Mimicry and neodarwinism

quote:

---

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).

---

I don't know what you are talking about. There's been no "proof" that there is any real problem with industrial melanism as an example of natural selection in action.The Mocker Swallowtail is interesting, but I really don't see how it is supposed to support JAD's ideas.

quote:

---

Yes, maybe we see natural selection in action, but not evolution itself

---

Well ity is pointed out as an example of a mutation which spread by natural selection, and then disappeared again as a result of natural selection as the smoke decreased.

quote:

---

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.

---

As it should be by evolutionary theory.

quote:

---

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

---

It does nothing of the sort. It just shows that Answers in Genesis like to make unfounded accusations of fraud. All too typical of the amorality of too many creationists.ANd I don't see how your discussion of mimicry is supposed to support JAD"s hypothesis. Perhaps an example of mimicry where there is no identiifable advantage to the mimic would be of interest, but unless JAD's hypothesis predicts such a thing it is hard to see how it could help his ideas.

quote:

---

But 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.

---

Essentially the argumment here is that because you could claim that staged phpotographs support a false claim that any claim based on a staged photograph must be false. Of course the claim here is to to with the relative visibility of the moths which is adequately demonstrated by a staged photograph - which is the only practical way of producing such an illustration. Thus your argument is refuted in both the general case and in this specific case.

quote:

---

Because to look conspicuous in these cases of Helioconus means, that unpalatable species (as this is the thread of Heliconius and therefore of Mullerian mimicry) "want" to look like another unpalatable aposematic species. Whats the point? Couldnot birds remember the original colour pattern of mimic as aposematic pattern too? They are unpalatable. Or taste birds occassionaly both of them - then I do not know, if the signal is aposematic, if it does not protect before tasting.

---

It is quite simple if you think about it. Fewer patterns to learn and remember means fewer insects get eaten. Instead of learning each species individually the predator will learn the pattern from both species. Thus if two species use the same pattern their losses to predation will be - on average - halved.

quote:

---

Then I do not see any meaninng of word "aposematic". Every unpalateble creature accroding this assumtion is aposematic, even if it is green.

---

Since "aposematic" specifically refers to the use of bold and easily recognisable colours as a warning it is hard to see how two unplalatable creatures using the same warning pattern could undermine the definition. The definition does not claim that it is limited to a specific species and explicitly excludes colours that ae not easily seen.

Selection is not omnipotent. It is contingent on the environment and on the material it has to work with. If crypsis is the most effective strategy available for some bees then it will be selected for by definition.And your own comments indicate that non-visual warnings may serve in place of aposematic colouration.

You do realise that our quote is inadequate to support your position ? It is explicitly about gradual evolution from cryptic patterning to an aposematic pattern. It doesn't take much thought to see that the result is unsurprising - without an easily distinguishable pattern the loss of crypsis will not be offset by aposematism. So all it says is that you can't gradually evolve aposematism if you start with a cryptic pattern.

This does not address the fact that the argument assumes cryptic colouration as the starting point. It the starting point were something else then the problem need not arise.