1,660
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 17:
Line 17: + +
→What the theory explains
An explanation would say (1) why these shells came into being, i.e., how species of mollusks with shells appeared on earth; and (2) why lots of other animals have shells or "bony appendages". Am I missing something too obvious for words here? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:27, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
An explanation would say (1) why these shells came into being, i.e., how species of mollusks with shells appeared on earth; and (2) why lots of other animals have shells or "bony appendages". Am I missing something too obvious for words here? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:27, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
: It is a supporting observation to natural selection. It is not a theory on its own. It is not trying to explain anything. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:29, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
: It is a supporting observation to natural selection. It is not a theory on its own. It is not trying to explain anything. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:29, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
It is not simply a matter of faith. This is not to discount the ID folks, but Evo does have good evidence, both morphological and genetic, and good, testable, falsifiable reasoning (which ID does not...it is tautological). Populations subjected to similar selective pressures sometimes develop similar (very) structures. Ill dig you up some good stuff on that if you wish.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]]<sup>[[User_talk:palmd001|talk]]</sup> 20:31, 30 March 2007 (EDT)