avocationist
Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006
|
Ok, let's go back to that.
What IDers must understand is that evolutionary biology doesn't make future predictions (except at a short timescale). First, they would be useless since they cannot be verified within a researcher's lifetime. Second, as J. G. said, there is far more than one evolutionary path for a given lineage. Third, we cannot predict future selective pressures (environments).
First of all, we can eliminate #3, because you would be making your prediction upon conditions that were shaping up in Australia, i.e., the existence of suitable trees and mammals coming along to create niches for predators. I've been told over and over that science is about being able to make predictions.
Now, granted there is more than one evolutionary path. How can we account for not one but several incredibly similar outcomes? After millions of years of separation from very different early ancestors there arose these almost identical animals. The coincidence of just too out of range of my credulity meter.
I'd rather either discard the notion that they developed separately, or come up with a new facet of evolutionary theory, such as perhaps some sort of Platonic realm of ideas in which there are just so many body forms available.
the trace of a chromosomal fusion in Homo...
That was predicted?
|
