Replies

"There is nothing in evolutionary theory that requires perfection in adaptation. Adequacy is sufficient. . . ."

This is true, since survival and propagation of the species is the driving force behind evolutionary theory.

". . . Change does not automatically imply a direction."

This is also true as it relates to the work of the evolutionary biologist I discussed since simply stating that the several new species of grasses which evolved from the common ancestor all make greater use of the energy available to them does not mean that they evolved in that direction because they needed to make greater use of the energy available to them. That would commit the "False Cause" post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. However; that having been said, there is still a question that must be answered. Why is it that across multiple ecological systems the common result of evolutionary change in the development of new species of grasses is that they make greater use of the energy available to them? The evolutionary biologist I referred to hypothesizes that, given the extinction of other species that made less efficient use of energy, that this may constitute a "directional path" [my term] for evolutionary development, a hypothesis that he believed should be tested further. He never stated that it "proved" that evolutionary development proceeded in this fashion.

At a more abstract level, the entire discussion I related about the evolution of grasses sought to separate two points about the Theory of Evolution. The first is that the evidence for the evolution of new species is so overwhelming that it approaches facticity and there is really no serious debate over this point within the scientific community. The second is that there is a serious debate over the engine of evolutionary change. The work of the evolutionary biologist I referenced earlier was one such example. There were others, the only one of which I remember had to do with some kind of tree frog in Panama whose male members sometimes display very bright coloring. One zoologist who studied these frogs for years concluded that there was no competitive advantage for the species gained by this coloring as a defense mechanism or camoflauge or otherwise. He hypothesized that the bright coloring predominates among males because it seems to make them more attractive to females and that the trait was not selected naturally to ensure the survival of the species.