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

Posted: Oct. 07 2007,03:12

Quote (VMartin @ Oct. 07 2007,02:25)

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Oct. 05 2007,15:19)

Still deaf, Marty? Surely Bratislava must have ear doctors, even tho their level of science education seems iffy.
...

Your way of discussion is very mean and stupid. You are a troll and provocateur.

----
"PERCENTAGE OF YOUNG PEOPLE AGED 22 WHO HAVE SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETED
AT LEAST UPPER SECONDARY EDUCATION, 1997"

Slovakia, Sweden and Czech republic are at the top.

http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/educ/indic/rapinen.pdf

You still here VMartin? Don't let the door hit you on your way out now!

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

Posted: 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.

--------------
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: Oct. 07 2007,11:04

Quote (VMartin @ Oct. 07 2007,02:25)

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Oct. 05 2007,15:19)

Still deaf, Marty? Surely Bratislava must have ear doctors, even tho their level of science education seems iffy.
...

Your way of discussion is very mean and stupid. You are a troll and provocateur.

----
"PERCENTAGE OF YOUNG PEOPLE AGED 22 WHO HAVE SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETED
AT LEAST UPPER SECONDARY EDUCATION, 1997"

Slovakia, Sweden and Czech republic are at the top.

http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/educ/indic/rapinen.pdf

Then what's YOUR excuse, Marty? Dropped out of school at age 12?

Seriously, get your ears checked. You can't hear a thing people say to 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

VMartin

Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

Posted: Oct. 09 2007,13:49

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.

There are people who believe in extraterrestrials and there are people who believe there are ants' mimics.

You can send your funny pictures and your funny articles whenever you like - the same do believers in extraterrestrials. They have also their articles and their pictures.

What is interesting is the fact that another ignorant here adolescentdidnotknowanything mentioned in the thread about evolution of horse that there are amazing numbers of beetles' species. I don't know if the poor guy has ever realised this fact more deeply. It could have occured him that some of them could look like ants by pure chance. And this is the solution of the problem of ant's mimicry. There are so many forms of beetles that some of them looks like ants. It is no way "mimicry".

Many beetle species which look like ants live in caverns. But because there live no ants darwinists cannot claim that these beetles are ants' mimics. They simply ignore them.

On the other hand there live many thousands insect species inside anthills. Only very few of them look like ants.
Did "natural selection" forget to shape them or what? Obviously natural selection moulded only few of them. It is very weird, isn't it?

I am glad that selectionists realised the fact at last �after so many years Heikertinger adressed it. Heikertinger called proponents of ants and wasps mimicry only as "Hypothetiker".

In your article there is written that �"...since even myrmecophiles which lack morphological resemblance to ants may mimic chemical or textural characters of their hosts".

Of course one should have asked what was the reason of "morphological resemblance" when you can live in anthills without such "morphological resemblance" and thrive there well - as vast number of ants' guests prove.

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

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 09 2007,14:02

Marty:

Are you claiming that there is no such thing as mimicry in nature at all?

Quote

Of course one should have asked what was the reason of "morphological resemblance" when you can live in anthills without such "morphological resemblance" and thrive there well - as vast number of ants' guests prove.

What's YOUR explanation of "morphological resemblance", Marty?

Too stupid to have one, or too afraid to say what it is?

--------------
"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: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 09 2007,14:52

Hypothetically, Marty, what do you think would constitute evidence 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.

Steviepinhead

Posts: 532
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 09 2007,18:34

This is the V-one's "answer" to the question of mimicry--there's Shitloads'O'Beetles, so a few are bound to look like ants by pure chance?

Man, that is so pitiful. I'm tempted to dredge up one of the better written IDist's "Teh Oddz R 2 Long" canards to refute him with.

"Of all the ant tunnels, in all the ant hills, in all the world, she walks into mine." She being a beetle what looks just like an ant that belongs in this here gin joint, er, ant tunnel...

Henry J

Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

Posted: Oct. 09 2007,21:38

Quote

This is the V-one's "answer" to the question of mimicry -- there's Shitloads'O'Beetles, so a few are bound to look like ants by pure chance?

That pretty much sums up my understanding of how mimicry arises in the first place: with a huge number of species, the odds of not getting a few that look somewhat alike would be quite low. If it happens that the resemblance reduces risk of attack, or makes food more accessible, then that leads to a conclusion that VMartin won't like.

Henry

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 10 2007,13:05

Marty:

Since you've logged in, here's a chance to give a straight answer for once in your life. Please answer the following question:

"I do not believe that there is any such thing as mimicry in nature."

a) agree
b) disagree

If you can handle that one, many of us would also like to hear what definition of "morphological resemblance" you do advocate.

No more tedious babbling about 'Darwinists'. It's getting old.

--------------
"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: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 10 2007,13:15

I think Marty has made it clear that he does not believe "mimicry" exists in nature. But what isn't clear is what criteria he is using to come to that belief. I'd still like to know what, specifically, would constitute hypothetical evidence of mimicry for him.

