VMartin
Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006
|
| Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Mar. 26 2008,14:37) | | Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 26 2008,14:06) | | As to your last question, see my previous post to Albatrossity. My opinion is in accord with John Davison's claims in his Manifesto. The resemblance between marsupial and placental wolfs has been prescribed from the beginning. The same for the coloration of coral snakes, wasps and their so-called "mimics". |
"Prescribed" brings us closer to an explanation, but it is still not a real explanation. Prescribed by who or what? And how was this prescription filled? And when was this "beginning"?
Thanks in advance |
It means that there was an innate tendency in variation in coloration. This has been set in the past and has nothing to do with natural selection. It can be explained as "self-represenation" of species as proposed by Swiss zoologist professor Adolf Portmann or as frontloading as proposed by professor John Davison in his Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis. Also other scientists considered so called "mimicry" as variation of coloration of different animals which happened to resemble each other.
--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin
|
