tightrope", living with the "enemy". They need to be close to the model for safety from other predators but at the same time need to avoid becoming the model prey".

--------

And last but not at least : Heikertinger sometimes repeated such experiments and obtained totally different results. See EvC where admin asked me to traslate it from German. He had made the same experiments with ladybirds and their "victims" as selectionists made. But  I don't claim that the mentioned experiments with ants and spiders are are wrong. Just for a record.

Anyway there are pletny of birds' species that eat ants and it is not sure that being ant's "mimic" is some advantage even though darwinists claim: of cource, it is.

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

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2007,16:54   

Quote (VMartin @ Oct. 15 2007,16:14)
Quote
The spiders mimic ants, which keeps most insectivore predators away.


This is only an unproved pressuposition. It is not as clear as it is presented, it is no way  "eternal truth". Do you have any links, any evidence?


You mean besides the obvious fact that ants have aggressive defense mechanisms and are full of tasty (read: not tasty at all) formic acid?  Yes: Vision-based innate aversion to ants and ant mimics

Quote
As to the article itself: some displaying Myrmarachne were eaten neverthenless. Some of them didn't display at all. One should ask - why some individuals didn't display? Individuals that don't display should have been
already eradicated by natural selection. Why they survived, having no reflex when dangerous Salticidae is stalking?

This is all entirely irrelevant to the question of whether or not ant mimicry will deter predators.  Obviously it does.

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 16 2007,13:24   

Quote (improvius @ Oct. 15 2007,16:54)
   
Quote (VMartin @ Oct. 15 2007,16:14)
   
Quote
The spiders mimic ants, which keeps most insectivore predators away.


This is only an unproved pressuposition. It is not as clear as it is presented, it is no way  "eternal truth". Do you have any links, any evidence?


You mean besides the obvious fact that ants have aggressive defense mechanisms and are full of tasty (read: not tasty at all) formic acid?  Yes: Vision-based innate aversion to ants and ant mimics

     
Quote
As to the article itself: some displaying Myrmarachne were eaten neverthenless. Some of them didn't display at all. One should ask - why some individuals didn't display? Individuals that don't display should have been
already eradicated by natural selection. Why they survived, having no reflex when dangerous Salticidae is stalking?

This is all entirely irrelevant to the question of whether or not ant mimicry will deter predators.  Obviously it does.

Do you mean that Salticids having "high acuity eyes" are the main predators of Myrmarachne? And that "selective pressure" from Salticids has lead to the Myrmarachne mimicry?

Yet another Salticids single out ants as preferred prey (the previous article). In this case ants-like Myrmarachne "display" to deter those salticids - even though dishonestly, because they are innocuous.

So Myrmarachne should be aware what kind of Salticids they are dealing with. "Display" in presence of Salticids with "innate aversion" to ants would cost them their lives.

On the other hand when there are present more than 40 ants they will eat Myrmarachne, ant-eating Salticids, Myrmecomorphs, Myrmecophilic and ordinary species as well, almost everything present.

One should have great fantasy  to see behind this mess "natural selection".

 
Quote

This is all entirely irrelevant to the question of whether or not ant mimicry will deter predators.  Obviously it does.


Would you like me to send here the names of birds' species feeding on ants (and consequently on their "mimics") or would do you make some research at inet yourself?

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 16 2007,13:50   

Quote (VMartin @ Oct. 16 2007,13:24)
One should have great fantasy  to see behind this mess "natural selection".

That's very interesting VMartin. Fascinating.

I can see that natural selection is not the mechanism of choice for you. No doubt you would say that that is indeed a sensible choice and agree with the proposal of an alternative. The alternative which you will elucidate at some point soon. This leads me to my point, via a roundabout almost mendacious path.

As "natural selection" is, as you have so marvelously described, insufficient to create those wonders, then what possible force, being or thing did?  

Can you put a name to it?

VMartin?

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

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 16 2007,13:59   

And just for a record. Males of Myrmarachne assimilis have enormously elongated chelicerae. I am afraid that Salticidae having eight eyes and acute vision  would notice this "trifle". Even human see it at first glance.
So even scientists from above mentioned articles  excluded these males from their experiments.
But the question is: did natural selection forget to form the males chelicerae or what?

http://www.miiz.waw.pl/salticid/diagnost/myrmar/assim-ph.htm

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 16 2007,15:42   

Quote (VMartin @ Oct. 16 2007,13:59)
And just for a record. Males of Myrmarachne assimilis have enormously elongated chelicerae. I am afraid that Salticidae having eight eyes and acute vision  would notice this "trifle". Even human see it at first glance.
So even scientists from above mentioned articles  excluded these males from their experiments.
But the question is: did natural selection forget to form the males chelicerae or what?

http://www.miiz.waw.pl/salticid/diagnost/myrmar/assim-ph.htm

Answer the question, Marty.

