At 2:42 AM +0100 00/10/6, Peter Turland wrote:

>Instead of calling it evolution, why not call it patterns?

        1  Few patterns are evident in the picture as we now have it.
Different species appear, and most of those which ever existed go extinct,
but the facts when displayed show few if any patterns.
        2  Even if it were a clear set of patterns, we would still call it
evolution.
                 The term means life unfolding over time with increasing
complexity & variety.
                To call it merely 'patterns' would be both uninformative
and misleading.
        3  The whole record of evolution is riddled with discontinuities,
e.g. the frogs suddenly appear, not preceded by any proto-frogs; the first
seed-plant (preceding by a considerable time the first fern) appears with
no hint from any proto-seedplant.
        4  The evidence for descent is generally weak.  That the species
existed is clear enough, but that one begat another is in general poorly
supported by evidence.

The main reason why almost all scientists believe in evolution is that it
has been exceedingly successful as an integrating theory within biology.

The general absence of patterns may be remarkable; anyhow, I assert it is
the case.

R

-
Robt Mann
consultant ecologist
P O Box 28878   Remuera, Auckland 1005, New Zealand
                (9) 524 2949