Darwin used the phrase "Descent with
modification" to summarize his theory of evolution. Despite many
particulars that more recent science has amended to Darwin's theory, the
basic idea of descent with modification remains. The descendant
modifications are taken to be driven by varying degrees of "fitness" to
environments. Even according to today's NeoDarwinian (or Modern
Synthesis) model, the modifications observed in
descendants are taken to be the result primarily of adaptations to
environmental contingencies, operating under the mechanism of variation +
selection, which runs without the benefit of any plan or program that
might provide direction. And this "blind" process has produced all the
phenotypes that were or are or will be.
(An emerging Extended Synthesis model relies less on exogenous factors to explain phenotypes. Its influence on the discipline of evolutionary biology is yet to be known.)
However, another case of biological descent with modification apparently
does benefit, or is assumed to benefit, from a guiding plan, or
program. That is the descent of various tissue types from an
undifferentiated zygote during ontogeny. This poses a paradox.
If natural selection is so powerful a causal agent that it can generate
all the phenotypes that make up an ecosystem, then why is it necessary
to suppose that there occurs in a zygote some sort of genetic plan or
program that guides development of the organism? Why not just chalk it
up to natural selection -- competition and cooperation among the cells
in the organism? What evidence is there of a developmental program?
All the cell types that make up the body of a complex organism share the
same genotype but differ as to which genes are active and which not.
And that info must be heritable, hence a source of variation ("copying
errors"). But any variation among cells in an embryo might provide an
advantage to some cells and/or disadvantage to others. So, the stage is
set for natural selection.
The tissues that make up a complex body and their symbiotic
interdependencies are just the happenstance of competition among the
cells -- is that a defensible proposition? The fit survive and go on to
take their place in the somatic ecosystem of the body. The unfit go
extinct. A clear case of unguided evolution. No need for a developmental
program.
I am NOT proposing that this is what happens. I am only asking the
question: What OBSERVATION could disprove this argument -- that the
cells descend with modification from their common ancestor, a zygote,
through a process of variation + selection?
comments at
http://www.thescienceforum.com/Can-Natural-Selection-explain-cell-differentiation-30656t.php
No comments:
Post a Comment