Not Natural Selection?

What, then?

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

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2007,08:31   

Quote (VMartin @ Oct. 16 2007,14:24)
Quote
This is all entirely irrelevant to the question of whether or not ant mimicry will deter predators.  Obviously it does.


Would you like me to send here the names of birds' species feeding on ants (and consequently on their "mimics") or would do you make some research at inet yourself?

I will restate:

This is all entirely irrelevant to the question of whether or not ant mimicry will deter some predators.  Obviously it does.

I thought it would be obvious that I was not referring to "all" predators, but apparently I was wrong.

Any thoughts on those frogs yet?

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2007,14:02   

Quote

So even scientists from above mentioned articles  excluded these males from their experiments.
But the question is: did natural selection forget to form the males chelicerae or what?


For the moment, let's pretend you know what you're talking about. You think natural selection failed to "form the males chelicerae".

Fine. What's the solution, since Natural Selection supposedly cannot make these things arouse?

--------------
"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: Oct. 17 2007,14:16   

Quote

I will restate:

This is all entirely irrelevant to the question of whether or not ant mimicry will deter some predators.  Obviously it does.

I thought it would be obvious that I was not referring to "all" predators, but apparently I was wrong.


It would be fine if you gave some researches supporting your belief. Because facts are these:

In Csikis' research of inhalts of stomachs of 2523 birds
ants were found in stomachs of 51 from 60 different birds species from different families.

In stomachs of specialist Picus vividis were found cca 700 pieces of Formica pratensis, Lasius niger 400, 400, 500, 500, 600 and Myrmica laeviondis cca 600.

In perdix perdix were found 250, 250 pieces of Lasius niger.

The almost same results were obtained in Europe,  North America and Tropics.

Groebbels "Der Vogel...Atmungswelt and Nahrughswelt" 234 pages, Berlin 1933.

Ants are readily eaten by birds and there is no reason to suppose that ants' mimics are protected.

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

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2007,14:27   

Quote (VMartin @ Oct. 17 2007,15:16)
Quote

I will restate:

This is all entirely irrelevant to the question of whether or not ant mimicry will deter some predators.  Obviously it does.

I thought it would be obvious that I was not referring to "all" predators, but apparently I was wrong.


It would be fine if you gave some researches supporting your belief. Because facts are these:

In Csikis' research of inhalts of stomachs of 2523 birds
ants were found in stomachs of 51 from 60 different birds species from different families.

In stomachs of specialist Picus vividis were found cca 700 pieces of Formica pratensis, Lasius niger 400, 400, 500, 500, 600 and Myrmica laeviondis cca 600.

In perdix perdix were found 250, 250 pieces of Lasius niger.

The almost same results were obtained in Europe,  North America and Tropics.

Groebbels "Der Vogel...Atmungswelt and Nahrughswelt" 234 pages, Berlin 1933.

Ants are readily eaten by birds and there is no reason to suppose that ants' mimics are protected.

I give up - you're insane.  It's like you're arguing that nobody stops at red lights because there are documented examples of people running red lights.  Any time someone actually does stop at a red light is merely coincidence, and has nothing at all to do with the color of the light.

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2007,14:48   

Quote

I give up - you're insane.  It's like you're arguing that nobody stops at red lights because there are documented examples of people running red lights.  Any time someone actually does stop at a red light is merely coincidence, and has nothing at all to do with the color of the light.


So again my little stupido. In 51 of 60 birds' species were found ants (in 85%). If there are 85% of people running red lights or 85% cars don't give way having red lights then only stupido (and a darwinist of course) could insist red lights are perceived as warning coloration.

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

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2007,15:59   

Quote (VMartin @ Oct. 17 2007,15:48)
Quote

I give up - you're insane.  It's like you're arguing that nobody stops at red lights because there are documented examples of people running red lights.  Any time someone actually does stop at a red light is merely coincidence, and has nothing at all to do with the color of the light.


So again my little stupido. In 51 of 60 birds' species were found ants (in 85%). If there are 85% of people running red lights or 85% cars don't give way having red lights then only stupido (and a darwinist of course) could insist red lights are perceived as warning coloration.

