Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

A new take on prey who warn predators of danger

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email
Blue-poison.dart.frog.and.Yellow-banded.dart.frog.arp.jpg
poison dart frogs/Cope, Wikimedia Commons

Alfred Russel Wallace’s take, explicitly.

From ScienceDaily:

Not every encounter between predator and prey results in death. A new study co-authored by a University of Tennessee, Knoxville, professor suggests that prey emit warning cues that can ultimately lead to both their survival and that of their predators.

The hypothesis addresses a 150-year-old mystery of evolution on how warning signals of animals and plants arise and explains animals’ instinctive avoidances of dangerous prey.

In 1867, Alfred Russel Wallace, co-proponent with Charles Darwin of the theory of evolution through natural selection, proposed that animals evolve colorful, distinctively recognizable appearances to advertise their distastefulness or toxicity to predators. Despite a number of attempts, however, no satisfactory evolutionary mechanism for the origin of warning cues has been proposed.

Leading theories postulate that predators know to avoid prey after eating one that harmed them.

By “leading theories,” the researcher means Darwinism, of course.

The obvious problem, possibly not evident to the Darwinist, is that the “last meal of the condemned” approach to safety training is not very efficient over the long term.

Burghardt and Weldon suggest predators don’t have to learn to avoid prey from the experience of eating distasteful or poisonous ones. They instinctively know to stay away because they are sensitive to the prey’s chemical signals or they recognize the visual or behavioral warning cues being displayed. They call this mechanism “concurrent reciprocal selection,” which means the signals being emitted by the prey and the predators’ sensitivity to the signals repel one from the other and work simultaneously, ensuring both can survive. A predator that ignores its sensitivity to the toxic prey perishes, as does the prey that is consumed.

This approach might be correct or incorrect in a given case, but it certainly makes more inherent sense. The prey’s warning signals (alarming sights, sounds, smells, etc.) may code for a neurological avoidance response in the predator.

Of course it wouldn’t always work; the predator may be too desperate to care. But it may work just enough of the time that the trait gets passed on by both parties. As for complex signalling, remember, at one time we didn’t know about the bee dance either…

Here’s the abstract:

Casualties and impediments inflicted on consumers by defended prey, and vice versa, may be averted by vocalizations, postures, coloration, scents, and other warning, or so-called aposematic, displays. The existence of aposematic signals has challenged biologists who have sought plausible mechanisms for their evolution. Here, we elaborate on the rationale for the hypothesis that aposematic signals arise via concurrent reciprocal selection (CRS) enacted between inimical signal receivers and signal emitters, where signal emitters, e.g., defended prey, select against non-discriminating signal receivers, e.g., predators, and signal receivers select against unrecognized signal emitters. It is postulated that this mutual selective interaction culminates in the survival of discriminating signal receivers that avoid signal emitters, and recognized (distinctive) signal emitters that are avoided by signal receivers. A CRS hypothesis for the evolution of aposematism, therefore, maintains that distinctive features of prey arise in response to selection imposed by consumers, and that avoidances of those features by consumers arise in response to selection imposed by defended prey. We discuss the plausible inception of aposematism via CRS in light of related hypotheses, and describe points of concordance with previous observations and suggestions on the origin of aposematism. Aposematism arising via CRS is not contingent upon the relatedness of signallers, aversions acquired by learning, or other conditions postulated for some other evolutionary hypotheses. CRS is a credible alternative hypothesis for the evolution of warning signals in diverse consumer-prey interactions. (paywall) – Paul J. Weldon, Gordon M. Burghardt. Evolving détente: the origin of warning signals via concurrent reciprocal selection. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2015; DOI: 10.1111/bij.12565

