RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (13) < ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 >   
  Topic: Coloration of animals, mimicry, aposematism, Is really natural selection behind it?< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 12 2007,19:01   

martin, you can't evaluate prey choice if you don't know the background levels of prey available to each predator.  so, since 80,000 birds from N America averages over all sorts of factors that contribute to unequal prey species distribution and abundances (biogeography, latitudinal, elevational, forest type, etc factors), AND there was no attempt to measure prey abundances with respect to each predator stomach, you simply cannot make the inferences from these data that you wish to.

so your claims are falling flat without having to evaluate a specific paper.  you have no way to even show what you are claiming is shown.  that is my point, that you are simply waving hands.  further, you don't even have an alternate hypothesis, just 'darwismus is wrong for natural selection can not arouse mimicry just like great Eimer said in 1914 in german'.  

Daniel has a set of specific positive claims (although it took a while for him to formulate them positively, and not like you are doing, ie 'selection cannot explain X').  we have been trying to get you to make your claims for months now, and you refuse to do so.  bring it, don't sing it.

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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 12 2007,19:06   

re jeannot and the paper that claimed opposite:

many natural processes work in both one and the opposite direction.  directional selection, for instance.

stabilizing vs disruptive selection are another.

of course, if selection is all in the darwinismus heads then we have another problem.  

here's another.  fire promotes diversity of some communities and extinguishes others.  predators enhance species richness and diversity of some communities, destroy others.  

orthogeneticists were always looking for a single deterministic rule that would explain it all.  is this what you need Martin?  A fundamental law of everything?

--------------
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: Nov. 13 2007,00:04   

Quote

martin, you can't evaluate prey choice if you don't know the background levels of prey available to each predator.


You don't know it as well. But you are convinced that your a priori armchair hypothesis is correct neverthenless.  Of course I am not surprised by it. The research done by US survey was dismissed using different arguments by the great Poulton himself. There was a heated discussion between McAtee and Poulton about it. Neverthenless Poulton was by this research much more ill-natured as you are now. He know more about mimicry and aposematism as anyone of you here know. His name is quoted almost in all materails "discussed" here. So darwinists did what do they do everytime when facts do not support their hypothesis - they pretend they do no exist. The greatest neodarwinian hypocrisy is then words "every students should know about this vast  research of feeding behaviour of nearctic birds full of facts". There was never done such great outdoor research you know.
 
Quote

many natural processes work in both one and the opposite direction.


Yes. Dragonflies in one experiments were scared seeing wasps coloration and in the second experiment they didn' care. Having work in both one and the opposite direction the experiments prove natural selection as the source of aposematism.

Quote

Daniel has a set of specific positive claims (although it took a while for him to formulate them positively, and not like you are doing, ie 'selection cannot explain X').  we have been trying to get you to make your claims for months now, and you refuse to do so.  bring it, don't sing it.


It is neodarwinian positive claims that aposematism was induced and is maintained by natural selection. I am discussing here this positive neodarwinian hypothesis an well as you are discussing Daniel positive claims there.

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 13 2007,01:40   

Quote
It is neodarwinian positive claims that aposematism was induced and is maintained by natural selection. I am discussing here this positive neodarwinian hypothesis an well as you are discussing Daniel positive claims there.


You obviously dont believe that "aposematism was induced and is maintained by natural selection" -- so what IS the origin of aposematism? You have yet to offer a theory for that even once. All you've done is bitch about the imagined shortcomings of 'Darwinismus'.

--------------
"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: Nov. 13 2007,07:40   

Quote
You don't know it as well. But you are convinced that your a priori armchair hypothesis is correct neverthenless.


Wrong, stupid troll.  I am saying that you are not even offering a hypothesis yourself, and the data you are using to try to feebly attack something you don't understand DON'T EVEN SAY WHAT YOU ARE CLAIMING THEY SAY.

What you claim is the 'neodarwinian claim' has two parts, as I keep reminding you.  the 'origin' of mimicry is very different from the 'maintenance' of mimicry, yet you refuse to do anything but conflate the two.

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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 13 2007,07:41   

Bring it, don't sing it.

--------------
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: Nov. 13 2007,14:00   

Quote

Wrong, stupid troll.


I've received an internal AtBC post warning me not to use abusive words here.
I've been informed that other participants have been warned as well.  But I don't see a purpose of such warnings if some participants like you do not to obey them.



Quote

I am saying that you are not even offering a hypothesis yourself, and the data you are using to try to feebly attack something you don't understand...


I wouldn't say that data about 80.000 contets of birds stomachs "feebly attack" darwinian concept of aposematism. I would say these data attack it so strongly that even Poulton and his colleagues were forced to deal with them.



