Doesn't darwinian theory fall apart on ontological grounds?

[paulhanke]

Originally Posted by memester

Variance, across regions, is expected, mimicry or no mimicry.

... agreed - but the "talent for mimicry" hypothesis explains why the variation in two contiguous regions should exist and also why it is the way it is ... the "Viceroys don't mimic" hypothesis does not ... in science (and philosophy?), the hypothesis that better explains the facts is taken to be the the better hypothesis ... but the facts laid out so far are rather thin, so there's no real reason to take one hypothesis over the other - as you say, bed time stories ...

[memester]

Originally Posted by paulhanke

... agreed - but the "talent for mimicry" hypothesis explains why the variation in two contiguous regions should exist and also why it is the way it is ... the "Viceroys don't mimic" hypothesis does not ... in science (and philosophy?), the hypothesis that better explains the facts is taken to be the the better hypothesis ... but the facts laid out so far are rather thin, so there's no real reason to take one hypothesis over the other - as you say, bed time stories ...

That explanation ignores the fact that Viceroys are the more distasteful... just because Viceroys are spread across both territories does not imply that they are mimics.

what does imply it, or rather, promotes the tendency to infer it, is the fact they have been the scientific classical deceptive suspect for many years.

If the palatability test for Viceroys shows 40 and for Queens it's 70, why would Viceroy tend to start to go toward a more palatable butterfly ?

[paulhanke]

Originally Posted by memester

That explanation ignores the fact that Viceroys are the more distasteful... just because Viceroys are spread across both territories does not imply that they are mimics.

what does imply it, or rather, promotes the tendency to infer it, is the fact they have been the scientific classical deceptive suspect for many years.

... that one of the butterflies in a co-mimicry relationship happens to be more distasteful than the other is unremarkable - what would be remarkable would be if both were exactly equally distasteful ... that co-mimicry has nothing to do with deception has already been established - and so if that's the point you're wanting to make, then I think we've beat this horse past its death ...

[memester]

Originally Posted by paulhanke

... that one of the butterflies in a co-mimicry relationship happens to be more distasteful than the other is unremarkable - what would be remarkable would be if both were exactly equally distasteful ...

It's not that it is remarkable...what is questionable, is why you should keep insisting that the Viceroy is a mimic.

If it's more distasteful than the Queen, why would it be pushed toward being more Queen-like ? Logically the Queen would be pushed toward the Viceroy...in the form that the Viceroy has, in that region

[paulhanke]

Originally Posted by memester

It's not that it is remarkable...what is questionable, is why you should keep insisting that the Viceroy is a mimic.

If it's more distasteful than the Queen, why would it be pushed toward being more Queen-like ? Logically the Queen would be pushed toward the Viceroy...in the form that the Viceroy has, in that region

... okay, let's work through a simple model ... let's assume that 75% of the predators that attempt to eat a Viceroy will never attack a butterfly that looks like a Viceroy again ... let's also assume that 50% of the predators that attempt to eat a Queen will never attack a butterfly that looks like a Queen again ... finally, let's assume that there are equal numbers of Viceroys and Queens ... now, if the Viceroy does not resemble the Queen, then every predator in the region will attempt to eat a Viceroy at some point in time, with lots of Viceroy casualties ... however, if the Viceroy resembles the Queen, then with a 50-50 chance a predator will try to eat a Queen before it tries to eat a Viceroy ... since 50% of those predators (25% of the total population) will never attack a butterfly that looks like a Queen again (to include Viceroys), this means that 25% of the predator population will never attack a Viceroy in the first place (fewer Viceroy casualties!) ... Queens fare slightly better - 37% of the predator population will never attack a Queen in the first place ... it's a win-win situation ... therefore, co-mimicry pays even if the two co-mimics are not exactly equally distasteful ...

[QuinticNon]

Originally Posted by paulhanke

...Shannon's theory of information uses entropy as its basis...

An interesting read on Shannon. He was not concerned with meaning whatsoever. His contribution was calculating maximum throughput, and in the process, developed a calculation for the measurement of entropy. Not convinced it was the "basis" of his work, rather than a notable agent to address in effective communication.

Originally Posted by paulhanke

... to maximize information one implicitly maximizes entropy ...

We can't maximize information. It is what it is and nothing more. We can only maximize the efficiency in which it is transmitted, communicated, and received. This efficiency is directly proportionate to the degree that entropy is minimized.

Originally Posted by paulhanke

Wiener's theory, information is "negentropy"...