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
Zachriel runs away rather than support its claims. How typical.Virgil Cain
July 12, 2015
July
07
Jul
12
12
2015
06:20 AM
6
06
20
AM
PDT
So, for the record, we are right back to the fact that there isn't any modern theory of evolution. Linking to people talking about it is not linking to the alleged theory. Linking to wikipedia which doesn't reference the theory is not any good.Virgil Cain
July 11, 2015
July
07
Jul
11
11
2015
07:38 AM
7
07
38
AM
PDT
Zachriel:
The modern theory of evolution makes many predictions, in fields as varied as paleontology, embryology, and genetics, that have been repeatedly verified.
Total BS. Unguided evolution is devoid of predictions. Evolutionism did not predict endosymbiosis. It did not predict eukaryotes. It did not predict metazoans. It did not predict complex protein machinery. It did not predict the genetic code. It did not predict alternative gene splicing. It did not predict proof-reading nor error-correction. It did not predict Tiktaalik. So what are these predictions Zahriel is lying about and refuses to present? Why aren't they on the wikipedia page, which BTW doesn't present a scientific theory of evolution?Virgil Cain
July 11, 2015
July
07
Jul
11
11
2015
07:24 AM
7
07
24
AM
PDT
Mung: It makes it quite clear that evolution is more than just a theory. That’s why you can’t find it. It’s been filed under “facts.” Rather, the term is used to refer both to the facts of evolution, and to the theory of evolution. Mung: And they even have a link to the theory of evolution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_evolutionary_synthesis Zachriel is just being lazy I guess. We provided that link above @106. The modern theory of evolution makes many predictions, in fields as varied as paleontology, embryology, and genetics, that have been repeatedly verified.Zachriel
July 11, 2015
July
07
Jul
11
11
2015
06:27 AM
6
06
27
AM
PDT
Hi Mung- The modern synthesis doesn't fit the definition of a scientific theory as it doesn't have any predictive power nor is it repeatable. Evolution is a fact in that allele frequencies do change. Even YECs are OK with the fact of evolution. Einstein's relativity is a scientific theory complete with methods of quantification. It can be and has been tested over and over again.Virgil Cain
July 10, 2015
July
07
Jul
10
10
2015
01:30 PM
1
01
30
PM
PDT
Virgil, I don't think you read that web page. It makes it quite clear that evolution is more than just a theory. That's why you can't find it. It's been filed under "facts." The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." Maybe this page will help: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_fact_and_theory And they even have a link to the theory of evolution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_evolutionary_synthesis Zachriel is just being lazy I guess.Mung
July 10, 2015
July
07
Jul
10
10
2015
01:15 PM
1
01
15
PM
PDT
We use it the same way all of science uses it. And it doesn't matter- either there is or isn't a theory of evolution. You seem unable to find it so perhaps you should just move on and admit you failed. We are OK with this- Scientific theory Let Zachriel's flailing and hand waving continue...Virgil Cain
July 10, 2015
July
07
Jul
10
10
2015
12:13 PM
12
12
13
PM
PDT
Did you ever provide a definition of how you are using the term "theory"?Zachriel
July 10, 2015
July
07
Jul
10
10
2015
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT
Zachriel:
And you have geologists who think the Earth is only a few thousand years old,
They don't say that geology is not useful, so the comparison is dishonest. But we have come to expect that from you.
and medical doctors who prescribe homeopathic cures.
Yes, vaccines work.Virgil Cain
July 10, 2015
July
07
Jul
10
10
2015
06:19 AM
6
06
19
AM
PDT
Zachriel:
And you have geologists who think the Earth is only a few thousand years old, and medical doctors who prescribe homeopathic cures.
We can't find any medical professionals that say Darwinism is useful. We can't find anyone who can support the claim that it is useful.
“At the heart of evolutionary theory is the basic idea that life has existed for billions of years and has changed over time.”
