Joined: April 2007
|Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 27 2008,21:06)|
|Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Mar. 27 2008,14:44)|
|Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 27 2008,20:36)|
|Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Mar. 27 2008,14:14)|
|Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 27 2008,20:03)|
|Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Mar. 27 2008,13:26)|
|Quote (VMartin @ Mar. 27 2008,19:13)|
|Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Mar. 27 2008,13:08)|
|V, read this very carefully.|
If something seems to mimic something, it means it looks like it. It doesn't mean it "mimics" it for any other than the superficial definition whereby mimic simply means "looks like".
Are you sure? "Mimics" = "looks like"?
Do you think that marsupial wolfs mimic placental wolfs?
Mimics tend to look like things, yes. Admittedly, my comment was poorly written (I'm not entirely on the ball right now) and no, mimics don't simply look like something, but since you failed to understand what "seems" meant, I phrased it badly.
You "seem" to be lost. Do you realise there is also a crypsis? What do you think what is the difference between mimicry and crypsis?
Guess what Marty? I don't care. Know why? Well, it's because I'm not the one being asked the question. You state that X cannot be true. Great, why can X not be true? In order for you to state this you must know what really IS true. So why do some snakes look like others? Why do some wolves (note: wolVes) look like other wolves?
Describe what mechanism causes some animals to look like others.
Why should I know what is true? If you claim that the fifth root of 15785 is one hundred I am pretty sure you are wrong even thouhg I don't know the result.
But your question is much more exact than the babbling questions of Albatrossity2. Anyway it is too general. As regarding the coral snakes I have already answered it. It is "pseudomicry" - the resemblance is pure coincidence and it was no way selection by predators that has led to the similarity of king snakes to coral snakes.
Well I'm going to do something strange now Marty. I'm going to thank you for actually supplying an answer.
Congratulations, it only took a few pages, but we got an answer.
"It just is that way".
You are wellcome. Actually I wrote the same thing some pages above. The "pseudomimicry" as explanation of coral snake rings was proposed by professor Grobman. Conspicuous coloration of animals is outcome of relaxed selective pressure and not "aposematism" and "mimicry" as neodarwinian school would like us to believe.
But just saying "It's pseudomimicary" isn't an answer. You have to then provide what you think is the explanation, which in this case was "It just is".
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.
You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK
Roddenberry is my God.