Antievolution.org - Antievolution.org Discussion Board -Topic::Coloration of animals, mimicry, aposematism

Posted: Nov. 24 2007,22:58

Quote

Could you be more specific? Swallows perhaps? But I am afraid even swallows have been observed to prey upon wasps. So be rather as general as possible so no one could check your neodarwinian claims.

I didn't make a claim, I asked a question.

Besides which, you seem to have answered the question, more or less:

Quote

It's not my fault that every "poisonous aposematic" have dozens predators that do not care about their venoms.

Henry

Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

Posted: Nov. 24 2007,23:41

Marty, see the bathroom wall for an apropos discussion of your line of reasoning.

toodles

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

Posted: Nov. 25 2007,03:14

Erasmus

Obviously you have no arguments. The whole neodarwinian teaching about insects' aposematism is as unsubstantiated as neodarwinism itself.

You got angry because you see that "small survival advantage" and "natural selection" gibberish is a nonsense par excellence in the case.

Perhaps you could give us some explanation of the forces hindering non-controlled proliferation of wasps. If birds and other predators are so afraid of them as you suppose (except a small fraction as you has admitted dialectically - "yes, some birds eat some wasps sometimes".).

Maybe there isn't enough food for them or there are limited amount of insect that wasps oviposit in at meadows and forests? Maybe you have something better.

Never mind if your fantasy isn't good enough to invent some explanation of it. You can preach neodawinian eternal truth at other more friendly threads. Somewhere where nobody doubts about efficency of your beloved "small survival advantages".

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

Alan Fox

Posts: 1556
Joined: Aug. 2005

Posted: Nov. 25 2007,05:54

Quote

Obviously you have no arguments. The whole neodarwinian teaching about insects' aposematism is as unsubstantiated as neodarwinism itself.

I doubt anyone has any argument that is going to change your antipathy to Darwinism. Mind you, your utter inability to produce any coherent argument in support of whatever your alternative is suggests both we and you are all wasting our time. I think you have the bigger hill to climb.

Quote

You got angry because you see that "small survival advantage" and "natural selection" gibberish is a nonsense par excellence in the case.

People are irritated by you because your posts are agenda-based whereas others are interested in evidence.

Quote

Perhaps you could give us some explanation of the forces hindering non-controlled proliferation of wasps. If birds and other predators are as afraid of them as you suppose (except a small fraction as you has admitted dialectically - "yes, some birds eat some wasps sometimes".).

Maybe there isn't enough food for them or there are limited amount of insect that wasps oviposit in at meadows and forests? Maybe you have something better some explanation of it..

What would be the point as you appear uninterested in evolutionary explanations?

Quote

You can preach neodawinian eternal truth at other more friendly threads. Somewhere where nobody doubts about efficency of your beloved "small survival advantages".

I think Erasmus has already told you:

Quote

It's boring to have the same old nonsense rehashed over and over again.

Martin, if I can't verbally abuse you then I don't even want to talk to you anymore.

oldmanintheskydidntdoit

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: Nov. 25 2007,05:57

Quote (VMartin @ Nov. 25 2007,03:14)

Erasmus

Obviously you have no arguments. The whole neodarwinian teaching about insects' aposematism is as unsubstantiated as neodarwinism itself.

You got angry because you see that "small survival advantage" and "natural selection" gibberish is a nonsense par excellence in the case.

Perhaps you could give us some explanation of the forces hindering non-controlled proliferation of wasps. If birds and other predators are so afraid of them as you suppose (except a small fraction as you has admitted dialectically - "yes, some birds eat some wasps sometimes".).

Maybe there isn't enough food for them or there are limited amount of insect that wasps oviposit in at meadows and forests? Maybe you have something better.

Never mind if your fantasy isn't good enough to invent some explanation of it. You can preach neodawinian eternal truth at other more friendly threads. Somewhere where nobody doubts about efficency of your beloved "small survival advantages".

VMartin,
There are some threads at the moment over at http://www.uncommondescent.com/ that could really use your input.

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

Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

Posted: Nov. 25 2007,08:27

Martin, you have never even presented an argument to even dispute over. I'm not mad at you because I have even lower expectations of you than you could ever hope to fulfill.

I am really not interested in exploring your ignorance of evolutionary biology. It's really only fun for gits and shiggles, and I'm over that.

