nPeace
Veteran Member
What?
#1 Assumptions in science...
So question.
Did the scientists Dr. Tan challenged, make assumptions?
It's a simple answer of 'Yes' or 'No'. However, if you want to prolong this with the usual yapping around the obvious, I created this thread with that expectation. So, I got time.![Smile :) :)]()
What?
#2 Interpretations in science...
So, question...
Do scientists have different interpretations for the results of an experiment, or study?
Again, it's a simple answer of 'Yes' or 'No'. However, if you want to prolong this with the usual yapping around the obvious...![Smile :) :)]()
What?
#3 Speculations in sciences...
First... a breather.![Smile :) :)]()
#1 Assumptions in science...
Beetles' bright colors used for camouflage instead of warning off predators
NUS College Postdoctoral Fellow Eunice Tan has discovered that the bright colour patterns of beetles are not a warning signal to predators as previously believed, but actually a form of camouflage, turning an old assumption on its head.
Should this article be rewritten, and corrected? Are the wrong words used here?
I understand that it was previously believed, and assumed that the bright color patterns of beetles were a warning signal to predators, but this belief was debunked.
I think you don't understand what an assumption in science is.
As the first ecologist to examine the colour patterns of live leaf beetles in relation to their host plants, Dr Tan contextualised the colour patterns of beetles to their natural habitats, which allowed her to challenge the prevailing theory among coleopterists -- scientists who study beetles -- that the bright colours of leaf beetles developed as a deterrent signal to predators. These colourful markings were assumed to be a warning to predators against eating the beetles, which are able to secrete poisonous chemicals in self-defence. However, this idea was based on earlier studies, which focused on using museum collections of beetle specimens for their analyses. While this method affords researchers a large number of samples, the discolouration of deceased specimens made accurate colour analysis of the beetles impossible. Furthermore, such methodology also fails to take into account the colouration of each beetle's natural environment.
Taken together, the findings of this study "point to a complex suite of factors driving natural selection, such as types of predators and host plant choice, which affect the evolution of colouration in leaf beetles," said Dr Tan. Challenging the assumption that the sole explanation for bright coloration in leaf beetles is meant to ward off predators,
NUS College Postdoctoral Fellow Eunice Tan has discovered that the bright colour patterns of beetles are not a warning signal to predators as previously believed, but actually a form of camouflage, turning an old assumption on its head.
Should this article be rewritten, and corrected? Are the wrong words used here?
I understand that it was previously believed, and assumed that the bright color patterns of beetles were a warning signal to predators, but this belief was debunked.
I think you don't understand what an assumption in science is.
As the first ecologist to examine the colour patterns of live leaf beetles in relation to their host plants, Dr Tan contextualised the colour patterns of beetles to their natural habitats, which allowed her to challenge the prevailing theory among coleopterists -- scientists who study beetles -- that the bright colours of leaf beetles developed as a deterrent signal to predators. These colourful markings were assumed to be a warning to predators against eating the beetles, which are able to secrete poisonous chemicals in self-defence. However, this idea was based on earlier studies, which focused on using museum collections of beetle specimens for their analyses. While this method affords researchers a large number of samples, the discolouration of deceased specimens made accurate colour analysis of the beetles impossible. Furthermore, such methodology also fails to take into account the colouration of each beetle's natural environment.
Taken together, the findings of this study "point to a complex suite of factors driving natural selection, such as types of predators and host plant choice, which affect the evolution of colouration in leaf beetles," said Dr Tan. Challenging the assumption that the sole explanation for bright coloration in leaf beetles is meant to ward off predators,
So question.
Did the scientists Dr. Tan challenged, make assumptions?
It's a simple answer of 'Yes' or 'No'. However, if you want to prolong this with the usual yapping around the obvious, I created this thread with that expectation. So, I got time.
What?
#2 Interpretations in science...
Experiments
In a series of experiments (in 1891, 1893 and 1895) on the action of light on the coloration of flatfish, Cunningham directed light upon the lower sides of flatfishes by means of a glass-bottomed tank placed over a mirror. He discovered that light causes the production of pigments on the lower sides of flatfishes, and gave his results a Lamarckian interpretation. Other scientists interpreted his results differently. George Romanes wrote approvingly of Cunningham's interpretation, but the geneticist William Bateson was not convinced that the cause of the increase in pigmentation was from the illumination. Thomas Hunt Morgan criticized the experiments and did not believe the results were evidence for Lamarckism.
Should this article be rewritten, and corrected? Are the wrong words used here?
I understand that data, or results can be an indication of more than one conclusion. As long as there is circumstantial evidence, scientists do come up with diferent interpretations... and as seen from the previous reference, assumptions can be ran away with, especially when other factors are dismissed; not considered; etc.
I think you don't understand what an interpretation in science is. Either that, or you are feigning ignorance, becase you think I am stupid.![Innocent :innocent: :innocent:]()
In a series of experiments (in 1891, 1893 and 1895) on the action of light on the coloration of flatfish, Cunningham directed light upon the lower sides of flatfishes by means of a glass-bottomed tank placed over a mirror. He discovered that light causes the production of pigments on the lower sides of flatfishes, and gave his results a Lamarckian interpretation. Other scientists interpreted his results differently. George Romanes wrote approvingly of Cunningham's interpretation, but the geneticist William Bateson was not convinced that the cause of the increase in pigmentation was from the illumination. Thomas Hunt Morgan criticized the experiments and did not believe the results were evidence for Lamarckism.
Should this article be rewritten, and corrected? Are the wrong words used here?
I understand that data, or results can be an indication of more than one conclusion. As long as there is circumstantial evidence, scientists do come up with diferent interpretations... and as seen from the previous reference, assumptions can be ran away with, especially when other factors are dismissed; not considered; etc.
I think you don't understand what an interpretation in science is. Either that, or you are feigning ignorance, becase you think I am stupid.
So, question...
Do scientists have different interpretations for the results of an experiment, or study?
Again, it's a simple answer of 'Yes' or 'No'. However, if you want to prolong this with the usual yapping around the obvious...
What?
#3 Speculations in sciences...
First... a breather.