Joined: Nov. 2006
|Quote (Alan Fox @ Mar. 26 2008,04:01)|
| I can find no evidence of research into the possible mechanisms of mimicry in it. "Komarek' views" shed no light on any alternative explanation of mimicry, unless I have missed something.|
|I suspect you of very superficial reading the material.|
This is true, but I was merely scanning for evidence of research and any alternative explanation of mimicry; I found none and asked you to point some out. There is nothing in your reply that answers my question.
I see that one or two other posters have expressed a similar interest in hearing your alternative explanation.
|It's not my problem that nobody at AtBC read my posts.|
Well, if you want to hold on to the few that are still bothering to glance at your comments, perhaps you could try a new strategy of answering a simple question, for example:
What is your favored explanation of the origin of snakes that seem to mimic coral snakes?
You didn't bothered read my post where I quoted Komarek for you. Of course he like darwinists doesn't provide evidence. If you are looking for evidence á la neodarwinian explanation of mimicry you wouldn't find them in his book - but what you will find there is many
interesting ideas and observations
As to your last question, see my previous post to Albatrossity. My opinion is in accord with John Davison's claims in his Manifesto. The resemblance between marsupial and placental wolfs has been prescribed from the beginning. The same for the coloration of coral snakes, wasps and their so-called "mimics". It is nothing else as "pseudomimcry". In this case I am on the side of Davison, Heikertinger and Grobman. There are many species with the same color patterns which happen to live next to each other. Sometimes some of them (or better some of their plasteline models) may have some "survival advantage" from looking like their neighbours, but there was not natural selection involved in the origin of their coloration.
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-