But, you are an interesting case, probably from many perspectives. Certainly the psychological one, and you might want to get that checked out.

But, if you are not a deep deep cover troll, perhaps ghost of paley or some disgruntled castoff former professor at some ag school who no one ever listened to, playing games on the interwebz, and you really are some layman autodidact from croatia just interested in biology, then I want to hear more about this deterministic european orthogenetic view.

But you don't talk about that.

Share your views marty. We've all seen how you are incapable of understanding others.

Quote

Why don't you start a thread about laws in biology? We are all (see every single one of Arden's posts) dying to know what YOU (that's right, YOU, GoP or whoever you are) have concluded from your study of google and conservapedia about the entire edifice of biological investigation. Starting with Neanderthal cave depictions, moving to Lao Tse and Diogenes and Moses and the rest, and then the apex of the culmination of biological thought, David Icke.

If you really are who you say you are, no doubt you have scribbled a handwritten manifesto that is somewhere between a doctrine of heresy and a detailed list of who you would like to see dead the most in science. This is your chance. Since you have absolutely no positive arguments, only semantics and quibbling about experimental designs (all the while whistling past the graveyard that contains 80,000 bird guts that say absolutely nothing about what you wish they said), start a thread that lays out your mechanical idealistic determined conception of the history of life.

Until then, don't bother me with your misunderstandings of selection (that includes your extremely perverted parody of Sewall Wright and Haldane and mathematical models of outbreeding that you have simplified into some tribal cosmology).

and if you won't do that, i'll just have to keep verbally abusing you. kinda of like mowing the lawn or keeping your rear end clean, it's a chore but someone has to do it. well, you might not understand the second example there.

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

Posted: Nov. 25 2007,09:49

Nice to see you Alan.

Your post is only a generall replay of no value - as is a good custom here. Last time you buzzed off when I attacked Jeanot's link about dragonflies. You were very excited, because you had some feeling that ancient dragonflies should have been the selective agent responsible for aposematisms of wasps. It shows up to be a nonsense - dragonflies are not deterred by wasps.

Now you claim that I have given no evidence. You are really amusing. I have given here so many links and so many quotations, but nothing is enough for you - and never will be. You will hold to your hypothesis like a dog to a bone.

Last time I sent an outdoor research 2001 where many different bird species (and no bee-eaters) were described eating wasps. Some of them eat wasps immediately, some of them beat and rub them to get rid of their poisonous sacks.
Many bird species have been observed beating and rubbing wasps but it is not evidence for you.

And - Erasmus caught a fit of anger and chceck it yourself what he had sent. He simply don't want to hear such evidence. It is no evidence according his opinion.

I have also examples and links where mammals were observed eating wasps, but it is of no value apparently. Using them you will call me "ignorant", "psycho", "a retired teacher"or whatever...

You would insist on your "aposematism gives wasps small survival advantage" and no evidence wil persuade you of opposite.

No one here was able to discuss any example of wasps eaters. The only answer you were able to give is this : "Yes there are some birds that eat some wasps sometimes. But it is no evidence." Everything I have sent is "sometimes" for you. But there are too many "sometimes" you know.

You are unable to address the problem of proliferation of wasps if it is not scared predators which check their populations.

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

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Nov. 25 2007,10:16

Marty, why are you incapable of offering an alternative to your much-hated 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

Posted: Nov. 25 2007,10:47

If you don't like evidence proving that wasps have many predators I can offer you another one, more philosophical for discussion - so also Henry can add something.

There is abundance of "imperfect" mimic species of wasps. The simplest explanation seems to me that wasps have so many predators that for their imperfect mimics to look more waspish is even dangerous. Or at least individuals of imperfect mimic species that look more waspish do not change their frequency in population of imperfect mimic species during time. There is obviously counter balancing force hindering spread of their wasping-more-similarity alleles in population. Maybe it it selective pressure of wasps predators they hit upon looking more waspish. Consequently more waspish mimics are eliminated from population. What do you mean (except that I am ignorant as usually)?

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

Richard Simons

Posts: 425
Joined: Oct. 2006

Posted: Nov. 25 2007,10:53

VMartin,
I have been following this thread for a while, and have yet to find out what your alternative is to the theory of evolution. Do you have one? And no, I am not interested in links to places where you link to Davison. I want to learn about your views.

