[karajorma]

You're missing the point too. If you can point to ants in all the stages between them ignoring all the forest plants all the way up to making these devils gardens then you can say it.

Instead of transitional species in this case you could possibly point to a line of transitional behaviours.

That's why I'm saying you're making assumptions. You've assumed that there are no transitional forms based on no data whatsoever.

[Wild Fragaria]

Originally posted by aldo_14

The username, presumably.  AFAIK most blokes wouldn't select 'strawberry' as an alt-name on the electroniinterweb.

So how long did you take to figure that out?  And how many of you knew that before my announcement yesterday?

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Wild Fragaria


So how long did you take to figure that out?  And how many of you knew that before my announcement yesterday?

Errr.... I didn't actually.

[Wild Fragaria]

Originally posted by mikhael

Natural selection is a short term observable (subject population X is in event Y. Subpopulation X' survives. Subsequent observation reveals a genetic trait that allowed X' to survive.) Evolution is the summation of all the short term observables that occured in the genetic history of a population with a particular genotype. Thus, evolution is an abstract that cannot be observed, but only inferred through induction.

So according to your proposal, when does evolution begin?

Originally posted by mikhael

That's why I say that this is an example of natural selection (the trees the ants 'like' are being selected for and the trees they 'dislike' are being selected against). In a million years, someone can look back and see this as a one point on the mathematical curve of evolution. This point is NOT evolution, but evolution is made up by many of these points. The point does not define the curve, but exists within it.

But you can not say it like that either because there isn't a standard 'point' when evolution begins, and how many points/ stages you will have to have to claim that evolution title.

[Wild Fragaria]

I think some of you might be interested in the following abstract.

************************************************

Oecologia. 2005 Apr;143(3):387-95. Epub 2005 Feb 12.

Frederickson ME

The dynamics of mutualistic interactions involving more than a single pair of species depend on the relative costs and benefits of interaction among alternative partners. The neotropical myrmecophytes Cordia nodosa and Duroia hirsuta associate with several species of obligately symbiotic ants. I compared the ant partners of Cordia and Duroia with respect to two benefits known to be important in ant-myrmecophyte interactions: protection against herbivores provided by ants, and protection against encroaching vegetation provided by ants. Azteca spp., Myrmelachista schumanni, and Allomerus octoarticulatus demerarae ants all provide the leaves of Cordia and Duroia some protection against herbivores. However, Azteca and Allomerus provide more protection than does Myrmelachista to the leaves of their host plants. Although Allomerus protects the leaves of its hosts, plants occupied by Allomerus suffer more attacks by herbivores to their stems than do plants occupied by other ants. Relative to Azteca or Allomerus, Myrmelachista ants provide better protection against encroaching vegetation, increasing canopy openness over their host plants. These differences in benefits among the ant partners of Cordia and Duroia are reflected in the effect of each ant species on host plant size, growth rate, and reproduction. The results of this study show how mutualistic ant partners can differ with respect to both the magnitude and type of benefits they provide to the same species of myrmecophytic host.

[mikhael]

Originally posted by karajorma
You're missing the point too. If you can point to ants in all the stages between them ignoring all the forest plants all the way up to making these devils gardens then you can say it.

Actually, no. If I were to discuss all the ants in all the stages, etc, I would be talking about evolution of a system involving ants and trees. I am, however, talking about any single devil's garden made by any single ant colony. Each one of those is a case of natural selection.

Now, since the article was about how ants kill off trees they "dislike", I'd have to say that's what we were talking. I'm pretty sure I'm not making any assumptions.

[mikhael]

Originally posted by Wild Fragaria


So according to your proposal, when does evolution begin?

But you can not say it like that either because there isn't a standard 'point' when evolution begins, and how many points/ stages you will have to have to claim that evolution title.

Where does a parabola begin?

[Grey Wolf]

(-∞,-∞) or (-∞,∞).

[karajorma]

Originally posted by mikhael
Actually, no. If I were to discuss all the ants in all the stages, etc, I would be talking about evolution of a system involving ants and trees. I am, however, talking about any single devil's garden made by any single ant colony. Each one of those is a case of natural selection.

Now, since the article was about how ants kill off trees they "dislike", I'd have to say that's what we were talking. I'm pretty sure I'm not making any assumptions.

Since the article is the abstract from a scientific paper I think you're making an assumption that the rest of the paper doesn't include data on the ants in other stages.

