Recently comments about the discovery of living populations of coelacanths prompted my thinking on how such a discovery appears to be evidence for some to consider it as a basis to reject the theory of evolution. As if finding a species or even more than one species of dinosaur in some remote part of the world is evidence that evolution does not take place.
It is my position that such a finding or any of the findings of modern species of groups previously thought to be extinct is not evidence to reject the theory of evolution.
Finding extant dinosaurs would be surprising. Entirely unexpected. Especially if their morphology were stable enough for cursory examination to identify them given the time since that group went extinct. Would they be the same species as ancestral dinosaurs? Such a high level of similarity would indicate the stability of the environment, but not be evidence to refute the theory of evolution.
Why would anyone think that such a finding would lead to a rejection of the theory of evolution?
It is my position that such a finding or any of the findings of modern species of groups previously thought to be extinct is not evidence to reject the theory of evolution.
Finding extant dinosaurs would be surprising. Entirely unexpected. Especially if their morphology were stable enough for cursory examination to identify them given the time since that group went extinct. Would they be the same species as ancestral dinosaurs? Such a high level of similarity would indicate the stability of the environment, but not be evidence to refute the theory of evolution.
Why would anyone think that such a finding would lead to a rejection of the theory of evolution?