Joined: Nov. 2006
Oh, thanks for explaining it. I was wondering. Some quite unlikely co-incidences don't you think? Oh, of course you don't think, sorry.
What coindidences are you babbling about? Stop scribbling nonsense and answer these questions first:
1) Do you believe that all 6.000 species of Syrphidae (hoverflies) are mimicking wasps? If no, where do you see a division line between mimics and non-mimics?
2) Do you believe all 600 species of Sessidae (clearwing moths) are mimicking wasps? If no, where do you see a division line between mimics and non-mimics?
Only a true professional like yourself can have a fantasy with no supporing evidence. Who needs actual evidence to support their craziness? Certainly not VMartin!
I am not a professional - just like you. But it's not my fault that modern darwinists are not as clairvoyant systematics and systematic's experts as were their adversaries like Franz Heikertinger. Scientists of the past didn't just pick up two species and presented them as mimicry. They were aware that we should take into consideration all species from "model" group and all species from the "mimic" group and compare them. By comparing color patterns of whole insect families we can often immediately dismiss many cases of mimicry as it is presented by darwinists. We are often facing convergent evolution or pure coincidence and not "mimicry".
Let say we have models having these color patterns in their group (family):
E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 E7 E8 E9 E10
and so-called mimic having these color patterns in it's group (family):
A3 B3 C3 D3 E3 F3 G3 H3 I3 J3
A darwinist picks up E3 from both group and he shows it to children: "Look children, what a nice mimicry! There is natural selection behind it, science, you know.".
The poor darwinist is either an ignorant or a hypocrite. He is only comparing some similarities from transformation sequences.
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-