Joined: Nov. 2006
|Quote (Steviepinhead @ Oct. 31 2007,16:33)|
|Oh, the excitement as I open the AtBC main page, only to see that Vmaroon has again deigned to grace the discussion of coloration and mimicry he started, and on which his only point seems to be that evolution, natural selection, and the other natural mechanisms accepted by the world's scientists can't possibly be responsible for the colors and similarities we see in nature.|
Once again, my anticipation rises! Arouses...! Er, whatever!
Once again, I turn to Vmaroon's latest post to see what it is instead of selection and other natural mechanisms he posits to explain the mysterious phenomena of the natural world...
When to my surprise what do I see, but yet another empty post, devoid of any semblance of an alternative mechanism--no hypothesis, no model, no theory, no arousal...
Just more blithering evasiveness.
Crestfallen, I creep away to my cavern, where I live with my aunt, er, ant, er, beetle, er, spider--
Once again my ravine, er, ravenous, er, raffish curiosity is destined to be rebuffed, soiled, and rejected.
When, O when, will Vmaroon stop putzing and futzing and swishing around, and gratify us with some actual instance of his brilliance and glory? When, O when, will my arousal find surcease?
Not today, I reckon.
Having two magnets that attract each other you would insist that it is gravity as the force behind the phenomena - because the magnetism and electricity was unknown in those times. When I had told you it is impossible, you would have believe it is gravity neverthenless - because I have no alternative explanation.
The same today. I tell you it is no way selection behind coloration of animals. I don't know what it is. But because I don't know you would insist it is natural selection.
Sometimes we might know it - it is transformational sequences. As in the case of beetles that look like ants but do not live with ants, or with Syrphidae that look like wasps but are not their mimics etc...
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-