An interesting read on Wiener too. Negentropy is akin to foreknowledge. It is beneficial to every transmission. For instance, the first time I heat up a hot pocket in the microwave, I must look at the instructions (60 seconds, 1500w, turn once, cool 3 minutes). But now, I already have that information, and that negentropy (foreknowledge) saves me time by not having to review the instructions again. I can just stick it in and get to eating faster than if I'd to read the instructions again. Negentropy is our friend.

Originally Posted by paulhanke

...your truth/deception dichotomy ... the Viceroy butterfly...is imitative...in such a way,... deceive predators - this is a truth of nature,...

Might you confuse a "truth" of nature with an "observance" of nature? Have you any reference that the Viceroy "knows" he is a Viceroy, and is intentionally deceiving a predator into believing something else? Have you any reference that predator views Viceroy and Monarch in the same context as humans?

May we consider that Viceroy is simply being a Viceroy... and that a presumptuous predator is no reason to claim a deceptive Viceroy?

[Dave Allen]

Originally Posted by memester

I get taught by my family that crime and violence pays.

I get killed at 15. Nothing to do with genes, not to do with any recognized kind of phenotype, either. Only to do with learning this or that way to get ahead.

Phenotypes regarding alturistic behaviour (such as your willingness to indulge in crime or avoid it), teachability (such as your ability to follow the criminal lessons your parents advocate), loyalty to authority figures in early life (the inherant, but varying, desire of most children to regard familiar adults with respect) and so on are at work in such a scenario.

And what led to your death? Criminals don't all die at 15. Were you too slow to run from the rival gang, too stupid to realise a conspiracy was being levelled against you by your own bosses, too fired up to drop your gun when the cops had you cornered, poor eyesight led you to miss with your first shot, metabolism not able to cope with the drugs? What?

So "nothing to do with genes" is wrong - even if their influence is fairly subtle in this regard.

---------- Post added 12-04-2009 at 07:34 AM ----------

Originally Posted by memester

That explanation ignores the fact that Viceroys are the more distasteful... just because Viceroys are spread across both territories does not imply that they are mimics.

what does imply it, or rather, promotes the tendency to infer it, is the fact they have been the scientific classical deceptive suspect for many years.

If the palatability test for Viceroys shows 40 and for Queens it's 70, why would Viceroy tend to start to go toward a more palatable butterfly ?

Some birds who eat Monarchs know to degut them before doing so.

Perhaps the mimickry developed before the degutting behaviour?

Thus the mimickry is now a relatively vestigal legacy of something that was once very beneficial, perhaps?

I don't know much about the butterflies - to be honest - but this sort of thing seems plausable.

[memester]

Originally Posted by Dave Allen

Phenotypes regarding alturistic behaviour (such as your willingness to indulge in crime or avoid it), teachability (such as your ability to follow the criminal lessons your parents advocate), loyalty to authority figures in early life (the inherant, but varying, desire of most children to regard familiar adults with respect) and so on are at work in such a scenario.

No. You are hereby opening the door, to allow bringing in "having a brain" as argument for genetics - being born as a necessary genetical component; all trash-bin worthy inclusions.
to argue that because every creature that is alive, is alive because of genes, and therefore I was killed because of genes- that is a ridiculous argument. It breaks all evolutionary argument the same way, not just mine.
Skinner showed NOTHING. It was all genes.

as well, your argument goes further than about genes. why stop there ? from your argument, in the end it's because we have ATOMS. It was because of Big Bang, not my learned behaviour.


I will set this example, not you. I was adopted from a family with perfect societal record of obedience and intelligence. I had high IQ, was not killed because I was stupid or slow. I was killed by automatic gun in a skilled ambush.

And what led to your death? Criminals don't all die at 15.

Nobody said all criminals die at 15. I strongly implied that my behaviour of theft and violence led to my death .

[Dave Allen]

Originally Posted by memester

No. You are hereby opening the door, to allow bringing in "having a brain" as argument for genetics - being born as a necessary genetical component; all trash-bin worthy inclusions. To argue that because every creature that is alive, is alive because of genes, and therefore I was killed because of genes- that is a ridiculous argument. It breaks all evolutionary argument the same way, not just mine.

I didn't argue that you were killed because of genes.

I showed that your claim that the scenario presented by yourself was devoid of much understanding. Criminals dying young is not a given, and there are mental and physical characteristics (this is different from "has a brain") may influence one's choice to become a criminal, and one's ability to be good at it.

So even if your scenario was accurate - and it isn't - it still doesn't exclude genetic factors.

as well, your argument goes further than about genes. why stop there ? from your argument, in the end it's because we have ATOMS.

Well ... yes.

I suppose.

In so far as it seems it's all because of an expansion of space time and energy coalescing to matter.

To go back further you have to use assumptions devoid of much science.

