In case you’re baffled by the rather arty shot, here’s another image:
Figure from Cephalopods: A World Guide (amzn/b&n/abe/pwll), by Mark Norman.
I am not sure it is the case. I have had some discussion on it at EvC. Darwinists have the same explanation (aposematism) for eyspots on butterflies wings and it turns to be false:
The presence of eyespots did not increase the escape probability of resting butterflies once captured (even a form with enlarged eyespots did not add to effective deflection of attacks).There was also no evidence that eyespots influenced the location of strikes by the predators. This study thus provides no support that marginal eyespot patterns can act as an effective deflection mechanism to avoid lizard or avian predation
Same for mushrooms. Darwinists claim that striking coloration of mushrooms may have had some aposematic meaning. And yet it have also no scietntific backgroud:
Poisonous mushrooms do not tend to be more colorful or aggregated than edible mushrooms, but they are more likely to exhibit distinctive odors even when phylogenetic relationships are accounted for.
So darwinistic explanation of coloration via mimicry/aposematism couldn’t be claimed ad hoc without serious research. It was also opinion of professor Adolf Portmann who explained it by non-darwinistic forces (continuing in Goethian tradition).
New comments have been temporarily disabled. Please check back soon.
I often get requests from students to answer questions about biology — typically, they’ve been told…
Oh, here’s a good takedown of that shill for the petroleum industry, Bjorn Lomborg.
Lomborg’s message to…
Here’s a treat: a congressman who has been in office since 1989, and is on the…