Uh-huh.  And how many of those were weaver ants?

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2007,17:40   

Seriously, Martin, why do you refuse to ever offer up any kind of preferred alternative to 'Darwinism'?

--------------
"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: Oct. 18 2007,13:31   

Aphaenops vandeli


Aphaenops pluto



These "ants" are in fact cavernous beetles, I suppose they are blind. They probably have never met ants in their life. But neverthenless if a darwinist saw similar looking species in proximity of ants he would persuade small children about how predators or natural selection created "extraordinary ants' mimics".

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

  
Steviepinhead



Posts: 532
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2007,14:16   

Vmaroon?

In murriken ynglush, does "cavernous" mean "cave-dwelling," as opposed to its usual meaning of "big and empty and dark like a cave" (the movie theater seemed cavernous and spooky with so few people inside it)?

I know you won't answer, because your translation program hasn't worked its way back from zed to A yet, but I thought I'd ask, just to preserve my place in the Unanswered Questions queu...

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2007,05:06   

I just came across this study:
Evolution (OnlineEarly Articles).
doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.2007.00219.x
SPATIAL DIFFERENTIATION FOR FLOWER COLOR IN THE DESERT ANNUAL LINANTHUS PARRYAE: WAS WRIGHT RIGHT?
Douglas W. Schemske and Paulette Bierzychudek
 
Quote
Understanding the evolutionary mechanisms that contribute to the local genetic differentiation of populations is a major goal of evolutionary biology, and debate continues regarding the relative importance of natural selection and random genetic drift to population differentiation. The desert plant Linanthus parryae has played a prominent role in these debates, with nearly six decades of empirical and theoretical work into the causes of spatial differentiation for flower color. Plants produce either blue or white flowers, and local populations often differ greatly in the frequencies of the two color morphs. Sewall Wright first applied his model of "isolation by distance" to investigate spatial patterns of flower color in Linanthus. He concluded that the distribution of flower color morphs was due to random genetic drift, and that Linanthus provided an example of his shifting balance theory of evolution. Our results from comprehensive field studies do not support this view. We studied an area in which flower color changed abruptly from all-blue to all-white across a shallow ravine. Allozyme markers sampled across these regions showed no evidence of spatial differentiation, reciprocal transplant experiments revealed natural selection favoring the resident morph, and soils and the dominant members of the plant community differed between regions. These results support the hypothesis that local differences in flower color are due to natural selection, not due to genetic drift.

I know it's partially off-topic (coloration in plants, not animals), but this study is one among many showing that selection can favor different colors in flowers.

EDIT: In that case, pollinators, which are the usual suspected factors of color selection, show no preference for either coloration. That didn't prevent researchers to test and verify the hypothesis of local selection. Have you learnt anything, Martin?

There are also those interesting examples of mimicry between plants. Morph frequencies in the field are very well explained by (gasp!) natural selection.

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2007,13:44   

Darwinian fanatic Steviepinhead:

As I supposed "cavern" comes from Latin caverna.
So as majority of English words it comes from Latin. It's not my fault you cannot underestand words from any other language as English. Even French use the word "cavernicoles":

http://speleoclpa.free.fr/biospeleo/pages/biospeologie5.htm

Maybe Alan Fox could translate those sentences.

Heikertinger used in German "Kavernikolenhabitus".
It means beetles which live in caverns, you know. Unfortunatelly there are no pictures of beetles from Bosnia-Hertzegovina  - Parantrophilon spelaebatoides etc. which look like ants. That's the reason I put in my previous post pictures of some ant-like "cavernicoles" beetles species from France.

You can see that the darwinian conception of ant's mimicry is a very dubious idea. There are many beetle species that do not live with ants and neverthenless look like ants. Because they do not have  the same enemies as ants have obviously natural selection do not shaped them. We are facing some transformational sequences of beetles. Obviously ant's mimicry often haunted only in darwinian heads and pinheads.

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

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2007,13:57   

Jeannot,


you wouldn't believe me but I would like to read the whole article how "natural selection" created local differences in flower color of Linanthus parryae! Is it somewhere available for download? It sounds  unbelievable! Took the authors into consideration all evolution and change of flora and fauna or they just focused their attention only to the present fauna on the both side of a ravine?
 
 
Quote

We studied an area in which flower color changed abruptly from all-blue to all-white across a shallow ravine.


This shallow ravine is inpassable or what? Give me the whole article!

--------------
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] 7 8 9 10 11 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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