Who Pre-planned the â€å“separated Families at the Borderã¢â‚¬â Crisis?

John A Davison

A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis

1. Introduction
two. The Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis
3. The Indirect Testify
four. The Directly Prove
5. Conclusion

Abstract. I propose that phylogeny took place in a manner similar to that of ontogeny by the derepression of preformed genomic information which was expressed through release from latency (derepression) by the restructuring of existing chromosomal information (position furnishings). Both indirect and straight evidence is presented in back up of the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis.

50. INTRODUCTION

Historically there take been two major hypotheses to explain organic change, that of Lamarck, based on the transmission of characters acquired during the life of the individual and that of Darwin, which placed Nature in the role of selecting and thereby preserving those genetic changes which proved to exist of reward to the organism. These changes were presumed to be the means by which development proceeded. Each of these hypotheses has been thoroughly tested. The Lamarckian hypothesis was tested by August Weismann in Darwin’s own day with negative results. The Darwinian hypothesis has been tested with limited success. At that place is no question that artificial option can significantly alter the phenotype as demonstrated with dogs, goldfish, and a host of other domesticated forms, both plant and animal. Still, the products of the most intensive selection have not exceeded the species bulwark. It seems that sexual reproduction is incapable of transforming species even to new members of the same genus. Even if this could be demonstrated, information technology seems very unlikely that such a process could ever produce the higher categories of genus, family unit, order or class. I realize that these are contentious matters and it is with some trepidation that I have abandoned each of these hypotheses in order to offering what seems to me the just existent viable alternative. It is the responsibility of the scientist to expose failed hypotheses, merely information technology is equally his responsibleness to offer a replacement for them. That is the purpose of this paper. Some of what I volition present is not new with me merely was proposed long ago by those I volition cite, in their own words, and so there is no misunderstanding of what they meant.

2. THE PRESCRIBED EVOLUTIONARY HYPOTHESIS

I suggest that the information for organic evolution has somehow been predetermined in the evolving genome in a mode comparable to the way in which the necessary information to produce a consummate organism is contained within a single cell, the fertilized egg. Merely as differentiation involves the ordered derepression of pre-existing information, so then I propose, did development proceed past a like means. Viewed in this way, ontogeny and phylogeny go part of the aforementioned organic continuum utilizing similar mechanisms for their expression. For those who may exist unfamiliar with the history of evolutionary thought, these notions may seem bizarre, but they are in no way original with me. I just propose to extend them somewhat further.

Leo S. Berg in 1922 published his remarkable volume, Nomogenesis or Evolution According to Police force, in which he presented several examples of what he called phylogenetic acceleration or the premature advent of advanced features in primitive organisms. Among these were the evolution of a true placenta in certain sharks (Mustelus laevis), the ciliate protozoon (Diplodinium ecaudatum) in which whole â€Å"organ systems” are elaborated within the confines of a single jail cell, the possession of pneumatic bones in sure flightless reptiles and many other examples of the appearance of advanced features even in organisms for which there is no apparent adaptive significance. Generalizing from several such examples, Berg concluded:

â€Å"Evolution is in a cracking mensurate an unfolding of pre-existing rudiments.” (Berg [1969] page 406)

In the aforementioned volume he quoted William Bateson:

”Finally, Bateson as well (1914) inclines to the view that the entire procedure of development may be regarded as ‘an unpacking of an original complex which contained within itself the whole range of diversity which living things present’.” (Berg, page 359).

Pierre Grasse (1977, page 209) reached similar conclusions, plainly independently:

â€Å"However that may be, the existence of internal factors affecting evolution has to be accustomed by
any objective mind…”

I advise that these internal factors may evidence to be the master if not the sole causes of organic development. In short, I suggest that evolution has been largely an emergent procedure in which the surround may have played, at best, a petty part. A like view was expressed past Otto Schindewolf, once again independently:

â€Å"On the other hand, an unbiased test of the fossil material itself also reveals that absolutely no directly response to environmental influences or appropriate adaptations in the Lamarckian sense must necessarily exist inferred.” (Schindewolf [1993] folio 312).

â€Å"At most, the environment plays just a similar role with regard to organisms; it tin just provoke and prepare in motion some potential that is already present." (Schindewolf folio 313, his accent).

