Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

“The tree of life is being politely buried”

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Here’s the story from today’s London Telegraph, and here is a related, more in-depth piece on the same question from the latest New Scientist.

While Darwin argued for a single Tree — probably the most powerful image he introduced into biological perception — he was always cagey about the structure of its root. Life was “originally breathed [‘by the Creator,’ added in the 2nd edition of the Origin] into a few forms or into one” (1859, 490). There’s a world of (inferential / phylogenetic) difference, however, between divinely created first life and naturally arising first life, when the single most important question in the latter scenario concerns the probability of abiogenesis. “A few forms” that independently evolved (say) ribosomal structure, versus a single origin for the ribosome, would entail radically different consequences for phylogenetic reconstruction.

Move the red bead of the probability of abiogenesis down its wire, away from zero and towards one, and funny things happen to the structure of the monophyletic tree of life. The tree comes apart from the bottom, and the fracturing process rapidly climbs up into the branches.

Comments
I guess this answers Dave's question: Do Darwinists acknowledge flaws in Origin of Species?Mark Frank
January 22, 2009
January
01
Jan
22
22
2009
09:03 AM
9
09
03
AM
PDT
Last year we had some Darwinists on UD grating against statements like this:
"The tree of life is being politely buried, we all know that," he says. "What's less accepted is that our whole fundamental view of biology needs to change." and While vertical descent is no longer the only game in town, it is still the best way of explaining how multicellular organisms are related to one another - a tree of 51 per cent, maybe.
Maybe? I've been watching this play out over the years and one thing I've noticed is that the overwhelming creative powers of unguided HGT are inferred from comparing sequence data:
...it is becoming increasingly apparent that HGT plays an unexpectedly big role in animals too. As ever more multicellular genomes are sequenced, ever more incongruous bits of DNA are turning up. Last year, for example, a team at the University of Texas at Arlington found a peculiar chunk of DNA in the genomes of eight animals - the mouse, rat, bushbaby, little brown bat, tenrec, opossum, anole lizard and African clawed frog - but not in 25 others, including humans, elephants, chickens and fish. This patchy distribution suggests that the sequence must have entered each genome independently by horizontal transfer. Other cases of HGT in multicellular organisms are coming in thick and fast. HGT has been documented in insects, fish and plants, and a few years ago a piece of snake DNA was found in cows. The most likely agents of this genetic shuffling are viruses, which constantly cut and paste DNA from one genome into another, often across great taxonomic distances. In fact, by some reckonings, 40 to 50 per cent of the human genome consists of DNA imported horizontally by viruses, some of which has taken on vital biological functions.
40 to 50 percent? Holy moly batman! Well, then unguided HGT which results in beneficial constructive mutations must occur fairly often. But every time I attempt to find information on the OBSERVED capabilities of unguided HGT in higher creatures I've found little to nothing. What about observed limitations of unguided processes? HGT just begs the question of where the original genes came from. If standard vertical evolution didn’t make us what we are, but we resulted from reassembly of genes by HGT shuffles, then where did the original genes come from? We still have no clue of a mechanism for evolution of new genes, to say nothing of the control mechanism for the genes, without which all the genes in the world will be just so much junk. Now if the intelligent evolution hypothesis is true, or partially true, we should be looking for guided inter-species mechanisms for information networking and modification. Obviously they exist to a certain point as seen with plant hybrids, but we're looking for the capabilities of a second category.Patrick
January 22, 2009
January
01
Jan
22
22
2009
08:56 AM
8
08
56
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply