Member (Idle past 215 days)
From: Manchester, UK
Message 241 of 241 (462983)
04-11-2008 6:27 AM
Reply to: Message 240 by MartinV
04-10-2008 3:57 PM
|The main question persists. Discussing "mimicry" requires that "mimicry" exists.|
But neodarwinists do not have any clue - except their fantasy of course - how to tell apart aposematism, mimicry and a pure coincidence of similar color patterns.
No Martin, you are trying desperately to pick difficult cases and present them in an informal setting and you exploit "I'm not sure on that but..." answers to support your thesis that there are no clues.
If you want, we can continue talking about cuckoo eggs or maybe ant mimics.
|I would say we have a pallete of coloration in dragonflies and coincidentally some of them look waspish. The same for many other species or families. Only a prejudiced mind of a selectionist see in all those cases "mimicry".|
Well, I've said it many times - there are possibly cases out there where appearances to other species are either coincidence or because of relatedness. However, the waspish look of dragonflies might, in some cases, provide a slight selective advantage penalizing any members of the population that look slightly less waspish helping maintain the pattern.
Still - I'm happy to talk about less ambiguous cases, but you seem to change the subject when I bring them up - so it makes debate difficult.
|This message is a reply to:|
| ||Message 240 by MartinV, posted 04-10-2008 3:57 PM|| ||MartinV has not yet responded|