--------------
All sweeping statements are wrong.

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Nov. 25 2007,10:57

That doesn't answer the question, Martin. And you know it doesn't.

Since you think natural selection is Stalinist, what DO you think causes variation in nature? All you've done is disingenous nitpicking, and offer nothing constructive. Oh yes, and to insult the foolish Darwinists, uff.

Okay Marty, the floor is yours: variation in nature is explained by: ____.

Go.

[Fill in the blank.]

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

Alan Fox

Posts: 1556
Joined: Aug. 2005

Posted: Nov. 25 2007,15:20

Quote

Nice to see you Alan.

Well, having dug in well rotted sheep manure into our veg. patch and cooked a nice green thai curry for supper, my wife has unlocked the keyboard for a limited foray.

Quote

Your post is only a generall replay of no value - as is a good custom here.

Oh the irony!

Quote

Last time you buzzed off

Punning in a second language? I commend you (although it might arouse suspicion in those who doubt your Bratislavan credentials)

Quote

when I attacked Jeanot's link about dragonflies. You were very excited, because you had some feeling that ancient dragonflies should have been the selective agent responsible for aposematisms of wasps. It shows up to be a nonsense - dragonflies are not deterred by wasps.

Are you referring to this comment?

Quote

Now you claim that I have given no evidence.

Which you can now refute with a citation or two.

Quote

You are really amusing.

Thanks

Quote

I have given here so many links and so many quotations, but nothing is enough for you - and never will be.

Which you can now demonstrate with a citation or two.

Quote

You will hold to your hypothesis like a dog to a bone.

I do not have a hypothesis, although I am hoping for one for Christmas.

Quote

Last time I sent an outdoor research 2001 where many different bird species (and no bee-eaters) were described eating wasps. Some of them eat wasps immediately, some of them beat and rub them to get rid of their poisonous sacks.

I have never disputed that individual birds may or may not have strategies to deal with wasp stings. Whilst I have never seen such behaviour, I don't doubt it occurs.

Quote

Many bird species have been observed beating and rubbing wasps but it is not evidence for you.

Au contraire, my Slovakian friend, I have never disputed such behaviour. How does it impinge on Darwinian evolution. and how does it better explain your hypothesis? Which is what, by the way?

Assassinator

Posts: 479
Joined: Nov. 2007

Posted: Nov. 25 2007,15:22

Quote

If you don't like evidence proving that wasps have many predators I can offer you another one

Everyone can see that Martin, we're not saying they don't. There is no perfect mimicry, but what's better: imperfect mimicry wich offers some protection against a certain number of predators or no mimicry wich offers no protection against at all. Besides, mimicry is just another form of camouflage.

Posts: 5455
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Nov. 26 2007,13:01

Alrighty,

I'm not entirely sure I understand both sides of this discussion, but as far as I can tell this thread is going around in circles.

So with the caveat that I am not a biologist, but much like VMartin just some dude with a keyboard and an intertube connection, let's see if I can

a. understand, and
b. summarize

the thread thus far and help move things along to something more productive.

Please do not hesitate to correct/educate me if I fail to understand or properly summarize the science involved or the thrust of this thread. In fact, if I'm missing the point I'd appreciate a little help, because I can't for the life of me figure out what the problem is here.

So:

Modern Evolutionary Theory (or whatever the proper name is) currently holds that in certain species, butterflies that develop wing patterns that look unappetizing to predators tend to live long enough to reproduce and pass on their genes to another generation, while butterflies that develop wing patterns that resemble lunch tend to get eaten before they reproduce. In this way, the butterflies in question have evolved populations that look unappetizing to predators.

VMartin on the other hand, contends that this is not how butterflies came to appear the way they do.

Assuming (and I realize how large an assumption this is) that the two statements above are accurate summations of this thread:

VMartin - Do you have an alternate hypothesis for how the coloration of these butterflies has come about, and if so, what is it, how does it work, and how do we test it? What evidence can you present to support your hypothesis?

Again, if I've missed the boat, feel free to throw me a life preserver anyone.

--------------
â€œWhy do creationists have such a hard time with commas?

