Mimicry and neodarwinism

According Davison there is no doubt, that evolution is a fact, but neodarwinism is incapable to account for it.
I am much impressed by Davisons Evolutionary manifesto - one of the most concise critics of darwinism - which was in turn here very criticized.In discussions and threads here in EVC lot of opponents claim that Davison cited Grasse and much more older scientists, who are nowadays out of date.
Even there was a remark, that Grasse himself cited some outdated source from 1901!
And yet to cite Darwins teaching from midst of 19 c. is still
up to date and scientifically correct.It does not matter how old some resource is, because darwinist scientists ignore all facts that do not conform to the neodarwinistic schema. One of these phenomenons are mimicry. Mimetism (or mimicry) was studied very intesive before WW2, yet on
the talkorigins there are no mention of it. Davison cited for instance Punnet, who studied butterflies mimicry and came to the conclusion, that selection is no sufficient explanation to the phenomenon, and to the same conclusion came Heikertinger
(who wrotes plenty books on development of insects and whose corresponding with Erich Wasmann on mimicry was once followed by all biological community in Europe.
But just try to find something more about Heikertinger on internet. Btw, Heikertinger too dismissed darwinian selection, which according him just remove extremities.)There are plenty of books on mimicry, yet no relaible source of explanation of it.For instance: there are 14 females distinct morphs of African Mocker Swallowtail, Papilio dardanus (males look identical). Most of these female morphs represent Batesian mimicry
of distasteful species of Danidae and Acraeidae.Some of them are here:
Batesian mimicry in Papilio dardanusAccording to Nijhout (2003) these represents one of the most puzzling cases of evolution in animal world.What is most interesting is his - Nijhout - darwinian explanation of this phenomenon: big initial mutation and subsequent refinement of these mutations.
"Initial step in the evolution of mimicry is likely to have been due to a genetic effect of large magnitude".Does not sound this explanation like saltationism, macroevolution? Page not found | Department of Neurobiology and Behavior This is very good example, because there is no doubt of same colour patterns on wings of different species of butterfflies and neo-darwinists cannot claims that the likeness is "superficial" (as is the case in the likeness of skeleton (skull) of europian and marsupial wolves mentioned in Manifesto).There is no mention of Swallowtail on talkorigin and no satisfactory explanation of this phenomenon yet, even though the phenomenon is known and cited more than 130 years!Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.

nwr:

I'm a bit surprised to see this topic. I would have thought the existence of mimicry was supportive of evolution, so I find it strange that it is used here as an objection.
You are right - industrial melanism as icon of evolution is also mimicry so to say.
(Yet I dont know if industrial melanism after it has been proved to be pre-arranged is still used in textbooks).The example which I give with Mocker Swallowtail is interesting that female mimics lot of other butterfly species. When it was first published in 1868 by Trimen it was shock to the scientific world. Interesting is also, that no-mimetic form of female has spur like male - in mimetic forms the spur is missing.Other - among plenty of others - most baffling example is Mullerian multiplied mimicry Heliconius melpomene and Meliconius erato.See picture:http://www.ucl.ac.uk/taxome/jim/pap/MalletCurrBiol96.pdfI suppose that all these examples represnts a problem for neodarwinism. It is - for me - hard to believe, that mechanism behind this phenomenon is neodarwistic random mutation and selection.WoundedKing

I'm not sure where you find any lack of a neo-darwinian explanation, beyond the fact that there is no exact account of which specific mutations account for the differing alleles.
I have no doubt, that behind this phenomenon are genes, alleles...Yet the origin of these genes are to be explained as you mentioned - now we see only "could". The correspondence between mimetics forms, abundance of mimetics forms (I can give many examples of them not found on internet, yet well known) is on my opinion beyond idea of random changes.This opinion also presented Andreas Suchantke in his book "Metamorphosen im Insektenreich" (1994), that we should better reconcile with an idea that butterflies can actively accomodate to the environment.Same opinion I found in book "Mimicry, aposematism and related phenomens" (2001) written by Stanislav Komarek from Charles University Prague. In some cases - he wrote - we need to believe to omnipotence of selection as explanation of some mimetics forms.Dvison cited Punnet and I added Heikertinger - they all believe in "internal factors" as explanation, no random mutations/selection.

