Joined: Nov. 2006
Translated : I'm here to bring every possible fact that has not been studied yet and claim that Darwinism can't explain it. But don't expect me to propose anything.
It has been studied (see coloration of fruiting bodies of mushrooms. Don't you agree with the research's conclusions or what?) But often the result doesn't support (neo)darwinistic explanation of coloration (fruiting bodies of mushrooms, coloration of swans, "warning" coloration of hornet moth) so maybe nobody published them in mainstream resources. It was Alan Fox who noticed me that a research showed that "eye spots" on butterflies wings has no effect to predators. Published in serious resource.
Summa: You are claiming something about coloration having no scientific support for it. An idea of "survival advantage" of coloration precedes every serious research. It's a dogma. Your explanation is taken for granted. It is not very scientific, don't you think so? Your claim is - we haven't studied it deeply yet but our explanation is correct neverthenless.
But maybe not.
This study thus provides no support that marginal eyespot patterns can act as an effective deflection mechanism to avoid lizard or avian predation.
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-