Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > Coloration of animals, mimicry, aposematism

Pages: (13) < ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 >

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2007,14:21    aposematic larvae had a survivorship 6.4x greater than cryptic forms and you say there is no advantage to survival? God you are dumb.  in uninteresting ways. martin, do you think you can find an eleven year old english speaker to read these papers to you?  if you can't even understand the science then it is rather pointless to talk about it.  of course, that has never stopped you before.   if you can get past the abstract, then we can talk.  until then you have some reading to do troll. -------------- 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. 06 2007,14:57    Marty is still logged on, but silent: Quote 41 guests, 25 Public Members and 2 Anonymous Members   [ View Complete List ] >Arden Chatfield >Dazza McTrazza >Jake >creeky belly >JohnW >Hermagoras >Doc Bill >Erasmus, FCD >Reciprocating Bill >oldmanintheskydidntdoit >someotherguy >ppb >keiths >Mr_Christopher >argystokes >Richardthughes >simmi >J-Dog >VMartin >Assassinator >Tom >Albatrossity2 >carlsonjok >Big D >Altabin Working on his devastating rejoinder, no doubt. -------------- "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. 06 2007,15:01    If they have survivorship 6.4x greater than cryptic forms after 1000 years there should have been only aposematics. Read your own basic neodarwinian shits about peppered moths where much lesser ratio of survivorship between melanica/carbonaria have led to almost full extinction of one morph. Author of the article claimed that this advantge is counterbalanced by "detection rate that is correspondingly higher". If it is beyond your comprehension I am so sorry stupido. -------------- I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.- Charles Darwin

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2007,15:03    Quote (VMartin @ Nov. 06 2007,15:01) If they have survivorship 6.4x greater than cryptic forms after 1000 years there should have been only aposematics. Read your own basic neodarwinian shits about peppered moths where much lesser ratio of survivorship between melanica/carbonaria have led to almost full extinction of one morph. Author of the article claimed that this advantge is counterbalanced by "detection rate that is correspondingly higher". If it is beyond your comprehension I am so sorry stupido. Why don't you write that down (Boom Boom) and send it off to the authors. Then come back with what they say. Or is that too "sciencY" for you? -------------- 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

Assassinator Posts: 479 Joined: Nov. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2007,15:06    Quote If they have survivorship 6.4x greater than cryptic forms after 1000 years there should have been only aposematics. Depends Martin, apperantly you forget that not every part of the planet is the same.

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2007,15:20    Quote (VMartin @ Nov. 06 2007,15:01) If they have survivorship 6.4x greater than cryptic forms after 1000 years there should have been only aposematics. Read your own basic neodarwinian shits about peppered moths where much lesser ratio of survivorship between melanica/carbonaria have led to almost full extinction of one morph. Author of the article claimed that this advantge is counterbalanced by "detection rate that is correspondingly higher". If it is beyond your comprehension I am so sorry stupido. Hey, 'stupido', if 'Darwinismus' won't work, what will? -------------- "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. 06 2007,15:22    Dumbass: you apparently missed the part, while you were scanning the abstracts, that background contrast was a crucial part of the detection probability by predators. We're waiting to hear your theory of inheritance, troll. -------------- 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. 06 2007,15:28    Quote (Assassinator @ Nov. 06 2007,15:06)   Quote If they have survivorship 6.4x greater than cryptic forms after 1000 years there should have been only aposematics. Depends Martin, apperantly you forget that not every part of the planet is the same. The problem is that the article deals with one species Lygaeus equestris which have two forms - one is normal red, second is mutant grey called "cryptic". I suppose they do not live in much different places.   But the poor stupido Erasmus is always like this. He put some links which he googles out in two minutes. He don't read them and he never discuss them. He only calls me name - in the best tradition of some "knowledgeable evolutionists" here - and then he buzz off leaving his ignorant stench. Or sometimes he tried to back his own links. But the results you can see above. It is really sad. -------------- I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.- Charles Darwin

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2007,15:29    Hey, Marty, your input is being requested at the "4 Questions For Skeptic, FtK and VMartin" thread. (A whole new venue for you to avoid answering 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

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2007,15:37    Quote (VMartin @ Nov. 06 2007,15:28) But the poor stupido Erasmus is always like this. He put some links which he googles out in two minutes. He don't read them and he never discuss them. He only calls me name - in the best tradition of some "knowledgeable evolutionists" here - and then he buzz off leaving his ignorant stench. Or sometimes he tried to back his own links. But the results you can see above. It is really sad. What's sad, Marty, is a pathetic, ignorant Creationist like yourself avoiding answering questions and who's too cowardly/stupid to propose alternatives for any of the theories he's childishly trying to trash. PS, dipshit, 'stupido' isn't a word. I've told 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

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2007,15:40    I don't know, you could, uh, read the paper.  You'll find out something about the gray form.  i don't think you care if you can't find it in the abstract. what you will find is more devastating to your thesis that 'natural selection she do not exist but in the inferior minds of darwinismus stupido'. enjoy -------------- 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. 06 2007,16:21    Have you any arguments or have you sent the links without any effort to back them? Last time you did it with ants mimicry, you sent a link and then you buzz off without discussing it. Now when I asked you some links about wasps - you have sent link to Lygaeus equestris instead which is a redbug.   So do you want actually to discuss anything particular, ants mimicry, wasps mimicry/aposematism or redbugs/ladybirds? Or what? ---------- Do you folks here know that "aposematics" Lygaeus equestris are the "insects of the year 2007"? -------------- I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.- Charles Darwin

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2007,16:30    Quote (VMartin @ Nov. 06 2007,16:21) So do you want actually to discuss anything particular, ants mimicry, wasps mimicry/aposematism or redbugs/ladybirds? Or what? Well, since you're asking, tell us what YOUR explanation of variation in nature is, Marty. You know, since 'Darwinismus' is so wrong and all, you must have an alternative. Right? -------------- "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

Assassinator Posts: 479 Joined: Nov. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2007,17:48    I still don't really fully understand you Martin. You're bassicly saying natural selection is pure bullcrap, but on what scientific base are you saying that? What's your scientific comment against all those countless numbers of experiments (I gave you one 1 or 2 pages ago, wich you completly ignored). You're bassicly whiping away the whole of genetics, now that's some serious stuff. So I'm asking again: on wich ground are you totally whiping away a major quantity of modern science, right into the dustbin. Our constant struggle to develop new antibiotics is actually proof for natural selection, to put in easy language: we pwn bacteria with antibiotics, then lots of bacteria die but not every single one of them because of certain biochemical properties because of certain genetic differences. They reproduce, and pwn our drugs. Then we develop new antibiotics to pwn those bacteria, but not every bacteria dies because of etc etc etc. And so the patern continue's. Now what's your scientific comment against all that? Are you saying we're making all those new antibiotics for nothing? What's actually happening then?

VMartin Posts: 525 Joined: Nov. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2007,23:55    Assasinator. There is a difference between natural and artificial selection. Of course you can observe extraordinary results achieved by artificial selection. Strangely enough ancient breeders never came to the conclusion that the same principle - selection - is responsible of diversity of living world. The idea occured first in 19 century to Darwin who's major was theology. In reality the natural selection play no role in evolution. It removes only extremities. Read John Davison's Evolutionary manifesto. It was opinion of many scientists. The topic is coloration of animals, mimicry etc... Mimicry and aposematism are favored childs of darwinism, because darwinists suppose the natural selection can be very easily proved here as the source of the phenomenons. Obviously the case is much more complicated and all "proofs" or "evidences" supporting this explanation are very weak and they only shows up ignorance of reality. See Erasmus thinking about survivorship of aposematics or read links he has given. There could be found very interesting admissions and facts. Often one research contradicts the other dealing the same case of aposematism  - skim this thread. -------------- I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.- Charles Darwin