The key words here are already nowadays. Reginald Punnett, in his book Mimicry in Butterflies offered a similar appraisal of the environs (Natural Choice) in 1915:

â€Å"Natural selection is a real factor in connexion with mimicry, just its function is to conserve and render preponderant an already existent likeness, not to build up that likeness through the accumulation of pocket-size variations, as is then by and large causeless.” (Quoted in Berg, page 314, my emphasis).

In 1909, Henry Fairfield Osborn presented a similar evaluation of the role for Natural selection:

â€Å"In all the enquiry since 1869 on the transformations observed in closely successive phyletic serial no bear witness whatsoever, to my knowledge has been brought forward past any paleontologist, either of the vertebrated or invertebrated animals, that the fit originates by selection from the fortuitous.” (Quoted in Berg, page 127).

It should also be noted that Schindewolf was adamant in his refusal to regard evolution every bit an experimental science.

â€Å"Evolution, a unique, historical class of events that took place in the by, is not repeatable experimentally and cannot be investigated in that way.” (Schindewolf, page 311).

As an experimental biologist I was, at first, very reluctant to accept his judgment. In hindsight however, I am at present inclined to believe he was right. If true, it can offering an caption for the failure of both Darwinism and Lamarckism to provide answers to the causes of development. One can hardly look to demonstrate a mechanism that simply does not and did not exist. We are left with the conditional conclusion that evolution, like ontogeny, has been driven by internal mechanisms the nature of which remain, at present, unknown.

three. THE INDIRECT EVIDENCE

A consideration of development as an emergent process suggests a completely new interpretation of certain phenomena. I recounted several examples in an earlier paper (Davison [2000]) and then I will only briefly refer to them again. The so-called phenomenon of convergent evolution may not be that at all, simply only the expression of the same preformed â€Å"blueprints” past unrelated organisms. Examples include marsupial â€Å"moles”, â€Å"wolves”, â€Å"anteaters”, â€Å"rabbits” (bandicoots), â€Å"squirrels”, including flight forms (phalangers), â€Å"woodchucks” (wombat), ”bears”, (koala), â€Å"mice” (Coenolestes) and most remarkable of all, saber-toothed cats. In Figure one Schindewolf presented pictures of the skulls of the marsupial Thylacosmilus atrox reverse that of the placental Eusmilus sicarius, the old from the Pleistocene of Patagonia, the latter from the Oligocene of South Dakota. The ii forms are separated by thousands of miles spatially and millions of years temporally. Schindewolf’s fable below the figure is of special significance equally it bears, non only on the questions raised here, but also, on the whole issue of Intelligent Design with which those questions are conspicuously related.

Figure 1

â€Å"The skulls of carnivorous marsupials and of true carnivores show an extremely surprising similarity in overall habitus and, in particular, in the unusual overspecialization of the upper pair of canines. The similarities of form are present fifty-fifty in such details as the construction of the large flange on the lower jaw, designed to guide and protect the upper canines.” (Schindewolf, folio 261, my accent).

Schindewolf as well illustrates examples from the constitute kingdom of xerophytes from three different found families all exhibiting the â€Å"cactus” phenotype (Cereus Pringlei, Stapelia grandiflora and Euphorbia erosa). In that aforementioned plate he compares photographs of the marsupial wolf Thylacinus cynocephalus with the placental wolf Canis lupus. (Schindewolf, plate 5). Similarly, the placental gerbil (Gerbillus) mimics the kangaroo and wallaby both structurally and in mode of locomotion.

It should as well exist obvious that if specific information was preformed in the evolving genome there would exist no demand for gradual transformations from one form to another, which remains in accord with the conspicuous absence of transitional intermediates in the fossil record. Furthermore, since such transitional forms are also absent in the gimmicky biota, at that place seems to exist no compelling reason to postulate their existence during their evolutionary emergence. In short, evolution may accept proceeded by a series of instantaneous transformation (saltations) asindependently proposed by both Schindewolf [1993], Goldschmidt [1940] and more recently by the nowadays writer [2004]. Such a mechanism represents the very antonym of the gradualist Darwinian image. The Darwinian model would explain these phenomena as resulting from the gradual aggregating of mutations. Pierre Grasse commented on the Darwinian view as follows.

â€Å"A cluster of facts makes it very plain that Mendelian, allelomorphic mutation plays no part in creative development. Information technology is, equally it were, a more or less pathological fluctuation in the genetic code. It is an accident on the â€Å"magnetic tape” on which the primary information for the species is recorded.” (Grasse, folio 243, my emphasis).