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

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: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 10 2007,13:19

Quote (improvius @ Oct. 10 2007,13:15)

I think Marty has made it clear that he does not believe "mimicry" exists in nature. �But what isn't clear is what criteria he is using to come to that belief. �

You're probably right, but I want him to come out and SAY he doesn't believe mimicry exists. For some reason, he's doing his usual unconvincingly evasive routine with this.

Quote

I'd still like to know what, specifically, would constitute hypothetical evidence of mimicry for him.

Good luck with that. �

--------------
"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: Oct. 10 2007,13:20

Quote (improvius @ Oct. 09 2007,14:52)

Hypothetically, Marty, what do you think would constitute evidence of mimicry?

First of all we should define mimicry. This is the definition I have already proposed:

To consider something to be mimicry:

1) there is a resemblance to other species.
2) This resemblance give some survival advantage to the species.
3) This resemblance aroused due Natural selection.

Some guys here are unable to comprehend this definition and their posts are full of gibberish. It is enough for them when some pets look like another pets and the guys here think they are observing "mimicry".

Of course in such naive notion also placental and marsupial wolfs represents mimicry, but experts
here haven't instructed us yet which is the model and which is the mimic, hehe.

On the other hand survival advantage for species that looks like wasps is still an unproved and very dubious idea and even if true it was sure not natural selection from predators that led to such resemblance.

The same for the so called mimics of ants. There live many thousands species in anthills and only few of them look like ants - and also these resemblances are very superficial.

There is no need to suppose that ants in anthills carried out selection for resemblance of some species but they did'n care for all of the forms and shapes of the species �that create majority of their guests.

Summa: there is no such thing as mimicry of ants or wasps, even if darwinists like to present it.

Of course presenting some nice pictures of "mimicry" in "scientifical" darwinian text-books may look convincingly. Untill you compare other forms and shapes of related species.

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

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 10 2007,13:28

Quote

Summa: there is no such thing as mimicry of ants or wasps, even if darwinists like to present it.

Is there any such thing as mimicry of any other kind of organisms, Marty?

�

Quote

Of course one should have asked what was the reason of "morphological resemblance" when you can live in anthills without such "morphological resemblance" and thrive there well - as vast number of ants' guests prove.

So Marty seems to be saying evolution is false because not all organisms evolve identically.

Which is basically a recycling of the 'why do we still have apes?' argument.

Marty, do you have any kind of scientific education at all?

Quote

1) there is a resemblance to other species.
2) This resemblance give some survival advantage to the species.
3) This resemblance aroused due Natural selection.

Marty, we told you about 'aroused'. Check your dictionary again.

--------------
"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: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 10 2007,13:39

Well, I give up. I can't argue against something that I can't parse.

In any case, here's another article about a toxic frog mimic: http://news.mongabay.com/2006/0313-frogs.html

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

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: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 10 2007,13:48

Quote (improvius @ Oct. 10 2007,13:39)

Well, I give up. �I can't argue against something that I can't parse.

I think I can parse it:

�

Quote

To consider something to be mimicry:

1) there is a resemblance to other species.
2) This resemblance give some survival advantage to the species.
3) This resemblance aroused due Natural selection.

So I think what Marty the Wacky Slovakian Creationist is saying that there is no such thing as mimicry because there's no such thing as Natural Selection. Why isn't there? Well, because he SAYS so, obviously.

His condition number 2 is irrelevant because he gives himself an escape clause anyway:

�

Quote

On the other hand survival advantage for species that looks like wasps is still an unproved and very dubious idea and even if true it was sure not natural selection from predators that led to such resemblance.

So he's basically saying 'mimicry doesn't benefit any species and even if it did, it's still false because natural selection doesn't exist'.

Why? Well, because Marty said so, of course!

�

Quote

Some guys here are unable to comprehend this definition and their posts are full of gibberish.

It's ironic to be accused of writing gibberish by VMartin, but Marty seems not to have irony in his system. (Sarcasm is not the same as irony.)

--------------
"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: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 10 2007,13:58

Ok, but WTF do you make of this one:

Quote

There is no need to suppose that ants in anthills carried out selection for resemblance of some species but they did'n care for all of the forms and shapes of the species that create majority of their guests.

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

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: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 10 2007,14:02

Quote (improvius @ Oct. 10 2007,13:58)

Ok, but WTF do you make of this one:

�

Quote

There is no need to suppose that ants in anthills carried out selection for resemblance of some species but they did'n care for all of the forms and shapes of the species �that create majority of their guests.

Well, Improvius, if a reptile hatched a bird there is no ancestor in common view, you know.

--------------
"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: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 10 2007,14:06

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Oct. 10 2007,15:02)

Quote (improvius @ Oct. 10 2007,13:58)

Ok, but WTF do you make of this one:

Quote

There is no need to suppose that ants in anthills carried out selection for resemblance of some species but they did'n care for all of the forms and shapes of the species that create majority of their guests.