Quote

... DON'T EVEN SAY WHAT YOU ARE CLAIMING THEY SAY.


McAtee concluded from those data that warning coloration of so called aposemtic insects is ineffective because these insects were surprisingly often found in birds stomachs. I don't know how you came to the weird  conclusion "DON'T EVEN SAY WHAT YOU ARE CLAIMING THEY SAY". Probably you have made this bold conclusion about the McAtee's research after reading that neo-darwinian would-be critic the link to which I have sent you above.

(Btw. I didn't find the whole research on-line. Internet is lousy with 2nd class neodarwinian "researches" and "explanations" but nobody bothered to put this  research on-line).


 
Quote

What you claim is the 'neodarwinian claim' has two parts, as I keep reminding you. the 'origin' of mimicry is very different from the 'maintenance' of mimicry, yet you refuse to do anything but conflate the two.



I would preliminary stick to the fact that wasps "aposematic" coloration is ineffective. If you claim opposite you should support it perhaps using some evidence. Because you are still only repeating  neodarwinian mantras like a broken automat. I suppose you are honest enough to admitt that arguments like your latest "fire promotes diversity of some communities and extinguishes others" don't adress the issue of aposematism of wasps at all.

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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 13 2007,14:25   

80000 bird stomachs doesn't make a damn.  it wasn't an experiment.  there was no control group.  all that can be said is "sometimes birds eat aposematic forms".  we have never denied this.

ineffective in toto is a very different thing from ineffective sometimes.  all that your bird guts show is that it is ineffective sometimes.  

you assume, in order to wave your arms at the point:

1 all bird species and prey species are equally distributed in abundance, range size and habitats (we know this is not true, care to argue about it?)

2 bird predation are the only selective force that prey respond to (again, care to argue about this one?)

3 all birds have the same preferences for palatability (care to argue this one?  perhaps summarize mcatee data for aposematic prey by species of predator?)  my little boy doesn't like carrots.  my neighbors does.  there is also variation in the toxic compounds manufactured by aposematic caterpillars (in my lab, today, i was told about varying amounts of aristolochic acid sequestered by caterpillars that was explained by brood membership.  in other words, offspring of different females had different toxic compound sequestration.  clearly prey vary in toxicity).

the point about fire is certainly appropriate.  if you are like every other non-magical formalist/orthogeneticist, you probably believe there are deterministic laws that apply to the phenomena of biology.  if this is true, you need to catch up on 20th century biology.

Let me summarize it for you:  Things vary.  It matters.  Sometimes.

There is no fundamental law in ecology evolution or biology (just ask Bob O'H!!!)

I'm not repeating any mantra, except that your data cannot possibly be used to make the conclusion you wish to make, for simple reasons above.

I retract the stupid part.  You are obviously smart enough to know better than the argument you are making, this is a rhetorical game for you.  I've seen better, though.

--------------
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: Nov. 15 2007,14:44   

Quote

3 all birds have the same preferences for palatability (care to argue this one?  perhaps summarize mcatee data for aposematic prey by species of predator?)


As far as I know McAtee created tables according birds families and species. Unfortunatelly his work is not available at internet, only it's darwinian criticism.

But this is the main point neverthenless. We know from many experiments and observations  that stings do not give protection to wasps against birds. To save the theory of aposematism neodarwinists invented this lame explanation instead (see the article about Imperfect mimicry):

                 
Quote

"It is the terrible taste that the venom imparts to the abdomen that is the main deterrent for birds."  



This claim stands on unproved pressuposition that a birds'  taste is somehow sensitive to this "terrible (?) taste" . Obviously other researches which are not focused to prove neodarwinian explanation of aposematism show that birds behave much more relaxed towards "bad taste". No wonder, having only few taste buds:

                 
Quote

Birds have an interesting sense of taste. They have taste receptors like other animals, and their general structure is essentially the same as that in other vertebrates.
The starling and chicken have a few dozen taste buds as compared to 25000 for the cow.


So the results are obvious (but not in experiments proving aposematism where birds always surpass themselves and prove themselves as true gourmands):

                 
Quote

One of the first experiments we did with taste some years ago was with pheasants, at Cornell. We sprayed prospective repellant on the feed in troughs. The birds would come over to the feeders and take one mouthful offered; since birds are not very bright they would shift their heads and take another mouthful. Then they would start wiping their beaks and move away from the feed. But a few birds enjoyed the fact that there was no competition at the feeder troughs and continued eating. It is obvious that the minority experienced a taste sensation different from that of the majority, in this case failing to perceive the offensive chemical.


or

                 
Quote

Generally, if you offer a bird two food choices, and you add a chemical to one that is so offensive to them that they will not take any of it in a choice situation, and then give them no choice but the flavored food, food intake will be normal over a 14-day period. You have to increase the offensiveness 10-fold to reduce food intake by 10%. Taste offensiveness is of little consequence when the test is of reasonable duration.



