Proof of evolution outweighs unscientific faith

[jonsdigs]

The Detroit News
Letter: Proof of evolution outweighs unscientific faith

Scott Bahr's assertion ("Evolution theory relies on faith, too," Oct. 3) that the theory of evolution is based on faith is preposterous. Evolution passes many scientific tests.

If evolution is correct, differences between fossil and living animal communities should increase with age. If evolution is correct, eyeless animals living in caves should be more similar to surface-dwelling animals nearby than they are to animals living in caves on another continent.

Full Story:
www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061017/OPINION01/610170311/1008

[Azurerana]

jonsdigs said:

The Detroit News
Letter: Proof of evolution outweighs unscientific faith


If evolution is correct, differences between fossil and living animal communities should increase with age. If evolution is correct, eyeless animals living in caves should be more similar to surface-dwelling animals nearby than they are to animals living in caves on another continent.

Well the story here depends on what you mean by 'more similar'...morphologically or genetically.

A species' morphology (i.e., the blind/white/slender appearance an d long-lived/low metabolism characteristics) are adaptations to the environment. There are unrelated cave adapted species on different continents which are morphologically very similar. On the other hand, you have things like the cave tetra vs surface tetra fish in Mexico, where you have a complete range of morphologies from cave to surface adapted, but the fish can still interbreed. Apparently there is an unrelated cavefish in Australia which morphologically resembles the Amblyopsid fishes in the US. And there is the case of Typhlotriton speleaus, which is now Eurycea spelea-- it's still the blind/white grotto salamander, but has been found to be genetically very very close to other Euryceid salamanders like the cave and dark-sided, which are pigmented with eyes, but still live in cave or cavelike conditions.

Plus that crazy finding that bats are actually more closely related to primates than to either birds or rodents.

And as far as differences between fossil and living species--there are number of species (roaches and sturgeon come to mind) which haven't changed hardly at all in 400 million years.

Evolution isn't a constant, or consistent thing, by any accounting.