It's quite possible that the rest of the paper does contain that data which simply wasn't posted because it's dry boring scientific stuff that would be out of place on this board. It's also possible that Fragaria simply didn't notice that the abstract didn't mention those facts.

So it comes down to one of two things

1) The paper doesn't mention ants showing other forms of behaviour (In which case Fragaria was wrong).
2) The paper does mention them in which case the paper is proof even if the abstract isn't.

That's what I mean about making assumptions that the paper doesn't contain other details pertinent to the discussion.


Secondly my real beef is with your claim that evolution is unobservable and especially that it takes millions of years to occur. That's of course utter nonsense. As you've just stated above you can see evolution of a behaviour simply using the animals of a species that are around today.

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by Grey Wolf
(-∞,-∞) or (-∞,∞).

Showoff. Isn't that CP's line?

[Wanderer]

Yet another finding, read this.. Though is only the first observed gorillas tool usage.

Is this 'just another point on the parabola' or 'the point where evolution began'? Though it may be neither as other great apes have been seen using tools even earlier. However i think the former is a better description of evolution and different stages in it. Evolution is a dynamic and continous process (IMHO).

Copy-pasted:


BBC-News

Wild gorillas seen to use tools
   
What's fascinating is the similarity between what these creatures have done and what we do
Thomas Breuer

Gorillas have been seen for the first time using simple tools to perform tasks in the wild, researchers say.

Scientists observed gorillas in a remote Congolese forest using sticks to test the depth of muddy water and to cross swampy areas.

Wild chimps and orangutans also use tools, suggesting that the origins of tool use may predate the evolutionary split between apes and humans.

Gorillas are endangered, with some populations numbered in the hundreds.

'Valuable insights'

"We've been observing gorillas for 10 years here, and we have two cases of them using detached objects as tools," said Thomas Breuer, from the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), who heads the study team in Nouabalé-Ndoki National Park in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

"In the first case, we had a female crossing a pool; and this female has crossed this pool by using a detached stick and testing the water depth, and trying to use it as a walking stick," he told the BBC.

   
Gorillas use nature's toolbox

In pictures
The second case saw another female gorilla pick up the trunk of a dead shrub and use it to lean on while dredging for food in a swamp.

She then placed the trunk down on the swampy ground and used it as a bridge.

"What's fascinating about these observations is the similarity between what these creatures have done, and what we do in the context of crossing a pond," observed Dr Breuer.

"The most astonishing thing is that we have observed them using tools not for obtaining food, but for postural support."

In the family

This discovery makes the gorilla the last of the great apes to be documented using tools in the wild.

Chimpanzees use stone tools to process food, and their close relatives bonobos will use the mashed ends of sticks to soak up liquids.

Orangutans - the only Asian great ape - use branches to forage for food, and leaves to modify their calls.

Though some monkeys and birds also use tools, Thomas Breuer believes that the great apes are special.

"We have now seen tool use in all the great apes in the wild," he said.

Chimpanzee Ai sits in front of a computer monitor. Image: AP/Tetsuro Matsuzawa, Kyoto University Primate Research Institute
The chimp Ai can count and recall numbers, recognise characters
"That now makes us think that it might be the case that tool use has been an ancient trait of  all great apes before the human lineage split away."

Current scientific orthodoxy holds that the separation between the chimpanzee and human lines came about six million years ago.

Research has shown that in captivity, apes can learn a range of skills including number and character recognition.

They can also learn tool use and transmit their acquired skills to other members of their social group.

The Congo team, drawn from the WCS and the Max-Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, believes that the tool traits they have observed in the wild may also be shared and learned across gorilla social groups.

They publish their findings in the online journal Public Library of Science Biology.

[Grey Wolf]

Originally posted by Sandwich


Showoff. Isn't that CP's line?

Damn! I forgot to account for parabolas defined as X=Y^2!