Linkyâ€œ. ~ Steve Story, Legend

VMartin

Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

Posted: Nov. 26 2007,14:58

First Erasmus

Quote

But, you are an interesting case, probably from many perspectives...
...i'll just have to keep verbally abusing you. kinda of like mowing the lawn or keeping your rear end clean, it's a chore but someone has to do it.

Erasmus also works as a volunteer bus-driver for the "Museum of the Natural selection". He drives children to the Museum of Natural Selection in his free time. He likes to discuss with children what they saw.
"So children how did you like it?"
Small Jane: "I liked department of warning coloration. There were so many colourful animals. But I was surprised to hear that birds are afraid of wasps.
I have seen birds eating and attacking wasps in our garden. "
Erasmus: "Of course. You know some birds eat sometimes wasps. But only sometimes. Sometimes. Remember it."
("What an annoying girl" he thinks for himself).
Small John: "I liked department of mimicry. But why there were so many imperfect mimics of wasps? Spieces looking more waspish would obtain more protection, wouldn´t they uncle bus driver?

Erasmus: "What the hell is going on ? Are you all European creationists or what? Stupid small German mystics!"

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

Assassinator

Posts: 479
Joined: Nov. 2007

Posted: Nov. 26 2007,15:05

If you would actually KNOW what's being sad here, you would know you're talking out of your ass.
The question is still open though:
If natural selection does not explain mimicry, what does then? What's another viable, testable hypotheses?

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Nov. 26 2007,15:07

I think we should step back and let VMartin answer Lou FCD's questions.

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

Posts: 5455
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Nov. 26 2007,15:12

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Nov. 26 2007,16:07)

I think we should step back and let VMartin answer Lou FCD's questions.

Thanks Arden, I'd appreciate that.

--------------
â€œWhy do creationists have such a hard time with commas?

Linkyâ€œ. ~ Steve Story, Legend

Posts: 5455
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Nov. 26 2007,15:43

Quote (VMartin @ Nov. 26 2007,15:58)

First Erasmus

Quote

But, you are an interesting case, probably from many perspectives...
...i'll just have to keep verbally abusing you. kinda of like mowing the lawn or keeping your rear end clean, it's a chore but someone has to do it.

Erasmus also works as a volunteer bus-driver for the "Museum of the Natural selection". He drives children to the Museum of Natural Selection in his free time. He likes to discuss with children what they saw.
"So children how did you like it?"
Small Jane: "I liked department of warning coloration. There were so many colourful animals. But I was surprised to hear that birds are afraid of wasps.
I have seen birds eating and attacking wasps in our garden. "
Erasmus: "Of course. You know some birds eat sometimes wasps. But only sometimes. Sometimes. Remember it."
("What an annoying girl" he thinks for himself).
Small John: "I liked department of mimicry. But why there were so many imperfect mimics of wasps? Spieces looking more waspish would obtain more protection, wouldn´t they uncle bus driver?

Erasmus: "What the hell is going on ? Are you all European creationists or what? Stupid small German mystics!"

VMartin,

I found this comment entirely unhelpful in the discussion of a topic which you yourself started. I have asked for your assistance in understanding what this discussion hinges upon generally and your alternative to current Evolutionary Theory specifically.

Rather than assist in the furtherance of discussion of your ideas, you have again chosen to simply duck a rather straightforward attempt to understand just what you are proposing, and then log off and bug out.

Unless I'm mistaken, this tactic can accurately be described as "drive-by trolling".

Please take the opportunity to address my previous comments and questions with your very next comment or find another bridge.

Thanks,

Lou

--------------
â€œWhy do creationists have such a hard time with commas?

Linkyâ€œ. ~ Steve Story, Legend

Assassinator

Posts: 479
Joined: Nov. 2007

Posted: Nov. 26 2007,15:44

A fresh start would be a good idea indeed, I'm waiting like a little boy who is waiting for Christmas :)

Henry J

Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

Posted: Nov. 26 2007,15:58

Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 26 2007,12:01)

Alrighty,
[...]
Again, if I've missed the boat, feel free to throw me a life preserver anyone.

That's the generally idea, near as I can tell. There's also the point that the coloration or mimicry (or any other defensive mechanism, for that matter) might be effective against only one or a few predators - i.e., the critter still gets eaten by the others. Another point is that most defenses are not 100%, in which case it only reduces the damage by that predator, it doesn't elimiate it entirely.

