Evolution - Plastic Explanations
Just when I thought I had all of the ad hoc explanations evolutionists could use when observed features didn't fit their ideas, I find this one.
Essentially, they are saying that Stegosaur plates and spikes are only for 'looks' to differentiate species. They couldn't even use sexual selection in this case because there was no real difference between male and female plates and spikes.
I have to wonder how such features evolved if it provides no natural or sexual selective advantage.
This quote by Russell Main, in graduate school in Harvard University's Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology.
But in the case of stegosaurs or even ceratopsians, like triceratops, and also in modern bovids and some other artiodactyls, where you see a number of different types of horn or antler arrangements, you don't necessarily need to apply functional explanations. They can be relatively easily explained by talking about species or mate recognition.
So essentially, they find no functional use for it, so it must be species recognition. So let me get this straight....Intelligent design is criticized for trying to bring design into the argument when the chance explaintions do not seem to work, but this piece of work, concluding that because a functional explanation for something doesn't seem to work it must be 'species recognition' is regarded as good science? Yeeesh...
It seems as long as you are supporting evolution, anything is acceptable.