Thank you for continuing to prove that there isn't any theory of evolution. Talking about it is not a reference. There should be a footnote after “evolutionary theory” that references the actual theory. Again, grow up.Virgil Cain
July 10, 2015
July
07
Jul
10
10
2015
05:55 AM
5
05
55
AM
PDT
Virgil Cain: And yet we have people in that profession that say Darwin is of no use to them. And you have geologists who think the Earth is only a few thousand years old, and medical doctors who prescribe homeopathic cures. Virgil Cain: Talking about it is not a reference. “At the heart of evolutionary theory is the basic idea that life has existed for billions of years and has changed over time.”Zachriel
July 10, 2015
July
07
Jul
10
10
2015
03:24 AM
3
03
24
AM
PDT
Zachriel:
Not only useful, but of critical important in epidemiology.
And yet we have people in that profession that say Darwin is of no use to them.
“At the heart of evolutionary theory is the basic idea that life has existed for billions of years and has changed over time.” http://evolution.berkeley.edu/.....0/lines_01
Talking about it is not a reference. There should be a footnote after "evolutionary theory" that references the actual theory. Again, grow up.Virgil Cain
July 9, 2015
July
07
Jul
9
09
2015
04:33 PM
4
04
33
PM
PDT
Virgil Cain: Too nebulous to be of any use. Not only useful, but of critical important in epidemiology. Virgil Cain: They don’t reference this alleged theory! “At the heart of evolutionary theory is the basic idea that life has existed for billions of years and has changed over time.” http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/lines_01Zachriel
July 9, 2015
July
07
Jul
9
09
2015
03:40 PM
3
03
40
PM
PDT
Zachriel:
It predicts that beneficial traits will tend to spread in a population.
Too nebulous to be of any use.
Please define theory.
Please stop stalling. We all know that you are being dishonest.
“At the heart of evolutionary theory is the basic idea that life has existed for billions of years and has changed over time.” http://evolution.berkeley.edu/.....0/lines_01
They don't reference this alleged theory! What kind of institution would do such a thing?Virgil Cain
July 9, 2015
July
07
Jul
9
09
2015
03:16 PM
3
03
16
PM
PDT
Virgil Cain: What does natural selection predict? It predicts that beneficial traits will tend to spread in a population. Virgil Cain: And yet they don’t reference this alleged theory of evolution! Please define theory. "At the heart of evolutionary theory is the basic idea that life has existed for billions of years and has changed over time." http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/lines_01Zachriel
July 9, 2015
July
07
Jul
9
09
2015
03:05 PM
3
03
05
PM
PDT
Zachriel:
Being able to make empirical predictions about the hereditary composition of future populations is not irrelevant in biology.
What does natural selection predict? It is all contingent serendipity.
“The theory of evolution is broadly accepted by scientists — and for good reason! Learn about the diverse and numerous lines of evidence that support the theory of evolution.” http://evolution.berkeley.edu/.....opic_id=14
And yet they don't reference this alleged theory of evolution! No one can, not even you. Thank you for admitting that you cannot do as requested.Virgil Cain
July 9, 2015
July
07
Jul
9
09
2015
02:58 PM
2
02
58
PM
PDT
Virgil Cain: that is irrelevant as mutations provide the variation. Being able to make empirical predictions about the hereditary composition of future populations is not irrelevant in biology. Virgil Cain: Others have already. Great! Please point to the definition you are using. "The theory of evolution is broadly accepted by scientists — and for good reason! Learn about the diverse and numerous lines of evidence that support the theory of evolution." http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topics.php?topic_id=14Zachriel
July 9, 2015
July
07
Jul
9
09
2015
02:55 PM
2
02
55
PM
PDT
It's not the patterns that are the problem, it's the competing explanations for the patterns.Mung
July 9, 2015
July
07
Jul
9
09
2015
02:39 PM
2
02
39
PM
PDT
Zachriel:
We can quote scientists who think the world is ten thousand years old, or that crop circles are evidence of extraterrestrial visitations.
My scientists can prove what they say as no one can reference the theory of evolution. Your desperation is boring us.Virgil Cain
July 9, 2015
July
07
Jul
9
09
2015
02:33 PM