Which is anyone's right - I suppose - though it's not what I like to do.

I will set this example, not you.

OK.

I was adopted from a family with perfect societal record of obedience and intelligence. I had high IQ, was not killed because I was stupid or slow. I was killed by automatic gun in a skilled ambush.

Nobody said all criminals die at 15. I strongly implied that my behaviour of theft and violence led to my death .

And I explained three factors associated with adopting a criminal lifestyle that may well be explained through genetics.

Alturism being the most interesting one, but the tendancy of children to respect their earliest rolemodels is probably the most easily understood and profound.

Now, social factors obviously contribute far far more - but to say it's "nothing to do with genetics" is wrong.

[memester]

Originally Posted by paulhanke

... okay, let's work through a simple model ... let's assume that 75% of the predators that attempt to eat a Viceroy will never attack a butterfly that looks like a Viceroy again ... let's also assume that 50% of the predators that attempt to eat a Queen will never attack a butterfly that looks like a Queen again ... finally, let's assume that there are equal numbers of Viceroys and Queens ...

Are these reasonable assumptions to use in examination of mimicry ?

How about let's look at another scenario too. Let's say that 99% of bird which eat a Viceroy will not eat that "look" of butterfly again.
Of Queens, 1% of birds eating it will never eat that "look" of butterfly again. And to the final assumption: does 50/50 fit with mimicry theory better or worse than other ratios of mimic /mimicked ?

now, if the Viceroy does not resemble the Queen, then every predator in the region will attempt to eat a Viceroy at some point in time, with lots of Viceroy casualties

That is assuming that predators cannot learn from others' experience. Or from parental presentation of acceptable foods. That's a big assumption.

... however, if the Viceroy resembles the Queen, then with a 50-50 chance a predator will try to eat a Queen before it tries to eat a Viceroy ... since 50% of those predators (25% of the total population) will never attack a butterfly that looks like a Queen again (to include Viceroys), this means that 25% of the predator population will never attack a Viceroy in the first place (fewer Viceroy casualties!)

You neglected to mention what happens with the 50 % who LIKED the Queen. They then try Viceroy, and like Viceroy a lot, too ! Maybe even more than Queen. Maybe less.

This is all ASSUMING, that "first try" results determines the permanent behaviour.

We CAN assume that first try of food is from parent's beak. And it is GOOD. Of course !

Also you are assuming that first try is always a matter of the draw: that seasonal fluctuations of both species are THE SAME. Perhaps, though, in the nesting time (first try), only ONE or THE OTHER is available.

Also, it has been shown that confusing "reward" giving , can raise number of attempts.

... Queens fare slightly better - 37% of the predator population will never attack a Queen in the first place ... it's a win-win situation ... therefore, co-mimicry pays even if the two co-mimics are not exactly equally distasteful ...

No, not shown at all. Even assuming those all those things which are not safe to assume.

[post edited] In this case, assumptions all in place, it DOES NOT SHOW co-mimicry is win/win, it shows LOOKING alike is win for Queens.

---------- Post added 12-04-2009 at 12:23 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Dave Allen

I didn't argue that you were killed because of genes.

I showed that your claim that the scenario presented by yourself was devoid of much understanding. Criminals dying young is not a given

Again, you are showing confusion about my example purpose and claim.

Aside: of course you did not argue about genes and "killed". Ya argues about genes and learned behaviour.

I claim this is a ONE TIME example of learned behaviours and the ensuing result, showing the result of deletion of me.

Are you claiming, by any chance, that learned behaviours cannot have scientific results showing cause/effect, independant of genes ?

---------- Post added 12-04-2009 at 12:39 PM ----------

Now if we look at an example where 99 % do not like Viceroy, and 1% do not like Queen.

Advantage for the Viceroy to change toward Queen looks ?

---------- Post added 12-04-2009 at 01:24 PM ----------

Originally Posted by paulhanke

... agreed - but the "talent for mimicry" hypothesis explains why the variation in two contiguous regions should exist and also why it is the way it is ... the "Viceroys don't mimic" hypothesis does not ... in science (and philosophy?), the hypothesis that better explains the facts is taken to be the the better hypothesis ... but the facts laid out so far are rather thin, so there's no real reason to take one hypothesis over the other - as you say, bed time stories ...

yes, the hypothesis EXPLAINS why it COULD exist, if using a better example than this CLASSICAL example, but not that it SHOULD exist in this example, or any example in particular.

And no, definitely DOES NOT explain "why it it is the way it is".

As to the variance of the Viceroy over geographical zones; variance of a species over geographical zones and between isolated zones is THE USUAL, without mimicry necessarily involved.