Doesn't darwinian theory fall apart on ontological grounds?

Are these reasonable assumptions to use in examination of mimicry ?

How about let's look at another scenario too. Let's say that 99% of bird which eat a Viceroy will not eat that "look" of butterfly again.
Of Queens, 1% of birds eating it will never eat that "look" of butterfly again. And to the final assumption: does 50/50 fit with mimicry theory better or worse than other ratios of mimic /mimicked ?

That is assuming that predators cannot learn from others' experience. Or from parental presentation of acceptable foods. That's a big assumption.

We CAN assume that first try of food is from parent's beak. And it is GOOD. Of course !

No, not shown at all. Even assuming those all those things which are not safe to assume.

And no, definitely DOES NOT explain "why it it is the way it is".

An interesting read on Shannon. He was not concerned with meaning whatsoever. His contribution was calculating maximum throughput, and in the process, developed a calculation for the measurement of entropy. Not convinced it was the "basis" of his work, rather than a notable agent to address in effective communication.

We can't maximize information.

An interesting read on Wiener too.

Might you confuse a "truth" of nature with an "observance" of nature?

Quote:

Originally Posted by memester
And no, definitely DOES NOT explain "why it it is the way it is".

... sure it does - the "talent for mimicry" hypothesis explains the regional variation that is otherwise left unexplained ...

EDIT: perhaps the confusion here revolves around hypotheses in general and their "truth status" ... any number of hypotheses could explain a fact, but that doesn't mean they're all right

It does NOT explain "why it is the way it is". You have neglected to search other - verifiable - explanations, and instead search for explanations supporting your preferred answers.

My possibly correct explanation - that species DO show variance, with populations showing variance from others, sometimes in clines, ( regardless of proposed mimicry or not) - is based on the scientific FACT.

You gave equations by which to determine if there is mimicry or not on behalf of the Viceroy. That is not science;

... again, we are talking about hypotheses here ... to say that a hypothesis explains something is not to say that the hypothesis is correct ... you can have many competing hypotheses the explain a given fact, and in reality none of them could be right ...

I seeeeee..and this bit of enlightenment necessary for me because.... you have changed goalposts already on this issue more than once, and I have not ?

... hell, I wasn't even aware that there were any goalposts! ... as far as I'm concerned, I made an error in the selection of an example of mimicry (relying on theories about Viceroys and Monarchs I learned as a kid but which are now out of date) ... that error sent things veering off into co-mimicry and so on which I had no intention

but to say that clines exist is an observation that is in need of explanation, not an explanation

Not having intentions "are funny things"

...new claims were made about Viceroy, following your not having that intention.

... here's the "talent for mimicry" hypothesis: that all three species are unpalatable argues for co-mimicry ... in the regions that have been studied, there is a close resemblance between the Viceroy in that region and locally dominant Monarch/Queen ... the resemblance appears to be due to variations in the coloration of the Viceroy ... thus, the hypothesis is that the Viceroy may be genetically more variable with respect to coloration than either the Monarch and the Queen and thus in the process of co-mimicry has moved further toward the locally dominant Monarch/Queen than either has moved toward the Viceroy ... that the Viceroy resembles the dominant Monarch in one region and resembles the dominant Queen in the other but it is not claimed that the Monarch resembles the dominant Queen in the second region (nor vice versa) is consistent with this hypothesis ... one test that could be used to quickly (relatively speaking) falsify this hypothesis would be to perform a study on regional variation across the Viceroy, Monarch, and Queen - if the regional variation of the Viceroy is greater than that of the Monarch/Queen, this would be consistent with the hypothesis; if not, the hypothesis is falsified.

another is your truth/deception dichotomy ... in nature, the Viceroy butterfly has evolved a color scheme that is imitative of the Monarch butterfly ... in such a way, Viceroy butterflies deceive predators - this is a truth of nature, untainted by humans ... but is that a paradox for an ontology that treats truth and deception as polar opposites? ...

I hope that I do not have to sift through everything. Perhaps this will suffice to establish that claim 1. was made in "no uncertain" terms.

Claim 1

... that was the use of what I thought at the time to be an established scientific theory about Viceroys and Monarchs ... that, of course, turned out not to be the case - the case being that science has since corrected itself with respect to Viceroys and Monarchs ... if I have not officially acknowledged my mistake, I do so now ... can we get on to talking about False Cobras now? ...

Indeed ! I was envisioning showing a cline from "claiming" to "denying claiming" over the pages, with possible mimicry

... but you're right - this is indeed speculation ...

... careful - it's a pretty steep cline ... from the post that immediately follows the one you quoted:

You have to admit, don't you, that Claim 1 has to be about the "summit" of all claims ? Nowhere to go but down, from there.

... that I do - I'm normally more careful than that ...