Well, Improvius, if a reptile hatched a bird there is no ancestor in common view, you know.

Thanks, that makes perfect sense now. I'll be sure to ask you again if anything else arouses.

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

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.

Erasmus, FCD

Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

Posted: Oct. 10 2007,14:41

yeah martin is playing semantical silly-buggers, obvious from his 3 part definition of mimicry.

martin when you have something interesting to say about mimicry i'll be listening. until then i will remain convinced that you are either 1) an idiot, 2) deep cover troll or 3) both.

why don't you tell us how freshwater mussels don't mimic oligochaetes to disperse glochidia onto fish. that'd be another riot.

if the opportunity arouses, that is.

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

Henry J

Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

Posted: Oct. 10 2007,15:21

The definition of "mimicry" should not say anything about how that mimicry arose.

BWE

Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 10 2007,15:58

My Cephalopods were pretty damn cool and Marty just spit on them since they weren't, um,... bugs. Or more accurately I suppose I should call them by their latin name: ugbays.

The octopi actually mimic color, shape and behavior! And they choose which preditor to mimic based on the danger they find themselves in. Tell me they aren't mimicking.

Phfftht.

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

JohnW

Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006

Posted: Oct. 10 2007,16:01

Quote (BWE @ Oct. 10 2007,13:58)

My Cephalopods were pretty damn cool and Marty just spit on them since they weren't, um,... bugs. Or more accurately I suppose I should call them by their latin name: ugbays.

The octopi actually mimic color, shape and behavior! And they choose which preditor to mimic based on the danger they find themselves in. Tell me they aren't mimicking.

Phfftht.

But they don't mimic ants, do they?

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"... The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

Henry J

Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

Posted: Oct. 10 2007,16:15

Those octopi are mimicking all right, but not by being already similar to something else, but by being smart, flexible, and colorful, and using all of those traits.

Henry

VMartin

Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

Posted: Oct. 10 2007,23:52

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 10 2007,14:41)

martin when you have something interesting to say about mimicry i'll be listening. �until then i will remain convinced that you are either 1) an idiot, 2) deep cover troll or 3) both.

Your judgment of my person is as valid as your �idiotic opinion of beetles "mimicking" ants. Either you are a cretine or neodarwinian stupido. Or both.

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

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 10 2007,23:54

Quote (VMartin @ Oct. 10 2007,23:52)

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 10 2007,14:41)

martin when you have something interesting to say about mimicry i'll be listening. �until then i will remain convinced that you are either 1) an idiot, 2) deep cover troll or 3) both.

Your judgment of my person is as valid as your �idiotic opinion of beetles "mimicking" ants. Either you are a cretine or neodarwinian stupido. Or both.

Hey, Marty my troll, do you believe in common descent? You never did tell us.

--------------
"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: Oct. 11 2007,23:47

Maybe darwinists think that lies and hypocrisy is something common and normal also in the nature. They think they can see such hypocrisy also in insect realm and they call it mimicry. You know all the messy stuff about wasps or ants and their so-called "mimics".
But such "mimicry" is nothing else as a convergent evolution or a pure coincidence of similarity of animals. �
"Mimicry" no way supports their fantasies. It reveals more darwinian way of thinking.

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

oldmanintheskydidntdoit

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: Oct. 12 2007,03:11

Quote

Maybe darwinists think that lies and hypocrisy is something common and normal also in the nature.

There is plenty of it in this thread already. You see what you look for VMartin. If you think mainstream science is engaged in a massive conspiracy then when you look for the evidence you'll certainly find if even if it's not really there.

Quote

They think they can see such hypocrisy also in insect realm and they call it mimicry.

That makes sense...NOT

Quote

You know all the messy stuff about wasps or ants and their so-called "mimics".

Oh yeah, that.....whatever dude.

Quote

But such "mimicry" is nothing else as a convergent evolution or a pure coincidence of similarity of animals.

Oh, thanks for explaining it. I was wondering. Some quite unlikely co-incidences don't you think? Oh, of course you don't think, sorry.

Quote

"Mimicry" no way supports their fantasies. It reveals more darwinian way of thinking.

Only a true professional like yourself can have a fantasy with no supporing evidence. Who needs actual evidence to support their craziness? Certainly not 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

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 12 2007,09:04

Quote

"PERCENTAGE OF YOUNG PEOPLE AGED 22 WHO HAVE SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETED
AT LEAST UPPER SECONDARY EDUCATION, 1997"
Slovakia, Sweden and Czech republic are at the top.

Dumbshit, graduation rates have nothing to do with overall quality of science education.

You answered my question for me.

Quote

Maybe darwinists think that lies and hypocrisy is something common and normal also in the nature.

Another ignorant, whiny, dishonest creationist. Big surprise.

Go home, troll, cuddle with Davison, whatever. You're not wanted here.

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