From: mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben)
Subject: Pre-emptive anti-creationist clause.
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 22:52:03 GMT

I ran into a fascinating book today, titled "Larvae and Evolution:
Toward a New Zoology" by Donald Williamson.  The first paragraph on
the first page contains the following:

"Evolutionary theory, as it is today generally accepted, postulates
that species evolved from other species in monophyletic lines of descent
by the accumulation of gradula, heritable changes.  I agree that this
accounts for much of evolution, but I claim that this theory alone is
not adequate to explain why some animals have the embryos and larvae
they do and the life histories they do.  IN SUGGESTING AN ADDITIONAL
HYPOTHESIS TO EXPLAIN THESE ANOMALIES, I MUST MAKE IT CLEAR THAT MY
PROPOSAL IS IN ADDITION TO ACCEPTED THEORY, NOT A REPLACEMENT FOR IT.
MY EXPLANATIONS ALL ASSUME THAT CONVENTIONAL, DARWINIAN EVOLUTION HAS
TAKEN PLACE AND IS CONTINUING TO TAKE PLACE.  THOSE WHO WISH TO ATTACK
THE ENTIRE THEORY OF EVOLUTION ARE UNLIKELY TO FIND SUITABLE AMMUNITION
IN THESE PAGES, AND THEY SHOULD CERTAINLY NOT INCLUDE ME AS THEIR ALLY."
[caps are mine.  mrh]

Obviously, he's taken a lesson from Gould and others who have been
misrepresented by Creationists as cases of conflict and confusion
among "believers in evolution", and wants to make it abundantly clear
in advance that creationists who misrepresent him do so in dire peril
of exposure for it.

The book itself is an excellent disproof of claims of quack theorists
that the "scientific establishment" censors radical new theories.
The theory he proposes is really new: that most phylogenetic discrepancies
in invertebrate larval forms (which have previously been reluctantly
presumed to be due to convergence) have been due to hybridization,
sometimes even between phyla.  He postulates that about 25 such
hybridization events would be sufficient to account for all the known
problems.

[Note to folks without much invertebrate biology background: strange
overlaps of larval forms of the many phyla have long been inadequately
explained: distantly related groups sometimes have almost identical
larval morphologies.]

Sounds absurd at first, like a typical quack theory.  Where it differs
though, is that he provides strong evidence and makes numerous falsifiable
predictions.

The frontspiece shows his most astounding evidence: a larva produced in his
laboratory that is a hybrid between a sea-squirt (phylum Chordata) and a
sea-urchin (phylum Echinodermata) that shows intermediate characters of both.
He has produced many such hybrids very simply by mixing eggs and sperm,
then rearing.

The predictions are many and specific.  They include predictions of fossil
morphology yet to be examined, genetic sequence similarities, etc.

The explanations make alot of sense, especially that there's no developmental
obstacle to the change from an adopted larval form to an adult when the
transformation occurs via the development from small pockets of tissue with
the rest of the body being reabsorbed.

Horizontal genetic transfer of this sort is now being identified in other
situations as well.  It has been identified in fruit flies and plants.
I suspect it in several groups of parasitic wasps.

I only had a few minutes to examine the book today, otherwise I'd try to
provide more details.  I'm looking forward to reading it some more, and
perhaps any reviews that I can find.  I wouldn't be surprised if Gould
eventually writes about it.

Mike Huben

"An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning
over and converting its opponents...  What does happen is that its opponents
gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarized with the
ideas from the beginning."  Max Planck