2
02
33
PM
PDT
Zachriel:
It’s not irrelevant because we can predict the behavior of competing alleles under selection.
In any case that is irrelevant as mutations provide the variation.
Did you ever provide a definition of theory?
Others have already. Grow up.Virgil Cain
July 9, 2015
July
07
Jul
9
09
2015
02:32 PM
2
02
32
PM
PDT
Virgil Cain: that is irrelevant as mutations provide the variation. It's not irrelevant because we can predict the behavior of competing alleles under selection. Did you ever provide a definition of theory?Zachriel
July 9, 2015
July
07
Jul
9
09
2015
02:28 PM
2
02
28
PM
PDT
Virgil Cain: I can quote scientists who say that there isn’t a scientific theory of evolution. We can quote scientists who think the world is ten thousand years old, or that crop circles are evidence of extraterrestrial visitations.Zachriel
July 9, 2015
July
07
Jul
9
09
2015
02:27 PM
2
02
27
PM
PDT
Zachriel:
In any case, selection can occur on existing variation in the absence of ongoing mutation.
In any case that is irrelevant as mutations provide the variation. I accept the standard definition of “theory”, so please link to the theory of evolution or admit that you cannot. Zachriel admits it cannot. Thank you.Virgil Cain
July 9, 2015
July
07
Jul
9
09
2015
02:27 PM
2
02
27
PM
PDT
Virgil Cain: If it changes the sequence of the existing DNA it is a mutation. Mutation can be defined broadly to mean any change to the genome. In any case, selection can occur on existing variation in the absence of ongoing mutation. In other words, scientists normally distinguish between the sources of variation, and the process of selection. Virgil Cain: I accept the standard definition of “theory” Which is?Zachriel
July 9, 2015
July
07
Jul
9
09
2015
02:24 PM
2
02
24
PM
PDT
Zachriel:
Horizontal transfer is not usually consider mutation.
By who? Please be specific. If it changes the sequence of the existing DNA it is a mutation.
You’ve been provided resources.
We asked for the theory of evolution. You have failed to link to it.
Please provide a definition of “theory” so we can understand what you think you are asking for.
Desperate times call for desperate measures, eh. LoL! Whether or not there is a theory of evolution that you can link to has no bearing on how I define "theory". I accept the standard definition of "theory", so please link to the theory of evolution or admit that you cannot. BTW Zachriel, I can quote scientists who say that there isn’t a scientific theory of evolution.Virgil Cain
July 9, 2015
July
07
Jul
9
09
2015
02:19 PM
2
02
19
PM
PDT
Virgil Cain: Genetic change is still a mutation. Horizontal transfer is not usually consider mutation. You are arguing semantics again. Virgil Cain: Now either you can link to the theory of evolution or it doesn’t exist. You've been provided resources. Please provide a definition of “theory” so we can understand what you think you are asking for.Zachriel
July 9, 2015
July
07
Jul
9
09
2015
02:14 PM
2
02
14
PM
PDT
BTW Zachriel, I can quote scientists who say that there isn't a scientific theory of evolution.Virgil Cain
July 9, 2015
July
07
Jul
9
09
2015
08:17 AM
8
08
17
AM
PDT
Zachriel:
Or perhaps it was acquired horizontally.
Genetic change is still a mutation.
Apparently what scientists generally consider to be a scientific theory, you don’t.
Obviously you just say stuff without any supporting evidence. Now either you can link to the theory of evolution or it doesn't exist. And obviously you cannot link to it.Virgil Cain
July 9, 2015
July
07
Jul
9
09
2015
07:48 AM
7
07
48
AM
PDT
Mung: The smorgasbord theory of evolution. The other name for that is pattern plurality. The history of life is complicated. It involves everything from the length of your nose to cosmic collisions.Zachriel
July 9, 2015
July
07
Jul
9
09
2015
07:35 AM
7
07
35
AM
PDT
Mung: What are the alleles competing for, and why? When we say alleles are competing, we mean those alleles that provide a relative benefit to the organism will tend to become more common in the population, and those alleles that provide a relative detriment to the organism will tend to become less common in the population. This process occurs without regard to the source of the original variation.Zachriel
July 9, 2015
July
07
Jul
9
09
2015
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PDT
1 2 3 5

Leave a Reply