Mimicry and neodarwinism

No. What was said to you was "Not believing should be the default position until the theory is convincing."This is not the same thing as "Evolution should be disregarded as a valid theory because it only accounts for a very small part of the evidence."You know how you can tell that these two statements are not the same?Because the only words they have in common are "should", "be", and "the".Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

If you had bothered to read your own link concerning Hypolimnas misippus, you would have read the following:"This species comes from the Old World, where females are mimics of the African Monarch, Danaus chrysippus (Linnaeus). It may have been introduced via the slave trade, H. misippus is probably not a permanent resident in all islands where it has been observed."You would also have found that it is present in "Guadeloupe and Martinique. Marie-Galante, les Saintes (Pinchon & Enrico). Antigua, Dominica, St-Lucia, Barbados, St-Vincent. Throughout the Greater Antilles, but rare. Guyanas, Venezuela, Florida. Tropical zones of the Old World."But not a damn word about it being found in southeast Asia.So your own link shows:(1) It is not found where you say it's found.
(2) It is not the subject of mimicry, but a mimic.
(3) The butterfly it mimics is not L. albomaculata
(4) The butterfly it mimics is indeed found in its region of origin.How wrong can you get? Do creationists have some sort of competition over who can manage the most misinformation per sentence, or what?And why were you so wrong? I will do you the courtesy of supposing that you didn't just read your link and then decide to tell bare-faced lies about it ... so where did all this rubbish come from?Supplementary question: why can't you guys base your arguments on facts? (Hint: 'cos you're wrong.)Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Yrs, "tropical zones in the Old World" includes southeast Asia, but is not limited to that region. So one of your statements was a misleading half-truth, rather than a downright lie.You have given no excuses to explain away your other blunders. Why not?By the way, have you noticed that your argument is essentially what I call the "Argument From Undesign"? You are claiming that some aspect of nature is stupid and therefore can't have evolved. Should we therefore credit this blunder to a perfect and omnipotent designer?

quote:

---

(and not opposite as is the claim in totaly incompetent and speculative response in point 3).

---

My point (3) was based entirely on the link which you supplied. If you believe this link to be "totally incompetent and speculative", I await your apology for supplying us with misinformation.Can you supply us with hard evidence for anything in your post? No, I only notice that you say so. Given your other blunders, I want to see evidence.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.