Arden Chatfield
Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006
|
It looks like Davison is talking to himself:
| Quote | Martin
Member
Member # 2001
posted 21. November 2006 17:39
REC.
I would say that chance also play no role in polymorphism of Papilio Dardanus.
1) All males look identical, yet there are 14 different female mophs. Most of them are mimetic, but in some races coexist mimetic and non-mimetic forms. Even
quote:
The situation is different in Abyssinia where, unlike that in South Africa, 80 per cent of the females are male-like while 20 per cent are entirely distinct from them, being polymorphic and mimetic.
http://www.bulbnrose.com/Heredity/Ford/FORD4.HTM
On my opinion it is very hard for neodarwinist account for the fact that non-mimetic forms outnumbered better protected mimetic forms.
2) It is accepted theory that butterfly mimicry to be effective first step should be a "great" one to enable enough similarity to unpalatable species to confuse predator (birds with extraordinary good vision). To explain this step Nijhout(2003) proposed that polymorphism of P.dardanus evolved from P.phorcas - it is much more easily for neodarwinists assume this as assume that monomorphic P.dardanus males represent ancestral form. Yet then, why are only females of P.dardanus nowadays polymorphic?
According Darwin the phenomenon that males are rarely polymorphic as females are due the fact of sexual selection by females giving priority to ancestral males patterns. Yet if females polymorphism is advatageous for females it should not represent disatvantage for males if it occurs in males too - at least to say. So sexual preferation is the darwinian explanation of the fact. I would say that Nijhout weird conception of ancestor looking like P.phorcas is in contradiction with Darwin explanation - we should ask, why is it possible that female are polymorphic and males no? Because both of them have to undergone patterns/color changes to their nowadays "look" and females sexual preferention did not hindern males to change color/patterns. So why females admitted such non-mimetic change of males but do not admitted mimetic males change? We know that also male mimics in butterfly realm exist as well.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/modern-science/chapter15.html
These question are of such importance that neodarwinists are forced use very untraditional explanations like "transvestite evolutionary step", "females to escape 'sexual harrasment' by males" and so on.
It is really hard work to defend darwinism in case of Papilio dardanus.
They should be rather prepare to accept fact that behind some curious phenomenon of mimicry are no random mutation/selection but until today some unknown internal factors. Proposed by Punnet and cited by John Davison in his Manifesto.
Nijhout fancy on Papilio Dardanus evolution via "transvestite evolutionary step" and subsequent "genetic effect of large magnitude":
http://www.nbb.cornell.edu/neurobio/BioNB420/Dardanus2003.pdf
[ 21. November 2006, 17:42: Message edited by: Martin ] |
Javison then THANKS HIMSELF:
| Quote | Martin
Thank you for laying it on the "groupthinkers" over at the saloon. You have them on the run and I don't think they even realize it. "Prescribed" ideologues are like that. Thank you for doing that which they won't permit me to do so I will do it here where I am allowed. I hope they are listening.
ALL of both ontogeny and phylogeny has been the result of "internal factors." The environment has played no role whatsoever in either creative evolution or embryonic development beyond the rather trivial role of allowing a milieu for the expression of those strictly "internal factors" The generation of intraspecific varieties and strains, none of which represent incipient species in any event, are all that the Darwinian model has ever been able to achieve. The experimental laboratory has made this conclusion perfectly plain. Mendelian genetics, natural or artificial selection, allelic mutation and sexual reproduction can only maintain and extend evolutionary dead ends. None of these ever played a role in creative evolution, a phenomenon of the distant past. Trust me but of course no one will. That is fine too. I wouldn't have it any other way.
How does that grab the Darwinian mystics? I imagine it smarts a little. I certainly hope so!
As for asking me to make predictions, I already have. There is little now to predict because it is all over. Creative evolution is finished and has been for millions of years at the genus level and for thousands of years at the species level. That is perfectly obvious to any serious student of the living world, fossil or extant. Today only extinction can be documented.
Darwinism is without question the biggest ideologically driven hoax in the history of science.
I love it so! |
We all do, John. We all do.
--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus
|
