- This topic is empty.
- Posts
This article about cavefish claims scientists have found evidence of evolution when in truth all that they have found is evidence that one species of fish has been designed to adapt to stressful environments by having a reduction in eye size.
T8,
In this case it sounds like more evidence of design than of random mutation. According to the theory of evolution a gene that is not used should be bred out of the population. The only evidence that is shown of this is the variation in eye size. That is not the same as no eyes though it has the appearance of such.
The gene or combination of genes in this case seems not to be expressed until the environment is correct then once expressed is passed to the offspring.
T8,
Yes, It is change within the same kind.
Note: I use kind as species has arbitrary definitions in science.
Although I agree, this does have an element of the pile of sand paradox, or other versions of it.
If you place one grain of sand on the floor, you do not have a pile
If you add one grain of sand to any amount of sand, this won't effect whether it is a pile or isn't one
So it seems not amount of sand will constitute a pile of sand.A slightly smaller eye doesn't mean a lot. You can make the he smaller a million times and it still won't make it a different eye because at what point is it a different eye? At what point do grains of sand become a pile of sand? 2 grains? 5? 100?
Starting with one grain of sand and adding 10000 more grains one by one, at what point does it become something different, a pile? Or does it never?
Quote (t8 @ Dec. 14 2013,17:44) Typically called variation within species. 'Within species' is the key term here.
Until a person can define exactly how much an animal would have to change to no longer be of a certain species, it's hard to argue against.Quote (david @ Dec. 28 2013,08:41) Quote (t8 @ Dec. 14 2013,17:44) Typically called variation within species. 'Within species' is the key term here.
Until a person can define exactly how much an animal would have to change to no longer be of a certain species, it's hard to argue against.
David,A change in a gene allele does not make a different species. In this case both types of fish mentioned can mate and have offspring which tends to mean they are the same species adapted to different environments.
There is a huge level of uncertainty that means that it is easier to say what creatures are the same kind than to say which are not. That uncertainty gives the theory of evolution a place to thrive.
Quote (david @ Dec. 29 2013,11:20) I had been referencing the sorites paradox. I should have been mentioning the continuum fallacy.
David,I did not know what you were speaking of until I looked it up. I am not sure some here would bother.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