See : The chemical senses of birds 1970:

http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi....control

Anyway feel free to call me again "stupid troll" and support your selectionist stance using vague questions or arguments how your neighbour dislike carrots.

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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 15 2007,14:55   

so Vicky, it appears from what you have posted that some birds don't like bad tasting things, and some do.

sounds like there is still room for selective pressure to work.  we know that aposematic caterpillars vary in the amount of toxic compounds sequestered from host plants, and that has a heritable component.

did you find any studies where birds were offered venomous abdomens, or are you just waving your hands again?

so, you agree that you cannot possibly conclude from the McAtee work anything other than 'sometimes aposematic forms get eaten'?  do you understand how there is no comparative framework in that dataset?

call me a selectionist if you want, it's irrelevant.  my entire point is that you are lying about the conclusions from the data you attempt to present, and also that you don't even have an idea about an alternative hypothesis.  just handwaving.  and using words like 'gourmand'.  Who are you really vicky?

--------------
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: Nov. 16 2007,02:13   

Quote

so Vicky, it appears from what you have posted that some birds don't like bad tasting things, and some do.


Yes Stupo. You missed the point as usually. Birds have only fraction of taste buds comparing to mammals. But because some mammals eat wasps as well there is no reason to believe that the "terrible taste" of wasp's abdomen is so "terrible" as darwinists would like us to believe.

 
Quote

sounds like there is still room for selective pressure to work.


I know. Even if all birds species eat nothing else as wasps there will be still enough room in your head for selective advantage of aposematism.

 
Quote

we know that aposematic caterpillars vary in the amount of toxic compounds sequestered from host plants, and that has a heritable component.


OK Stupo. After trying ants, redbugs and wasps you offer aposematic caterpillars. Are you able to defend this new example of aposematism? I am afraid as soon as I adressed the point you buzz off as usually.

 
Quote

did you find any studies where birds were offered venomous abdomens, or are you just waving your hands again?


And did you find any research where foxes were offered not chickens but only their feathers? Because foxes do not touch them feathers prove to offer some protection against predators?


 
Quote

so, you agree that you cannot possibly conclude from the McAtee work anything other than 'sometimes aposematic forms get eaten'?  do you understand how there is no comparative framework in that dataset?


Birds in free eat wasps as well as they eat flyies, beetles, catterpilars, fruits and grains. There is no reason to believe that wasps are somehow protected, because some armchair selectionist claims so.


 
Quote

call me a selectionist if you want, it's irrelevant.  my entire point is that you are lying about the conclusions from the data you attempt to present, and also that you don't even have an idea about an alternative hypothesis.


I am lying and you are right. Because you believe in selection you will be always right in your eyes.

 
Quote

just handwaving.


Maybe you would like to offer some facts to my "handwaving" eventually. I would like to know what kind of "selective pressure"  led to the rise of wasps' stings from their ovipositors. I would like to know your opinion or explanation of it.

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

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2007,07:05   

I've made this request privately to avoid embarrassment, now I'm saying it publicly.

Enough with the name calling of other commenters on this board, and this applies to all commenters.

If you can back it up, "you're lying" is one thing.

Personal attacks like "Stupid troll", "Stupo", and the like will not be tolerated.

Any questions can be directed to me by PM.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Assassinator



Posts: 479
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2007,07:31   

Quote
Birds in free eat wasps as well as they eat flyies, beetles, catterpilars, fruits and grains. There is no reason to believe that wasps are somehow protected, because some armchair selectionist claims so.

Are you forgetting that not all birds are the same, and not all insects are equally spread throughout the world? The world is DIFFERENT remember, and so are bird-species and insect-species.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2007,07:33   

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.  Until you grow a pair and present your hypothesis, there is not much else to say.  After reading examples of your logic I harbor grave doubts about your capacity to do that.  Or much else.

Sorry Lou.  When you are walking through the sewer, don't touch the walls.

--------------
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: 4756
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2007,10:41   

Quote (VMartin @ Nov. 16 2007,01:13)
But because some mammals eat wasps as well [...]

Maybe you should look at what's implied by your own statement there? I.e., birds are not the only predators relevant to the question.

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 18 2007,11:18   

No one of you have addressed the problem of "protective coloration" or so-called aposematism of wasps yet. Probably you take it for granted without any outdoor researches (which in fact prove opposite). You just suppose it to be right and basta.