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2007,09:23    Quote (VMartin @ Nov. 06 2007,23:55) In reality the natural selection play no role in evolution. It removes only extremities. Read John Davison's Evolutionary manifesto. It was opinion of many scientists. Yeah, if only John was a born a hundred years earlier, he'd be hot stuff.   Quote The topic is coloration of animals, mimicry etc... Mimicry and aposematism are favored childs of darwinism, because darwinists suppose the natural selection can be very easily proved here as the source of the phenomenons. Obviously the case is much more complicated and all "proofs" or "evidences" supporting this explanation are very weak and they only shows up ignorance of reality. See Erasmus thinking about survivorship of aposematics or read links he has given. There could be found very interesting admissions and facts. Often one research contradicts the other dealing the same case of aposematism  - skim this thread. How do YOU explain coloration of animals and mimicry, Marty? Say what you like about 'Darwinists', Marty, at least they offer explanations, which is more than useless people like you ever do. -------------- "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. 07 2007,09:24    Martin Castle and others showed that selection could change characteristics beyond the range of parental variation.  this was shown to be consistent with mendelian inheritance.  there were many biologists who fought this at the time, but lacked any mathematical rigor to their programs. fisher wright and haldane, among others, eliminated the confusion except for a few holdouts that could not assimilate their views into the evidence from statistical population genetics. so, no one has ever showed that what you call 'artificial' selection is any different in principle from 'natural' selection.  many studies of N.S. provide incontrovertible evidence for the process in nature.  again, quantitative studies of pop genetics establish this over and over. ploidy and lineage contact between genotypes or hybridizing species provides massive amounts of variation that is then fuel for selection.  we know this is true from literally thousands of studies involving oeneothera, irises, spartina, populus, quercus, pinus, silene, and many many many more.  also in Lycaeneid butterflies, Heliconia butterflies, Rana frogs and many reptiles (geckos invading Florida are a fine example).  also Jim roman european green crab invasion in gulf of maine.  the jury is not out. now, the question 'how does mimicry arise' is not answered by these studies.  but you don't ask that question honestly, because conflate it with 'how would it be maintained'.  i don't know that anyone understands how mimicry arises, for the equation F(genotype)=a+ G(Phenotype) is not solved yet.  but in order for you to argue that mimicry can't be maintained requires that you deny everything that is known about heredity and mathematical demonstrations of natural selection. be honest.  you want to know how 'mimicry' can arise, and we do too.  but denying the obvious in attempts to disclaim the evo-devo explanations is a wrong tack and it really pisses off anyone who is honestly approaching this question. -------------- 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

Assassinator Posts: 479 Joined: Nov. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2007,09:37    Quote There is a difference between natural and artificial selection. Of course you can observe extraordinary results achieved by artificial selection. The resistance against antibiotics is as natural as it can be, we're not doing anything there. That would be pure bullcrap too, because that would mean we're destroying our own medical systems. Also the guppy experiment is not artificial selection, it's purely natural. I don't think you actually know what artificial selection is. Quote In reality the natural selection play no role in evolution. It removes only extremities. Wrong Martin, you're only talking about 1 kind of natural selection. Next to stabilizing selection, you've also got disruptive and directional selection. It would be nice if you would actually know something about the subject. Quote Obviously the case is much more complicated and all "proofs" or "evidences" supporting this explanation are very weak and they only shows up ignorance of reality. They're very weak you say, tell us why, explain it yourself. And like Arden Chatfield asks time and time again, how are you explaining the variaty between living creatures then? Take for example the Dubuatia plants on the Hawaiian islands collectivly known as the "silversword alliance". How do you explain those huge external differences without natural selection?

