MartinV,
You are right. Mimicry cannot be explained - my opinion - by neodarwinistic play of mutation and selection.
Why not?
As a predator, wouldn't a
slight enough similarity to something benign to enable a
slight advantage to gain a food item? Why wouldn't this similarity be reinforced by RM&NS? As prey, wouldn't a
slight similarity to a non-food item or a harmful thing give a
slight advantage to not being eaten? Why wouldn't this similarity be reinforced by RM&NS to look more like the non-food item, or harmful thing?
Mimicry, after all, is merely camouflage. Poor camouflage is better than none at all, & I fail to see why you express such incredulity at camouflage getting better by RM&NS. Put another way, I fail to see why a slight advantage can't be turned into a greater one by further mutations that increase the level of mimicry.
But I did claim nothing about supernatural yet.
So what better explanations do you have for the known mechanisms of RM&NS increasing differential reproductive success by appearing more & more like something else as time goes by?
Mark
There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
™ Version 4.2
