Joined: Nov. 2006
Pointing out a single instance where scientists say "I don't know" is not enough to overthrow an explanation which is consistent with millions of other observations.
You are like a Newtonian insisting that all forces could be reduced to gravity. Of course gravity exists. My point is that there probably also is electro-magnetism you know. It doesn't mean that not knowing math behind electro-magnetism means we should dismiss it and hold on gravity even if it explain nothing.
The same for the natural selection. My point is - and not only my of course, there were greater man like me - is that Natural selection is conservative force that just removes extremities and no way play any significant or creative role in evolution.
Mushrooms are better example than the striking coloration and mimicry in butterfly kingdom. Here can darwinists resort to "natural selection" by birds etc... Of course in the case of aposematism and mimicry such an explanation is more claimed than proved. It was thanks Alan Fox who noticed me on the scientific research showing that eyspots on butterflis wing do not scare and deflect predators as darwinists so self-assuredly claim.
But because mushrooms do not have any significant vision oriented predators such self-assured darwinistic claims can be verified much more easier as for butterflies.
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-