VMartin Posts: 525 Joined: Nov. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2007,13:47    Quote (Assassinator @ Nov. 07 2007,09:37)     Quote There is a difference between natural and artificial selection. Of course you can observe extraordinary results achieved by artificial selection. The resistance against antibiotics is as natural as it can be, we're not doing anything there. That would be pure bullcrap too, because that would mean we're destroying our own medical systems. Also the guppy experiment is not artificial selection, it's purely natural. I don't think you actually know what artificial selection is.       Quote In reality the natural selection play no role in evolution. It removes only extremities. Wrong Martin, you're only talking about 1 kind of natural selection. Next to stabilizing selection, you've also got disruptive and directional selection. It would be nice if you would actually know something about the subject.       Quote Obviously the case is much more complicated and all "proofs" or "evidences" supporting this explanation are very weak and they only shows up ignorance of reality. They're very weak you say, tell us why, explain it yourself. And like Arden Chatfield asks time and time again, how are you explaining the variaty between living creatures then? Take for example the Dubuatia plants on the Hawaiian islands collectivly known as the "silversword alliance". How do you explain those huge external differences without natural selection? Because in your opinion I don't know anything about natural selection there is obviously no need to discuss the issue with me. In your opinion I am wrong and I don't know anything about the subject of my own thread. Obviously your education level must be excellent when you deal with oponents of neodarwinism in such a way. I am sorry but preliminary this is my last response to your posts. -------------- I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.- Charles Darwin

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2007,13:50    Quote Because in your opinion I don't know anything about natural selection there is obviously no need to discuss the issue with me. In your opinion I am wrong and I don't know anything about the subject of my own thread. Fixed it for ya, Marty. How do you like those road apples? -------------- "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. 07 2007,14:02    Ahhhh but there is a need to discuss this with me, Vicky, because you keep saying I am running away from the topic.  So please don't run away from my point, which is namely that you are conflating the origin and maintenance of mimicry, and secondly that for unknown reasons you seem to discount everything that is known about population genetics and heredity. Make your case for abandoning those two fields and let us evaluate your claim.  Until then, popping in and vomiting nonsense on the thread is not making me believe you.  Or anyone else.   I'm serious.  i want you to tell me about morphic fields or whatever magical german mystical mechanism you have that explains what darwinismus cannot. -------------- 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

Assassinator Posts: 479 Joined: Nov. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2007,14:08    Quote Because in your opinion I don't know anything about natural selection there is obviously no need to discuss the issue with me. In your opinion I am wrong and I don't know anything about the subject of my own thread. Why don't you show us that you DO know something about it then? Instead of avoiding the contents of my post, you can easely counter then if you would know so much about the subject.

VMartin Posts: 525 Joined: Nov. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2007,14:21    Erasmus, the problem of statistical population genetics play no role in the issue we are discussing now. Maybe you would like to discuss natural selection more generally and in models. But I would like to discuss natural selection exactly in the cases of aposematism and mimicry in insect realm. You noticed ant-mimics first and you didn't address my point that there are beetles living in caverns which look like ants but obviously the similarity was not induced by predators who avoid ants (subsequently NS by the same predators is excluded in the similarity ). Then you noticed wasps and you have given links to red bugs. Neither of them you discussed. Anyway red bugs are good example. Even though I would prefer the example of so-called  aposematism of ladybirds. You know Heikertinger presented his anti-selectionist view of so-called aposematism of ladybirds in his work having more than 40 pages which is available on inet in German language. Now you have mentioned mimicry in butterflies. Eimer wrote more than 600 pages about the concept of butterfly mimicry where he explained his theory of orthogenesis. So the mimicry in butterflies led him to different conclusions as those accepted by neodarwinism. Heikertinger devoted more than half of his book (1952) to the problem of the so-called mimicry in butterflies species. I think he addressed the most spectacular examples of mimicry and his observation are interesting. He presented very original ideas about the issue. Heikertinger spent more than 40 years studying the problem of mimicry refuting selectionists point of view. He was also a great systematic pointing out  many cases where there were only coincidental similarities between transformational sequences of species of different taxa. Without those vast knowledge of systematics of insects realm one could come to a wrong conclusion that some species is mimicking another. -------------- I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.- Charles Darwin

Assassinator Posts: 479 Joined: Nov. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2007,14:30    Mimicry is a bad name for it imo. Because they're not really mimicking, they're just certain heritable colorpaterns wich were better suited then other paterns.

