Re:homology
David Campbell (bivalve@mailserv0.isis.unc.edu)
Mon, 5 Jan 1998 13:54:57 -0400>The point of our article ("Homology: A Concept in Crisis," _Origins &
>Design_ 18 [1997]:12-19) is that neo-Darwinists claim that homology
>can be explained naturalistically, without recourse to design. The only
>way a naturalistic explanation can succeed, however, is to provide a
>naturalistic mechanism. Two such mechanisms have been proposed:
>genetic programs and developmental pathways. Both proposals are
>contradicted by the evidence; therefore, neo-Darwinism has failed to
>exclude design as an explanation for homology.
Homology is usually defined as similarities resulting from shared ancestry,
which implies genetic programs. If similarity is proven not to result from
genetic similarity, this is not unexplained homology but rather homoplasy
(essentially pseudo-homology).
Much homology has been shown to have genetic influence, so I am puzzled by
the initial claim that genetic pathways do not explain homology.
David Campbell