Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Hybridization as a Challenge to Common Descent?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Here’s an article from New Scientist that will be open for the next seven days to registered viewers. It’s about the “metamorphosis” of species from larval to adult stages, and brings in the views of Donald Williamson.

Here’s a link to his 2006 paper, and the entire abstract (it’s worth it!):

Examples of animal development that pose problems for Darwinian evolution by ‘descent with modification’ but are consistent with ‘larval transfer’ are discussed. Larval transfer claims that genes that prescribe larval forms originated in adults in other taxa, and have been transferred by hybridization. I now suggest that not only larvae but also components of animals have been transferred by hybridization. The ontogeny of some Cambrian metazoans without true larvae is discussed. The probable sequence of acquisition of larvae by hemichordates and echinoderms is presented. I contend (1) that there were no true larvae until after the establishment of classes in the respective phyla, (2) that early animals hybridized to produce chimeras of parts of dissimilar species, (3) that the Cambrian explosion resulted from many such hybridizations, and (4) that modern animal phyla and classes were produced by such early hybridizations, rather than by the gradual accumulation of specific differences.

Another day; another bad day for Darwinism!

Comments
Sorry failed to close the quote properly.markf
October 1, 2011
October
10
Oct
1
01
2011
06:10 AM
6
06
10
AM
PDT
I declare that, whatever random mechanisms are proposed, the argument for design remains the same, and always valid. The only way to explain biological information by random systems is to prove that biological information is simple. Gpuccio - I am not sure what you mean by "random"? Do you mean "non-teleological"? If so your argument appears to be: "whatever non-teleological mechanisms are proposed, the argument for design remains the same, and always valid." So how can ID be falsified?
markf
October 1, 2011
October
10
Oct
1
01
2011
06:10 AM
6
06
10
AM
PDT
I am not qualified to judge the adequacy of natural selection acting on point mutations (which I guess is what you mean). I can only comment on the logic that says because there is evidence for an alternative mechanism for evolution which does not entail design therefore design!markf
October 1, 2011
October
10
Oct
1
01
2011
06:07 AM
6
06
07
AM
PDT
So, you now accept that the neo-darwinistic mechanism of natural selection acting upon random mutation is hopelessly inadequate in attempting to explain living organisms? We told you so, all along. What else are you wrong about and what else are we right about? Those are the questions you should now be asking.Chris Doyle
October 1, 2011
October
10
Oct
1
01
2011
05:32 AM
5
05
32
AM
PDT
Mark: Why non teleological? The classical problem of dFSCI, and the classical opposition between random non teleological mechanisms and directed mechanisms remain valid, whatever the proposed scenario. I declare that, whatever random mechanisms are proposed, the argument for design remains the same, and always valid. The only way to explain biological information by random systems is to prove that biological information is simple. Or to show that there are necessity mechanisms that favor functional complexity, other than (the inefficient :) ) natural selection. Are there? What are they?gpuccio
September 30, 2011
September
09
Sep
30
30
2011
11:36 PM
11
11
36
PM
PDT
And an even worse day for the design argument as yet another non-teleological explanation for the complexity of life is proposed.markf
September 30, 2011
September
09
Sep
30
30
2011
11:14 PM
11
11
14
PM
PDT
1 4 5 6

Leave a Reply