Ane may note that I have used the past tense in reference to evolution. I earlier presented the evidence that macroevolution (true speciation and certainly the formation of the higher categories) is no longer in progress, again a conclusion reached by others long before me, notably Robert Broom. (Davison [2004]).

Note that Grasse uses the present tense in the to a higher place quote as well as in the title for his book, The Development of Living Organisms. However, in all fairness to Grasse, he also stated:

â€Å"The menses of bully fecundity is over; present development appears as a weakened procedure, declining or almost its end. Aren’t nosotros witnessing the remains of an immense miracle close to extinction? Aren’t the small variations which are being recorded everywhere the tail end, the concluding oscillations of the evolutionary motion? Aren’t our plants, our animals lacking some mechanisms which were present in the early flora and animal?" (Grasse folio 71).

Fifty-fifty Julian Huxley, the author of Evolution: the Modern Synthesis, suggested as much in a statement difficult to reconcile with the Darwinian model.

â€Å"Evolution is thus seen as a serial of blind alleys. Some are extremely brusk — those leading to new genera and species that either remain stable or become extinct. Others are longer – the lines of adaptive isolation within a group such equally a grade or bracket. Which run for tens of millions of years before coming upwards against their final bare wall. Others are however longer – the links that in the by led to the development of the major phyla and their highest representatives; their course is to exist reckoned not in tens only in hundreds of millions of years. Only all in the long run have terminated blindly.” (Huxley [1942] folio 571).

This remarkable summary appears just seven pages before the terminate of the volume and would seem to challenge much of what has preceded information technology.

4. THE Straight Prove

In 1940 Richard B. Goldschmidt [1940] presented the evidence that it is the chromosome, non the factor that is the unit of evolutionary modify. While this was not and then accepted by the evolutionary establishment, contempo karyological studies fully support his perspective. The primary demonstrable differences that distinguish the states from our closest primate relatives are revealed in the structure of our chromosomes. They consist of several reorganizations of homologous chromosome segments in the form of translocations, pericentric and paracentric inversions and a single fusion which result in the human complement of 46 chromosomes while the Chimpanzee, Gorilla and Orang each take 48 (Yunis and Prakash [1982]). The important point is that there is no show that such transformations involved in any mode the introduction of species specific information into the genome. This is further reinforced by the sit-in that nosotros are nearly identical at the DNA level with our close relatives. The simplest explanation is that the data was present in a latent land and merely revealed or derepressed when the chromosome segments were placed in a new configuration (Davison [1993]). In other words, we are dealing with what has been described as â€Å"position effects” which besides obviously practise not involve the introduction of new data from exterior the genome. Any change in such cistron expressions can only result from the influence of the new structural surroundings. I find information technology hard to imagine how Natural Selection could in whatsoever way influence the conditions leading to such chromosome reorganizations. They would seem to have a purely endogenous origin, just as Berg, Bateson and Grasse had suggested long agone. Furthermore, recent studies clearly demonstrate that such chromosome reorganizations do not occur randomly as the Darwinian model would presume. While the technical aspects of their studies are beyond the scope of this paper, the championship of the paper, â€Å"Hotspots of mammalian chromosomal evolution” indicates, equally the authors demonstrate, that there are definitely preferred points at which chromosomes break and recombine. They country in their conclusion department:

â€Å"Rather, our analysis supports a nonrandom model of chromosomal development that implicates specific regions within the mammalian genome as having been predisposed to both recurrent small-scale-scale duplication and big-calibration evolutionary rearrangements.” (Bailey, et al. [2004], my emphasis).

Recent studies (Bauer et al. [2001]) show that genes experimentally introduced near chromosome ends (telomeres) tend to exist silenced, this providing further testify for â€Å"position effects” in determining cistron expression. While these are developmental phenomena, might they not also accept operated during evolution?

Farther support for the Prescribed Evolution Hypothesis comes from studies with one of the virtually archaic of the animal phyla, the Cnidaria (Kortschelt et al. [2003]). Working with the planula stage of the coral Acropora millepora, they institute information technology to be genetically very complex, containing many genes previously thought to be vertebrate innovations. From their summary:

â€Å"Acropora millepora provides a unique insight into the unexpectedly deep evolutionary origins of at least some vertebrate gene families.”

