Good camouflage - harder to find, long legs - harder to catch, evolution can be seen to work at the macro level, but what about the small stuff? Does every step by step incremental change towards some revised form necessarily evidence the theory, or does the theory need to be invoked in order to support its own underpinings (bootstraps?). The theory says every step towards a higher-evolved creature is driven by the natural selection driver and no other agent of change. I can't buy it because it cannot be demonstrated and it certainly seems unlikely - no more than a hypothetical crutch to help support the theory. The theory of evolution may be valid, I certainly accept the general principal, but I strongly suspect there are many strains of ongoing change in an evolving lifeform that, contrary to theory, cannot be demonstrated to provide any obvious benefit at the time they are adopted. They are assumed to do so because the theory says they must. Any thoughts/evidence on this?
2007-05-12
03:08:25
·
15 answers
·
asked by
Endor
3
in
Biology