Blog powered by Typepad

« Palladino | Main | Guest blog - Victor Drainit »


You can't really trust some fishermen.

What advantage would human-like teeth give a fish anyway?

Well, they wouldn't. But the idea - called "front loading" posits that evolution is a process of "unfolding" the inherent potential in organisms, rather than a random walk through an essentially infinite design space. These guys talk a lot about this idea: Micheal Denton has also explored it, in a roundabout way.

So, as Micheal said, this could be a case of the genes for mammalian teeth - existant in the fish even though there are no direct relationships between them and mammals - getting switched on by some sort of mutation. Or it couild be a fake. Probably the latter...

If it's a fake, (which is highly likely) then forget the whole thing.

What I meant in my comment is that evolutionists can't say it's proof of evolution, because there would be no "natural selection" favoring the "human-like teeth gene."

The trait would not be passed on.

Another thing: Those teeth look fairly white. Do fish use Crest or Colgate, do you think?

I don't think there ARE any genes "for" teeth.

Rupert Sheldrake talks about the relationship between genes and morphology here. I strongly suspect he is correct, that morphogenesis is a field behavior mediated by resonance from morphogenesis processes in previously developed organisms.

>Do fish use Crest or Colgate, do you think?

They use Aquafresh, naturally.

The comments to this entry are closed.