Early embryology; clockwork construction plan (Introduction)

by dhw, Monday, October 17, 2011, 11:28 (4569 days ago) @ David Turell

Swiss scientists have discovered a mechanism (the Hox clock) which regulates the development of the embryo with such precision that “even the smallest change would end up leading to the emergence of a new species.” I asked David for his interpretation of this, as it seems to be absolutely crucial to evolutionary variety.

DAVID: The quote relates to not creating monsters, which are not likely to survive, but maintain the purity of the species. You are right in the sense that a minor mistake can create variations, but those mistakes are precisely guarded against.

One would have expected the scientists to say that even the smallest change would result in monsters which are not likely to survive, but the wording is quite specific: “the emergence of a new species”. The scientists claim that the Hox clock demonstrates the “extraordinary complexity of evolution”, but if your interpretation is correct, your next comment proves the exact opposite – namely that the Hox clock would PREVENT the emergence of new species, which is at the very heart of evolution:

DAVID: There is a philosophy of science KEY point here: if under Darwin theory evolution is a chance free-flowing process, advanced by variation, guarded by natural selection, why is there a mechanism in the genome to protect so assiduously the existing form of the species, seemingly not allowing the variation the Darwin theory needs?

You have always said you believe that evolution happened, which can only mean that new species developed from existing species by means of heritable variations caused by innovations and/or adaptations. This must be true regardless of the Chance v. ID debate, unless you now wish to argue for the separate creation of each species, which you have never done before. Epigenetics appear to provide an explanation for adaptation, but innovation remains a grey area. Have the Swiss scientists got it all wrong, or expressed themselves misleadingly, or are they really onto the source of the mutations that result in new species?