A third point that might or might not have been mentioned as yet (I don't recall seeing it), is that selection of a defense doesn't necessarily even mean that fewer of the species get eaten, just that those with less of the defense get eaten more, and those with more of it get eaten less. So it's more or less a case of less is more. (heh heh)

Henry

Posts: 5455
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Nov. 26 2007,16:18

Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 26 2007,16:58)

Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 26 2007,12:01)

Alrighty,
[...]
Again, if I've missed the boat, feel free to throw me a life preserver anyone.

That's the generally idea, near as I can tell. There's also the point that the coloration or mimicry (or any other defensive mechanism, for that matter) might be effective against only one or a few predators - i.e., the critter still gets eaten by the others. Another point is that most defenses are not 100%, in which case it only reduces the damage by that predator, it doesn't elimiate it entirely.

A third point that might or might not have been mentioned as yet (I don't recall seeing it), is that selection of a defense doesn't necessarily even mean that fewer of the species get eaten, just that those with less of the defense get eaten more, and those with more of it get eaten less. So it's more or less a case of less is more. (heh heh)

Henry

Thank you Henry. I appreciate knowing that I'm at least on the right track, and I kinda figured that it was somewhat more nuanced and subtle (hence the "tend to"s in my comment).

One of the traits that JanieBelle inherited directly from me is the desire to break down the intricacies to silly, simple examples such as her analogies involving Snuffleupagi and Transgendered Purple Octopus Aliens from 55 Cancri (aka The TraPOA). It helps for me to understand all the subtleties and nuances of the extreme close-up if I first understand the generalities of the big picture.

With all that in mind, let me reiterate:

VMartin - Do you have an alternate hypothesis for how the coloration of these butterflies has come about, and if so, what is it, how does it work, and how do we test it? What evidence can you present to support your hypothesis?

Please take the opportunity to address my comments and questions with your very next comment or find another bridge.

--------------
â€œWhy do creationists have such a hard time with commas?

Linkyâ€œ. ~ Steve Story, Legend

Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

Posted: Nov. 26 2007,20:01

Lou I would just add, on my break from driving the kiddies on the bus to the Selection Museum, that there are really two issues here and we would all be better off to set them apart.

A: 'How do traits like mimicry arise (arouse)?'

B: 'Can selection maintain mimic phenotypes in a population'

Note that Martin has routinely conflated the two. All that I have ever positively argued here (and I think this covers the objections from all other participants) is that the answer to B is yes, and that we have good mathematical models that explain this type of selection.

Martin's example is not any sort of rigorous analysis but an anecdotal account of bird stomachs that cannot be successfully utilized to argue either position. The rest of his 'examples' are also anecdotal non sequitors. THAT DOESN'T MEAN THEY ARE WRONG. It means that they are formulated imprecisely. As a wise British expatriate once said, One cannot do formal logic with sloppy propositions.

So, I hope that cleans up those loose ends. I would be happy enough for Martin to parse A and B separately, and I think in order to do so he would have to deal with your request anyway. So let's hear it. If not the Darwinismus, then what?

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

improvius

Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Nov. 27 2007,12:19

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Nov. 26 2007,21:01)

Lou I would just add, on my break from driving the kiddies on the bus to the Selection Museum, that there are really two issues here and we would all be better off to set them apart.

A: 'How do traits like mimicry arise (arouse)?'

B: 'Can selection maintain mimic phenotypes in a population'

I thought he was going a step further and claiming that there are simply no examples of mimicry.

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

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.

Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

Posted: Nov. 27 2007,14:49

Improvius that is certainly true and I had overlooked it.

How about we add 'define mimicry' to the list?

'Selection cannot produce mimic forms' is quite a different argument than 'Mimic forms do not exist'. VMartin has argued both positions here.

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

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Nov. 27 2007,16:02

I would actually recommend that VMartin answer Lou's original message first.

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

Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

Posted: Nov. 28 2007,19:13

While we're waiting, does this look familiar?

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

Steviepinhead

Posts: 532
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Nov. 28 2007,20:18

Also, as a pure aside while we're thumb-twiddling, waiting for Vroom to arouse his great intellect, does anybody know whether "Darwinismus" takes der, die, or das?

Thanks!

VMartin

Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006