Albatrossity2
Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007
|
| Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 27 2008,13:08) | | 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. |
Sorry, V, that is not an answer. Saying that it has "nothing to do with natural selection" is not the same as giving us some idea about what you (not Portmann or Davison) think it might have something to do with. "Set" by whom? Or what? And when "in the past"?
When you say that "The resemblance between marsupial and placental wolfs has been prescribed from the beginning", it implies more than "an innate tendency in variation in coloration". Even the word "innate" hides a mechanism; we're asking you for a mechanism to explain the observation that some snakes seem to mimic coral snakes. So let's back up and try again.
"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
--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
- Pattiann Rogers
|
