Joined: July 2006
|Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 27 2007,15:14)|
|Erasmus, what the hell are you talking about? I haven't claimed that behind mimicry there are "orthogenetic channels".|
Why don't you answer a simple question and why do you put your off-topic questions instead like poor Arden?
Are so you afraid accepting "natural selection" as the source of mimicry? I have supposed that you are a selectionist...
But to be clear: "warning coloration" of wasps and ladybugs do not exists actually. It exists only as armchair darwinian preconception in heads and in "primary literature" of darwinists. They need to explain bright coloration of insects. So they see aposematism and mimicry everywhere. They consider their fantasies about coloration to be real. They suppose "warning coloration" to be outcome of "natural selection" that gives their bearer "survival advantage".
Of course such fantasies about ladybugs, wasps, bees, bumple-bees etc. contradicts reality. But oddly enough such fantasies still penetrate into peer-reviewed journals, publications etc...
The real answer, of course, is that the "designer" simply likes things to be pretty.
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand