The researchers think the fish wasn’t as flexible as eels or snakes.
High rates of convergent evolution are only “incredible” if we simply assume as an article of faith that there is no design, and that therefore there is nothing to research. It shall remain then, forever, incredible. No matter why the design exists. A price paid, shall we say, for dogmatism killing curiosity.
Why was convergent evolution a “surprising result”? The dead hand of Darwin rules. And no one in power considers the cost of government. Or needs to.
Article: Researchers trying to reach consensus about how the shell develops have concluded that turtles may have more than one way to build a turtle shell.
According to the story, evolution didn’t create the common blueprint, only discovered it. So there is someone even smarter out there who actually developed the blueprint.
Over on The Panda’s Thumb blog, Darwinian apologist P.Z. Myers recently posted a pejorative laden critique of a review article by Casey Luskin. Luskin was responding to a recent New York Times article on a study purporting to show how certain genes in fish might hold an important clue on how fins turned to feet. Read More…
“This is truly a remarkable level of evolutionary repeatability and suggests that evolving resistance to the plant toxin had very few effective options.”
“Dark matter stubbornly refuses to come out of the shadows. “
Should there be a new term for this type of evolution, of a faculty that could not obviously be of use to the life form that possesses it? But might be to others?
The evasion, of course, is the idea that natural selection, acting on random mutation, somehow just produces the quality as needed, time and again, in the gecko evolutionary tree.
Life forms do not randomly evolve solutions through natural selection; they are inwardly driven to converge on possible solutions in a wilderness of non-solutions.