I'm not sure I quite follow you.
A griffon would be so obviously not-evolved that it wouldn't really cast doubt on the things that so obviously are-evolved. But I suppose there'd be creatures that we'd have to doubt if they evolved too.
previous message writes:
It would be, within the context of the theory of evolution as it stands. The function of the theory (as opposed to the mere fact) of evolution is to place constraints on what can and can't evolve. A griffin can't. Even if we had a good set of intermediate forms, we would still have no theoretical idea that would explain how the griffin could be a chimera of two existing forms with lines of descent separate from one another and from that of the griffin.
Ok, I feel ya. The duck-billed platypus doesn't really have the same bill as a duck, there's just a superficial resemblance. If the griffon wasn't like that, and it really was as you describe, then yeah, we would have a bit of a problem.
But faced with a flagrant chimera, could we be certain any more that these intermediate forms were relics of evolutionary transitions? Could not Archaeopteryx, for example, be not a representative of a transition between dinosaurs and modern birds, but a chimera formed by non-evolutionary processes?
We already know that birds evolved from dinosaurs, so Archy fits in there. But if she had mammary glands, then yeah, we would have a bit of a problem.
I don't think the ToE would be
refuted in the sense that it still does describe the way that things do evolve. But you're right that there'd be some new doubts about whether or not everything evolved once we found a creature that we know didn't.
™ Version 4.2
(1)