[Wild Fragaria]

I have the original paper of the article I posted.  The research was done to investigate the mutualistic interactions involving two Myrmecophytic plants (neotropical myrmecophytes):  Cordia Nodosa and Duroia Hirsuta and three ant species:  Myrmelachista schumanni, Azteca spp., and Allomerus octoarticulatus demerarae.  Apparently, not all the plants in the 'garden' are dwelled by the ants and there are 'competition' between ants and plants.  For instance, the Duroia actually grow more fruits when Myrmelachista ants occuppied them.  Another interesting fact that was not mentioned in the article, is the ants patrol their host plants to protect their hosts from herbivores.  Some ants do better than the other in protecting their plants, others are just lazy.  I enclose some data and facts from the paper below so you could have some references  

-----------------------------------------------------
Quote:

Ant species did not inhabit equal shares of the host plant population

20 % of Cordial and Duroia are unoccupied
3 - 4 % of plants other than Cordia and Duroia

Cordia -

Myrmelachista = 7%
Azteca = 19%
Allomerus  = 51%

Duroia -

Myrmelachista = 65%
Azteca = 11%


Fruiting and flowering

Duroia fruits more

95.8% of them occupied by Myrmelachista
4.2% of them occupied by Azteca


Behavior of ants

The ants patrol their host plants (Myrmelachiats and Azteca).

Allomerous workers do not actively patrol the trunks of their host plants, where beetles attack.

Myrmelachista clears vegetation from around Duroia and Cordia, not Azteca.

Azteca provides the most protection of leaf herbivore to Cordia and Duroia.  A proposal – Azteca ants are common plant-ants because of their highly carnivorous diet makes them very effective guards.

Myrmelachista provides the most favorable light environment, and the data is biologically significant.  The first documented ant species to use their poison, formic acid as herbicide.

Variation in host plants

Azteca occupied Cordia are larger, more growth, more frequent fruiting and flowering than Alleomerus occupied Cordia.

Myrmelachista occupied Duroia were larger and more fruiting and flowering but less growth than Azteca occupied Dutoia.

[mikhael]

Kara, can you show me an example of evolution "we can observe" happening?

[karajorma]

Bacteria. Even the creationists don't try to deny it happens there.

[Bobboau]

evolution isn't as continuous as a porabala, it has incroments, if you have two or more genorations the acumulated natural selection is evolution. bam.

[Omniscaper]

Micro evolution...sure.

But even with all the amazing adaptations and natural selected diversifications, an observed case of MACRO evolution have yet to be reported. Now if these crazy ants were to one day grow to extra legs and become arthropods... then I'll start taking the "evidence for evolition" more seriously. I'm not going to jump to conclusions on a scientific theory just because I dont LIKE, or refuse to believe other avenues of thinking.

This debate needs to be silenced already. Both sides seems to be taking to the offensive so agressively because both sides think they are seeking to destroy one an another's way of perceiving this universe. Both sides should acknowledge both the differences AND practical benefits each side offers.

I personally think that this universe contains many things both explainable and mysterious. I don't believe that everything in this universe is explainable, predictable, and controllable. But I am not condemming science's role in trying. We humans have been gifted with brains whose perceptions transcend that of any other creature on this Earth. To not use it is...  well, stupid. But even the brain has so many different levels of thought that should not be easily dismissed.

[karajorma]

I very much doubt that Mikhael is going to make the claim that macro and micro evolution are different things.

Only creationists ever make that claim.

[Bobboau]

well the problem of the whol "macro evolution" thing is that 'macro evolution' is just a whole bunch of 'micro evolution' so you will never have an ant 'one day' growing anything spectacular, they change slowly over a long time, so much so that youd never see it within your life.

though honestly I'm starting to seriosly consiter getting two little animal cases and and growing a colony of fruit flys in each, trying to give as diferent an environment as posable to each and letting them grow for a few decaes to see what happens. hopefully they'll change so much that they'll become geneticly incompatable with each other.

[mikhael]

Originally posted by karajorma
Bacteria. Even the creationists don't try to deny it happens there.

Bacteria is a hard one to claim as evolution. Its one of the rare cases where organisms use each other's DNA, regardless of species. One bacteria can toss some DNA that another bacteria--unrelated--can then use.

As for micro vs macro evolution: WTF? I could no more make a distinction there than I could state, with honesty and integrity, that Creationism is a valid theory.

Bob: you won't get incompatible strains. That experiment has been tried (albeit unintentionally). The animals used have included dogs, cats, horses, cows, chickens, etc.

Kara, my point was that evolution is a process that is not fractal. You can't point to a bit of evolution and say "that's evolution". You can only point at a bit and say "that contributed to the overall evolution of the species as we know it".  Kind of like when you have an accelleration curve, you differentiate it and get a speed at a given moment in time. The speed of the car doesn't really tell you anything about its accelleration, but the accelleration can tell you about its speed.