And yet:

       
Quote

The colored stripes contain pigment granules underneath the translucent cuticle where light sensila were detected (Ishay et al., 1986). These granules are cylindrical in shape and in Vespa orientalis they comprise of what seems to be spores of a symbiotic fungus (Ishay and Shmuelson, 1994). In the hornet the pigment is of a prominent yellow color but in other hornets or wasps the pigment can appear in various shades of green, beige, black (Vecht, 1957, 1959; Ishay et al., 1967; Kemper and D"hring, 1967; Wilson, 1971; Matsuura and Sakagami, 1973; Spradbery, 1973; Edwards, 1980; Akre et al, 1981; Brian, 1983; Matsuura and Yamane, 1990).


I am not sure if that shades of green, beige, black are also due to the color of spores of fungi. But it would be more convenient explanation of difference of coloration of these Hymenoptera as those neodarwinian babbling about aposematic or "protective coloration".

One should be really blind not to ask why are wasps aposematic and bees almost cryptic when "aposematism" for poisonous bees should have given them the same "survival advantage".  


Fungi and coloration of some hymenoptera:


http://scilib.univ.kiev.ua/article.php?27251

http://www.desc.med.vu.nl/Publica....R_3.htm[U][/U][B][/B]

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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 18 2007,21:15   

yawn...

and, remind me Vicky, what is your explanation?  kthanxbai.

are you Ghost of Paley?  I've been taking notes on how to be an effective troll, and you are a model system (note, this is mimicry in action).

--------------
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: Nov. 22 2007,14:26   

Quote

One should be really blind not to ask why are wasps aposematic and bees almost cryptic when "aposematism" for poisonous bees should have given them the same "survival advantage".  


Martin, according to all your brutal research, what is the correct explanation for the mimicry in the nature?

You've already many times told us why is wrong the Darwinismus. What explanation is the true?

--------------
"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: Nov. 23 2007,11:18   

One should have to ask why wasps having so many predators are protected by neodarwinian hypothesis of "warning coloration" where there is a whole family of birds specialised on bees, wasps and hornets (google out "Meropidae" if you like) .

One should have to ask why honeybees having their venom more effective than the venom of wasps are not protected by "warning coloration" either. Did "natural selection" forget to give them "protective coloration" or what?

Even some nowadays researches are asking the same question about supposedly poisonous "protection" of bees:

 
Quote

Many researchers seem to assume that predators avoid
bees, the most commonly observed pollinators, due to
their sting. This belief is in disagreement with the long list
of species that prey on bees, most notably, bee eaters
(Meropidae) (Fry 1983), Old and New World ¯ycatchers
(Muscicapidae and Tyrannidae) (Ambrose 1990), beewolves
(Philanthus spp.) (Evans & O'Neill 1988), some
social wasps (Evans & Eberhard 1970; De Jong 1990),
crab spiders (Thomisidae) (Morse 1981; Morse 1986),
predacious bugs (Hemiptera) (Balduf 1939; Greco &
Kevan 1995) and praying mantids (Mantidae) (Caron 1990).
.
.
.
Research in other systems, a long list of bee predators and
formal theory all suggest that bees and other pollinators
should show antipredatory behaviour, which may affect
pollinator±plant interactions (Dukas, in press).



I suppose those biologists are terrains' biologists and
no  armchair neodarwinists.

http://psych.mcmaster.ca/dukas/Dukas%202001.pdf

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 23 2007,11:33   

Martin, you're boring. Very very boring.

You've already told us ad nauseum how stupid is the Darwinismus and the Stalinist selectionists. So tell us: what is the correct explanation for mimicry and variation?

Something tells me you have a preferred explanation but don't want 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

  
Henry J



Posts: 4756
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 23 2007,13:21   

Re "One should have to ask why honeybees having their venom more effective than the venom of wasps are not protected by "warning coloration" either."

Maybe because traits don't appear just because they'd be useful to that species?

As for that warning coloration, maybe it discourages some of the predators but not all of them?

Henry

  
Assassinator



Posts: 479
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 23 2007,16:59   

Indeed, what's better: some protection, or no protection? Yes there is a bird family devoted to those nasty lil' stingers, but how big is the % of that family compared to all bird family's? Those bees still have that protective coloring, but that bird family simply doesn't fall for it. The rest still does, still shrinking the chance of getting eaten and increasing the chances of a population to reproduce better. Only a fraction of all animals alive today doesn't have natural enemies (except from it's own kind and us).

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2007,14:46   

Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 23 2007,13:21)
Re "One should have to ask why honeybees having their venom more effective than the venom of wasps are not protected by "warning coloration" either."

