Stephen Elliott
Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
| Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 02 2007,15:44) | Stephen Elliot.
I am afraid you cannot refute my positions easily. All you can do is - like in mushroom's coloration - open a new thread and probaly only agree with my sources at last.
That's why I first checked internet if there is anything new about topic I put here. In the case of shift of reproductive organs of mammals no new plausible hypothesis has arisen last 50 years when Portmann adressed it. There is only a neodarwinian mess in it as the article from doctor Myers clearly showed.
The same mess is in wasp-mimicry explanation and observation as clearly shows this modern summary:
http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/archive....cry.pdf
Heikertinger claimed that butterlies that mimic wasps ?
are due to hereditary "frontloading" - "durch die Auswirkungen eines alten gemeinsamen Erbguts" and not due natural selection.
I dont know if the meaning of Erbgut is to be translated as genotype or inheritance. Anyway some of his critics agreed with him at last - F.Steiniger for instance.
I would say Heikertinger made from Darwin, Wallace and Bates perfect fools.
Especially nice is the case when Darwin asked Bates in 1867 how to explain bright coloration of larvae. Bateson (who invented explanation of butterfly mimicry 6 years before) went to ask Wallace who hypothesized it is due warning predators that they are unpalatable. So the great men reinvented the theory Bates proposed in 1861 as source of mimicry.
Heikertinger openly attacked Mullerian explanation of mimicry that even Darwin considered as "too speculative to be introduced into my book".
Heikertinger gave an example of polymorphic mimicry where females of butterfly species mimic more than one unpalatable species. The loss and disatvantage is greater than mimiking only one unpalatable species - the predator hav to taste and learn all of them. Details that neodarwinists selectively miss to hold their theory of natural selection supposedly perfect. |
Oh BTW.
I can also see that your entire post is mostly about old arguments rather than new evidence. Do you expect anyone to take that seriously?
Now I freely admit that I am no scientist but I can smell bullshit. You sir, smell full of it.
Look at yourself. You come here with crazy accusations. Refuse to answer sensible questions (and I admit that they are not mine). Claim authority and expect people to accept it.
Maybe just maybe you are the one that needs help.
Now I am pretty much just an observer but I can see who has evidence.
|