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2007,14:31    Marty, how is it that you can go on at such great lengths at how wrong Darwinism is and how NS cannot explain variation without EVER ONCE saying what DOES explain variation? Why are you incapable of offering actual explanations of anything? Did you have any kind of science education 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

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2007,15:12    Quote the problem of statistical population genetics play no role in the issue we are discussing now. care to explain why?  this is exactly my point.  these models detail the maintenance of mimic forms.  but you are conflating the origin with the maintenance. Quote there are beetles living in caverns which look like ants but obviously the similarity was not induced by predators who avoid ants this is irrelevant, since it may very well be the case that these species or immediate ancestors did live with ants.  so it is much less than obvious that what you say is true. Since you have read Eimer and Heikertinger, why don't you give us the explanation that these authors propose?  why are you afraid to do this? i have asked you several times myself, and you never elaborate.  the number of pages is irrelevant, dembski has published thousands of pages of B.S. about NFL theorems, it hasn't helped him since he is wrong. It's really easy to say 'oh, that was explained long ago, in a language you can't read, but i can, so i know that this is true and you are silly selectionist'.  that is what pisses me off.  if you know what they are talking about, share it.  otherwise i think you are lying. -------------- 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. 09 2007,12:15    Eramus. According Heikertinger U.S. Department of Agriculture studied 80.000 contents of birds' stomachs. And it was McAtee from this department who came to the conclusion that aposematism is ineffective to deter predators. Neodarwinian school has never made such extensive and brutal research. Darwinists make only indoor research with multicoloured food... But the question is if such  researches have any relevance for studying so called "warning coloration". McAtee: Hence the fact that a given animal is indiffurent to, or even rejects, a certain species of insect when in captivity, by no means indicates that it would be indifferent to or reject the same species under natural conditions. . . . He clearly shows that many species which have been considered to be protected by noxious secretions or other adaptations are not really so protected, a conclusion supported not only by the definite evidence produced by Dr. McAtee, but also by the fact that if such species were not preyed upon by various enemies they would soon people the whole earth. . . . Hehe, what do you think? http://elibrary.unm.edu/sora....48.html -------------- I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.- Charles Darwin

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2007,12:35    Quote Hehe, what do you think? We think you're long overdue to tell us what you think should replace 'Darwinismus', hehe. What does YOUR extensive and brutal research tell 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

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2007,14:10    if you examine the stomachs of 80,000 2 year olds you are going to find paper clips, pennies, feces, pot seeds, etc etc etc.  what does that prove?  here is a hint:  what is between 1 and -1? so things that have aposematic coloring still get eaten sometimes.  you have yet to understand the math behind selection pressure. but why don't you answer my questions?  you have repeated this comment before.  all you do is wave your hands and say Heikertinger disproved this.  how?  with 80,000 bird stomachs?  you are the one that can read german, why don't you post the data? lions aren't protected by noxious chemicals and have no predators.  why don't they people the whole earth?  blue whales?  brown tree snakes?  grizzly bears?  bahhh. -------------- 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. 09 2007,14:52    Erasmus. Lions? Interesting off-topic  question. Now we are discussing here so called insects' "aposematics" and their predators - birds. One observation is this: Considering bird predation alone this principle predation in proportion to population leads to a high degree of indiscriminancy in attack upon the whole kingdom of animal life. The combined attack of birds plus all other predators still more closely approaches complete indiscriminancy. In other words there is utilization of animals of practically every kind for food approximately in proportion to their numbers. This means that predation takes place much the same as if there were no such thing as protective adaptations. And this is only another way of saying that the phenomena classed by theorists as protective adaptations have little or no effectiveness. “Natural Selection theories assume discrimination in the choice of prey. The principle of proportional predation so obvious from the data contained in this paper vitiates those theories for it denotes indiscrimination, the very antithesis of selection.   If you think the conclusions here are "outdated" (have  birds change their feeding behaviour in last years?) take into consideration the fact that: In no other institution in the country has such a volume of data been collected on food habits of birds. It is therefore extremely valuable to students throughout the country to have this mass of data digested, summarized, and made available for use as Mr. McAtee has done. http://elibrary.unm.edu/sora....198.pdf --- btw "theoretists" is a mild description for neodarwinists. Heikertinger calls them "Hypothetiker". -------------- I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.- Charles Darwin

Pages: (13) < ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard