Albatrossity2
Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007
|
| Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 29 2008,01:06) | | You are still talking about "mechanism" and "going through process" and I don't know what mechanism and process do you mean. Previously you asked me the question about "seem to mimic" ad nausea. Then came Henry, reformulated the question and discussion went on. I will bet you will keep asking me the same question about unspecified "mechanism" and "going through process" again and again. |
V
Good bet. And I'll bet you never answer it.
Let's see if we can get you up to thinking like a scientist. A brief review might help.
I asked you to provide an explanation for the observation that some snakes seem to mimic (i.e. look like, resemble in coloration patterns) coral snakes. You answered that they were "prescribed" that way.
I then asked if you could elaborate on this word "prescribed" by telling me how and when this happened. You replied to the first part of that question by telling me HOW; the mechanism for generation of different species (including snakes, I presume) was Davison's | Quote | | rearrangement of existing genetic material by chromosome inversion followed by first meiotic division. Then the oocyte may instantly acquire a new karyotype and "an evolutionary potential as a new kind of diploid organism." |
This is a mechanism, in case you don't recognize it. Like any mechanistic explanation, it can lead to testable predictions. One of those predictions is that similarly colored snakes should be more closely related on a genetic level than snakes which are differently colored.
So I asked. One prediction is that if a particular organism (e.g., a snake) with a particular color pattern goes through this process, one could reasonably expect that the "new kind" of snake would have a high probability of having a similar color pattern. It follows that genetic similarity between two snakes should be correlated with the similarity between the color patterns.
Do you agree or disagree with this prediction? If you disagree, what part of it is disagreeable, and why?
I don't think you would be banned if you merely answered yes or no to this question, or explained how it doesn't logically follow from Davison's notions. I am merely following your argument, and taking it to what I think is a logical conclusion. As an expert on mimicry and Davison, you should be able to tell me if I am right, or where I am going off track.
--------------
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
|