Yes, maybe we see natural selection in action, but not evolution itself. But I am not sure even with that.
I have read - I have no reference now - that the number of light moths outnumered many times dark ones in other, clear parts of England.More about how Kettlewell placed laboratory-bred moths or dead ones were glued to a tree to scientifically demonstrate industrial melanism as known fraud is on answeringenesis. Missing Link | Answers in Genesis But the case is not so interesting itself, but with connection to the given topic of mimicry. There is another case: Viceroy butterfly that mimics Monarch butterfly.Monarch Picture StoryIt was supposed, that this example represents Batesian mimicry - Viceroy as edible mimics unpalatable Monarch. This notion was valid many years, while it fitted into darwinian concept
of mimicry. There was no scietifically research on this, until 1991, when in Nature was published “The viceroy butterfly is not a batesian mimic,” Nature 350:497-498 (1991). It is supposed that mimic and his model represent Mullerian mimicry - e.g. unpalatable species mimics another unpalatable species. These types of mimicry represent little problem for neodarwinism, because we do not see reason, why unpalatable species should be driven by selection to look like other upalatable species. The explanation should be this: birds would try to eat only one version and remeber it instead of trying to eat both of them.http://www.iscid.org/encyclopedia/Monarch_Viceroy_PuzzleAnother interesting case - where it is unclear if we have to deal with Batesian or Mullerian mimicry - is moth that mimics hornet (vespa crabro vs. sesia apiformis). Species Sesia apiformis - European Hornet Moth - Hodges#2542 - BugGuide.Net I have read in Slovak encyclopedia from 1980 that some experiments show, that birds recognized very well between these species. But it maybe depends on researchers, a neodarwinist will arrange experiment to support his concept.Anyway claim that mimicry protects some butterflies is only hypothesis that fit into neodarwinian paradigma and should be experimentaly verified. If mimicry is not Batesian ones or not even Mullerian ones I see no reason for natural selection and subsequent neodarwinian explanation of the phenomenon to be correct. Edited by MartinV, : Monarch - Viceroy puzzle link added.

I have no intention to aspers biologists, I only cited facts as I know them.
In Europe (see my previous post) is known hornet and his mimic moth hornet. The phenomenon is well-known, often cited, but there is no serious and accepted scientifically study (as far as I know from literature dating to 2001) that solved the problem if we are facing Batesian or Mullerian mimicry or mimicry at all. I remarked in my previous post that according Slovak encyklopedia birds distiguish verywell between these species. If it is true I see no neodarwinian explanation to this noteworthy likeness.SesioideaHeikertinger, prominent Austrian entomologist for instance refused any meaning of cryptic designs as having adaptive consequence. Heikertinger see this phenomenon as realization of internal tendencies of organism. Davisons derepression of hiden pre-loaded structures souds like that.So the current darwinian explanation that moth hornet mimics hornet in order not to be eaten is only a myth without any valid foundation. I think that cited previous article on
Viceroy and Monarch is of the same sort. The article topple down concept of Batesian mimicry as source of the likeness between the species. So darwinists are forced to accepted another hypothesis of the phenomen. But without scientifically study it will be another myth as previous (batesian) one.And another interesting ethological darwinian myth is about similarity of Papilio antimachus to much more smaller sort of butterfly Acrea. As model should had been greater version of this Acrea which is nowadays extinct and nobody saw it.

Yes. Its him. The last work he published was in East Germany in 1950ties. Anyway he was as much familiar with modern molecular developmental genetics as was Darwin in his time.I do not underestand why to drag molecular genetics into phenomenon mimicry discussion at all. Whats the difference? Do you think, that if black and yellow strips on hornet moth are regulated by regulatory genes with pleiotropic effect it has some relation to the fact we are dealing with Batesian or Mullerian mimicry or even we can distinguish between them knowing molecular cascades in hornet moth?On the other hand you are right: it seems to me, that 14 femals morphs of Papilio Dardanus most of which which mimic (admittedly) other species of butterflies are so baffling, that I personally do not believe, that it can evolved by random mutation. Others maybe can.On the other hand darwinistic explanation of puzzled likeness between insect species can be explained only by selection, best if there is mimicry as phenomenon. But if there is no selective pressure to look alike than Heikertinger, Punnett, Suchantke(1994), Komarek(2001), Davison(2003) views should be reevaluated in the sense, that there is an unknown force behind this phenomen of likeness.As far as I know, darwinists only claim, that selective pressure is
(or was) present in mimicry phenomenon in insect realm and do not go into depth of it, trying to corroborate the idea by an experiment. There is - on my opinion - only one reason: if the experiment shows, that the mimic is not protected by mimcry at all (as it seems in some cases be true) than what? Rather do not touch this.Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.Edited by MartinV, : grammar

