Hi, Beretta.
Beretta writes:
Bluejay writes:
Do you agree that this constitutes a morphological pattern that bridges modern and fossil groups?
No, I say it looks good on a superficial level but in the absence of proof for genetic mutation causing positive morphological changes, it is not well supported by the evidence. That all animals are related in terms of their genetic code is true, but the reason for their relatedness is not necessarily that the one developed into the other via mutation and natural selection.
All I was asking about was on the superficial level. I wasn’t asking you whether or not you agree that evolution is responsible for the pattern: I was only asking whether you agree that there is a pattern.
So, are you agreeing that the morphologies of organisms---fossil and living---arrange into what appears to be a nested hierarchical pattern?
-Bluejay
Darwin loves you.
™ Version 4.2