296
edits
Changes
Conservapedia talk:Lenski dialog (view source)
Revision as of 18:27, June 26, 2008
, 18:27, June 26, 2008no edit summary
::::: You are both correct. Evolution does indeed say that creatures in non-changing environments have no need to evolve. bmalee is correct on that. However, you are also correct with your example of the coelacanth. Basically, the evolutionary argument that a given creature hasn't evolved because its environment didn't change is an ''ad hoc'' explanation without empirical evidence and without explanatory power. I don't know that the coelacanth is the greatest example, though, as there are much older living things that show no sign of change either. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:18, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
::::: You are both correct. Evolution does indeed say that creatures in non-changing environments have no need to evolve. bmalee is correct on that. However, you are also correct with your example of the coelacanth. Basically, the evolutionary argument that a given creature hasn't evolved because its environment didn't change is an ''ad hoc'' explanation without empirical evidence and without explanatory power. I don't know that the coelacanth is the greatest example, though, as there are much older living things that show no sign of change either. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:18, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::: How is Jinx correct with that example, though? The current living species of coelacanth are not the same as the ones in fossils, which as far as we know are all extinct (although the most recent fossils do resemble the living ones found). It seems that 'modern' coelacanth are substantially larger than their ancestors, and live birth is also speculated to be (relatively) new to the species. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 14:27, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
==Peer Review Process==
==Peer Review Process==