But the same do darwinists. They underlay to the phenomenons of mimicry their unwaranted myth of random mutation and natural selection as the only possible explanation.Panaxia quadripunctaria for instance has patterns that it can completely "disappeared" amongst leaves of prickly plants. And how is it possible that insects with totaly different body plans as plants, that they can "mimics" plants with different logic of development? According Suchantke (1994) there must be presented related, allied forces, effect of which is this baffling similarity.
This opinion sounds as by Davison cited Nomogenesis theory proposed by Leo Berg. Yet Suchantke did not seem to know anything about Berg, but cited in liretarure sources Heikertinger.

I did not go to depth of this yet. Nevertheless the mimic case of Papilio dardanus are one on the most frequented as to the number of publications and research.
What is interesting is also fact, that males have only one morph, polymorphic are the females.According darwinism there is no need to have polymorphic males, because females are important for reproduction, selection pressure is working mostly on them.
Yet on Madagaskar males and females look same (P.d.meriones)and according analysis of the origin of drawings on the wings, the drawings on mimics are more archaic than those on non-mimetic males! How could be explained this, that - as I underestand it - drawings on the wings on males are younger (e.g, they undergone muation/selection changes most recently) is on my opinion puzzle for darwinism (males are non-mimics, so why the change?).I would like add, that previously mentioned couple of Heliconius melpomene and H. errato forms on great areas of Amazonia in South America approximately 20 different races, but these races of couples in given places looks identical. Turner solved this phenomenon assuming, that during last glacial (20000 years ago) Amazonian primeval forest was fragmentet into many "islands" and during isolation these couples were created. I suppose, that this fancy have to do more with faith on darwinism as with an explanation.Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.

Thank for link, very interesting. Anyway we see on Mullers calculation, how was his mathematic without any foundation - it looks like science and yet is based on wrong suppositions.Mullerian mimicry or mentioned "mimetics rings" are complicated by the fact, that in the given region or part of its occurence we found also many different butterfly species with very different colourings and drawings - Mullerian/darwinian mathematic should require only one.Muller never performed any experiment with predators. I do not know, if the experiment in link is a correct one - are we sure that every generation of birds attemts to taste butterfiles in order to learn which of them are distasteful (as Muller thought) or are there any inborn patterns (as Bates thought)?
There are so many questions, so many darwinian speculations (even with complicated maths to look more scientifically) and so few credible experiments in REAL conditions (if any).

I do not overestimate importance of my opinions, yet same opinions share scientists as Punnet, Heikertinger, Suchantke...Suchantke, who visited Amazonia and teach on University has no problem to criticize darwinistic explanation. But maybe he also suffers from lack of swelled darwinian imagination.

Look at these pictures, especially at the bottom you see males (Mannchen) and female (Weibchen). It is - my opinion - by no way any "superficially similarity" but a baffling ones:http://www.phyllium.de/html/ph__pu__bioculatum.htmlOn the page you can see many examples of mimicry of group Phyllium, they even mimics nibbled leaves, fading leaves with brown spots (leaf veining is always present of course):http://www.phyllium.de/html/gallerie.html

First I would like to close this: Talkorigins also admitted, that photos of moths were staged:Icon of ObfuscationBut I can glue as well dead moths on the tree trunk, photograph them and presented them as support of my conception, that there are no changes in population of moths.But if you think that it was done with noble aim to persuade pupils
into believing in darwinism I have no intention to quarrel about this. Nice reading, thanks for links. Suchantke is a brilliant observer and even though Goethes opinions seems to be outdated, the true is much more complicated.
There are many prominent scientists - biologist professor Zdenek Neubauer from Charles university Prague for instance - that share same opinion, that to underestand living world, we need more that reductionism, the modern darwinisic approach. But it is more philosophy.But on my opinion darwinism is also philosophy. Do not deceit yourself - many of their strongest advocates are hypocrites - if there will be another idea which to support would be more lucrative they will do it. Marxism is also outdated naturalistic theory from 19 century like darwinism, unproved, yet some of us were taught "scientific communism". People, who taught it are now experts on democracy, criticizing Russia... You are right. Mimicry cannot be explained - my opinion - by neodarwinistic play of mutation and selection. But I did claim nothing about supernatural yet.
Anyway you mentioned it before: what remain us to be in this case a right scientist is imagination. And today we are referred only to this imagination ( using Batesian, Mullerian concepts or better combination both of them) to underestand every puzzle of mimicry.
Using your brackets : if theory {T} is darwinistic {D}, that all imagination based in it {I} must be true too.