The great genetic complexity of a primitive form such as Acropora millepora raises an interesting question concerning the nature of the evolutionary procedure. Is it non possible that evolution might have involved, to some extent at to the lowest degree, the loss rather than the gain of data? Comparison phylogeny with ontogenesis again, certainly the fertilized egg has a greater developmental potential than the individual cells which result from its division. Thus, just as differentiation results in a progressive loss of potential, and then may have phylogeny proceeded in a like fashion. This perspective also offers a rationale for the irreversibility of the evolutionary procedure.

5. Determination

I promise that this brief discussion will serve to stimulate a farther investigation into the mystery of organic evolution from a new perspective. The Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis (PEH) presents a clear alternative to both the Darwinian and Lamarckian paradigms. It is no longer acceptable to regard evolution every bit a self-regulating miracle guided by random mutation and Natural Selection, especially since it has failed the acrid test of experimental verification. PEH is not fifty-fifty a specially radical thought. Does anyone believe that the laws that are and so axiomatic in all of mathematics, physics and chemical science were non somehow prescribed? Science is nothing more than the discovery of that which is there and always has been there. It is interesting to annotation that Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace discovered nothing. They had both been profoundly influenced by the writings of Malthus and Lyell and erected their hypothesis largely on those considerations alone, namely extensive periods of time and overpopulation. Information technology is of great significance and much to his credit that Wallace finally abased the whole scheme as is so obvious from the title of his last book, The World of Life: A Manifestation of Creative Power, Directive Listen and Ultimate Purpose. (Wallace [1911]). That does not mean that there demand to accept been supernatural intervention during the process of evolutionary alter. Pierre Grasse properly identified the nature of the polarities that continue to inhibit our understanding of the evolutionary procedure.

â€Å"Directed by all-powerful selection, chance becomes a sort of providence which, nether the cover of atheism, is not named merely which is secretly worshipped. We believe that there is no reason for being forced to choose between â€Å"either randomness or the supernatural,” a choice into which the advocates of randomness in biology strive vainly to back their opponents. Information technology is neither randomness nor supernatural power, merely laws which govern living things; to make up one's mind these laws is the aim and goal of science, which should have the concluding say. (Grasse, page 107).

Even Albert Einstein, who I don’t believe always commented on evolutionary matters, offered the post-obit which certainly is not in any sense in disharmonize with what has been presented here.

â€Å"Everything is determined… by forces over which we take no control. Information technology is adamant for the
insect every bit information technology is for the star.”

Professor Emeritus of Biology, University of Vermont, The statesA.

REFERENCES

Bailey, J.A., R. Baertsch, W.J. Kent, D. Haussler and E.E. Eichler [2004]. Hotspots of Mammalian Chromosome Development. Genome Biological science 5: R23.

Bauer, J.A., Y. Zou and West.E. Wright [2001]. Telomere Position Effect in Human Cells. Science 292: 2075-2077.

Berg, L.S. [1969], Nomogenesis or Evolution Adamant by Police force. M.I.T. Printing, Cambridge. (original Russian edition, 1922).

Davison, J.A. [2000], Ontogeny, Phylogeny and the Origin of Biological Information. Rivista di Biologia / Biological science Forum 93: 513-523.

Davison, J.A. [2004], Is Development Finished? Rivista di Biologia / Biology Forum 97: 111-116.

Goldschmidt, R.B. [1940], The Fabric Basis of Development. Yale University Press.

Grasse, P.P. [1977], Evolution of Living Organisms. Academic Press, New York. (original French edition 1973).

Huxley, J. [1942], Evolution: The Modern Synthesis. Harper, New York and London.

Kortschak, R.D., M. Samuel, R. Saint and D.J. Miller [2003], EST Analysis of the Cnidarian Acropora millepora Reveals Extensive Cistron Loss and Rapid Sequence Deviation in the Model Invertebrates. Current Biology 13: 2190-2195.

Schindewolf, O. [1993], Bones Questions in Paleontology. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London. (original High german edition, 1950).

Wallace, A.R. [1911], The World of Life: A Manifestation of Creative Ability, Directive Listen and Ultimate Purpose. Moffat Yard and Co., New York.

Yunis, J.J. and O. Prakash [1982], The Origin of Man: A Chromosomal Pictorial Legacy. Science 215: 1525-1530.

johnswoperand1967.blogspot.com

Source: https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/a-prescribed-evolutionary-hypothesis/