Maybe because traits don't appear just because they'd be useful to that species?

As for that warning coloration, maybe it discourages some of the predators but not all of them?

Henry

What predators do you have in your mind? Eagles, hawks or owls? Maybe eagles do not prey upon wasps but  I doubt it is because "warning coloration" of wasps. Other species have no problem to get rid of "poison" of wasps beating or rubbing them on the branches (but some of birds do not care about neodarwinian "terrible taste of wasps venom" at all):


Four of the flycatchers (three of
Tyrannus and Gubernetes yetapa), the two orioles
(Icteridae) and the oven-bird (Furnarius rufus)
spent 10 to 35s beating each prey on a branch or
on the ground and examining is before swallowing,
while the Great Kiskadee (Pitangus sulphuratus),
Burrowing Owl (Speotyto cunicularia),
Smooth-billed Ani ( Crotophaga ani), Rufoustailed
Jacamar (Galbula ruficauda) and Whiteeared
Puffbird (Nystalus chacuru) spent 2 to 5s
beating the prey on a branch. In contrast, the
kestrel (Falco sparverius), Blue-crowned Motmot
(Momotus momota), two species of woodpeckers
(Picidae), two of the cuckoos (Piaya cayana and
Guira guira) and sometimes the rufous-tailed
jacamar and white-eared puffbird appeared to
have no difficulty in swallowing the wasps immediately
they captured them.




http://elibrary.unm.edu/sora/ON/v008n01/p0089-p0092.pdf

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

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2007,14:59   

Erasmus

   
Quote

... we know that aposematic caterpillars vary in the amount of toxic compounds sequestered from host plants, and that has a heritable component.




Uff, that must be a very effective poison which deters predators and gives some "survival advantage" to the catterpilars. Btw. what kind of caterpillars do you have in your mind?  Maybe Eupseudosoma involutum?


Eupseudosoma involutum (Sepp ).
The venom of this caterpillar is so strong that if
its hairs touch the skin of an adult person the
pain is severe and often the person suffers from
delirium for several hours.


But oddly enough:


On one occasíon
a squirrel cuckoo hunted systematically
through guava trees from which it gleaned and
ate more than a dozen larvae of the notorious
arctiid moth Eupseudosoma involutum (Sepp ).


Hehe, maybe the poor squirell hasn't read neodarwinian armchair's treatise about aposematism or what?

http://elibrary.unm.edu/sora/ON/v008n01/p0089-p0092.pdf

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2007,16:28   

Martin, your last message makes no sense and proves nothing. I hope you're not *really* stupid enough to think it's an effective rebuttal.

So, what is the correct explanation for mimicry and variation?

Do you not 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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2007,16:30   

Quote

Uff, that must be a very effective poison which deters predators and gives some "survival advantage" to the catterpilars


a) people don't use 'uff' in English. We've told you this.

b) why the scare quotes around "survival advantage"? Do you think there's no such thing as a species having a survival advantage at all?

--------------
"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: 4756
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2007,16:44   

Re "What predators do you have in your mind? Eagles, hawks or owls?"

Insect eaters. Given the subject matter here, I thought that would be obvious.

Henry

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2007,19:51   

Hey Martin, here is a cogent reply to your questions.  It has the same empirical content of your last forty seven posts.


Quote
sadgh;asdklbnvadslkcn basdcmvweitu2340qtgha;sldg hq2qe8typq iweghvdsjgn;ladsgpq8ygerdaihvaldsljfpqwe8qtyweapohdsvnasdkfuqwepagiofawehdffyouarestupid8t
uq038947t-q348yeutgioaewty9384067t1-8347rt89q374-1743-8r7et9q34t834t-34t


At first I thought you were interested in discussing biology.  Now I know better.  Toodles, dumbass.  Stay ignorant.

--------------
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: Nov. 24 2007,21:29   

Quote

Insect eaters. Given the subject matter here, I thought that would be obvious.

Henry


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

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2007,21:30   

Erasmus.

What are you afraid of? Why don't you give me the name of the poisonous caterpillar you were talking about? Are you afraid that everyone could check your nonsenses or what?

I am afraid your mysterious poisonous caterpillar is the same neodarwinian bullshit as poisonous and stinging wasps. If some insect species  had been so poisonous as to get rid of predators there would have been full earth of them (as Darwin predicted). Obviously there are still predators that check every insect populations of "poisonous aposematics". Obviously in other case "aposematism" would give those species "small survival advantage" to other species and they will populate the Earth in few generations.

So don't be angry with me. It's not my fault that every "poisonous aposematic" have dozens predators that do not care about their venoms.

--------------
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) < ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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