You assume that accumulation of little changes ("more and more like") would have led to the startling resemblance of different species. Yet your assumtion contradicts not only to opinions held by anti-darwinists, but even darwinists themselves - I have given in my first post link to Nijhout tretease on Papilio dardanus. He also assumes that first inital step of mimic toward its model would have been a big one, otherwise there was no selection advantage for mimic. Afterwards only small changes proceeded - "tuning" - to the model. As far as I know, this is well established darwinian explanation of the phenomenon of butterflies mimicry - but it is certainly in conflict with Darwins idea of small changes.There are many questions, which escaped from visual field of darwinists - for instance, how is it possible that a nonpalatable butterfly mimics other nonpalatable butterfly? What is the selective advantage of this so-called Mullerian type of mimicry ?Are we sure, that every generation of birds taste every species of butterfly in order to learn, which of them are palatable and which of them are unpalatable? Are not in birds some inborne instincts to which butterfies they would better to avoid? Are we sure - because during flight we can well differentiate by observing technique of flight not only between mimic hornet moth and its model - hornet itself, but also between butterfly mimic and its butterfly model - that birds with much more acute vision cannot do the same?Why some of butterfly species are more prone to create mimetics form as others? And is there really any adavantage of mimicry at all? For instance in the same place, there live many different species of butterflies and only some of them produce mimics - other species have very specific drawnings and colous on their wings - and much more - they are palatable, living in the same area where one unpalatable butterfly mimics another unpalatable buttefly!Who once observed butterflies at meadow may agree with me, that there live and fly and sit on grass different species of butterflies with either shiny white wings or brown wings with eyes spots on them. Evidently some of them do not care to look inconspicuous, while the other butterflies mimics leaves so perfectly, that we observe them with astonishment.Yet darwinists do not care - as if they do not see these facts. They want explain everything with random mutation and subsequent selection, even though we see baffling mimic forms which evidently cannot be created by chance, while it is utmost improbable, and in many cases it is also utmost improbale that there ever existed or exists now strong selection pressure which give advantage to mimic compared to no-mimic (do not forget, that one form of Papilio dardanus females mimics nobody, look same like males - and arouses only recently, while other mimic forms are more archaic.)

Yet in other famous case of Heliconius melpomene and Meliconius erato we see, that in many different places races of these species looks different, yet - if I am not wrong - females and males looks identical.Question: is in South America different selective pressure on butterfly males than in Africa?

My intention was to inform about curious phenomenon of mimicry which is not discussed
in talkorigin at all. About peppered moth there are plenty materials on Internet - I have
no intention transcript anti-darwinian articles and read your transcrition of darwinian claims -
if you was not eyewitness of Kettlewell team, discussion does not ineterest me a bit. Evolution - especially darwinism is not science. Do not deceit yourself, darwinism is as
much science as was once marxism. But if you claim that mimicry aroses via random mutation and natural selection and this claim has to do something with science (and not with another myth from 19 century) than give us some explanation - e.g.how is it possible that on the same place we have models, mimics and no-mimics and how natural selection here works? I only presented opinion, that RM/NS is insufficient explanation of the phenomenon. There are other scientists - Bergs and Davisons derepression of hidden genes, Heikertingers, Punnets and Grasses internal factors, Suchantkes goethians gestalten. I just want inform you, that there are many scientists, who did not and do not believe in neodarwinistic explanations and I tried to show some interesting examples from living nature of butterflies.

I think, that feromones play decisive roles in mating of insects. I do not see any point
for moth looking like hornet - trying to mate hornet may be even dangerous. Trying
to mate another species while its wings looks exactly like wings of my species is deceptive -
females that can be better distinguished by males from their models have selective advantage in mating process, do not they?