The cat came back. so to speak. Actually, extinct Simbakubwa kutokaafrika was not a cat but a hyaenodont, larger than a polar bear, with three rows of shearing teeth. Found between 1978 and 1981, the jawbone had to be stored on special shelving due to its size.
So what, you say? Well, consider: We have no evidence that the relationship “evolved.” We are informed that we ought to see it as evolution but—as so often—we find the same patterns prevailing in the past, without any evolution.
Wait a minute. This isn’t evolution! If these traits developed during the experiment, the tendency to do this sort of thing must be coded into the plants. The question then becomes, what signal systems convey information throughout the plant about self-pollination or blossom size in response to environment changes?
They sound so cautious, feeling their way through the ruins of the certainties of classical neo-Darwinism—the kind where it was easy to wreck people’s careers over doubt.
Rob Stadler: When high-confidence evidence is appropriately prioritized over low-confidence evidence, the result is a profound new view of evolution – one that they did not teach you in biology.
He offers a Darwinian explanation that “individuals who just happen to have sesamoid bones at their knees” happened to run better and thus left more offspring. More and more, that sort of explanation begins to sound like what we say when we don’t really have more specific information. Especially now that we are starting to get more specific information.
Dickinsonia, he says, is not an animal.
Media personality and author Eric Metaxas talked to him in his university’s home town in Pennsylvania: Eric Metaxas interviews biochemist Michael Behe on “the new science about DNA that challenges evolution” as told in Behe’s book, Darwin Devolves Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #3,561 in Books (See Top 100 in Books) 9:50 am EST #1 in Developmental Biology (Books) […]
Sexual conflict, and sexual selection in general could conceivably turn out to be so “complicated” that, while it usually makes a difference when it occurs, it does not point in any particular direction for evolution.
Okay, but then aren’t the microorganisms the unit of selection rather than the host’s genes? This might work for adaptations to change in habitats (they describe one), but it won’t be Darwinism.
Giant viruses have only been known from the past few decades. There is still debate about whether viruses are actually life forms. Surely, there will be many game changers to come. Anyone attempting to compile an evolutionary history of giant viruses would be like the person who writes the history of a major league playoff series after the first game. Without the crystal ball.
“It’s a perfect scenario for cooking up new species,” he said. What? Wait! This isn’t a “new species.” This is a holdover from 50 million years ago, during which it’s always been an obvious frog.
Maybe in some fields, we need more “stupid” ideas that don’t depend on what “should have” evolved.
And would everyone think that was a good thing? They’re here but not as popular as you might think. Many paleontologists fear losing control of the story: One of the characteristics of information is that, unlike matter and energy, it is not reduced by being shared. And when it is shared, it can generate new […]
Of course, they must see evolution as a benevolent deity instead of an impersonal one, if it can act to prevent a bad outcome, as described above. Well, if it’s an established religion, it’s an established religion.