
Evolution may occur through a dependency graph, not the conventional simple tree - cetico
https://evolutionnews.org/2018/07/bio-complexity-presents-a-better-model-than-common-ancestry-for-explaining-the-pattern-of-nature/
======
sago
This is an article from an antievolution, pro-intelligent design, 'science
news' website, run by the Discovery Institute. It is promoting a paper from
their own journal.

It was not peer-reviewed. And was created and funded based on ideological
presuppositions.

Meanwhile in the real-world, it has long been known that the evolutionary tree
is a graph. But the degree of lateral gene transfer is typically thought to be
small. Even more so for more complex taxa. (Perhaps more common in bacteria,
for example).

Please don't confuse this website or paper with science. The author would need
to do a lot more work in a very different intellectual context to make it so.

~~~
pushrax
Thanks for this reply. Since most people (myself included) are not familiar
with the state of the art, this article sounds somewhat compelling, given it
describes a plausible correction to the prolific idea of evolutionary trees.
At least it's immediately clear they are overstating the impact of this work
though, given the presentation style and inconsistency. Claiming the graph
model and simultaneously dismissing LGT with no further explanation is
nonsensical.

~~~
cetico
Indeed, thanks for clarifying. I apologise for posting pseudo-science in the
first place.

(Although a little bit of divergent thinking is healthy for the mind)

------
kasperni
Their about page
([https://evolutionnews.org/about/](https://evolutionnews.org/about/)) lists
"Discovery Institute" as the copyright owner.

From wikipedia on the Discovery Institute: "Discovery Institute is a
politically conservative non-profit think tank based in Seattle, Washington,
that advocates the pseudoscientific concept of intelligent design."

------
cetico
Would this imply that species have a clever way to acquire "modules" from
other species?

Would that happen via crossbreeding? Or some mysterious form of gene
"absorption"?

~~~
Rotten194
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_transfer](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_transfer)

~~~
pushrax
The OP article specifically writes

> These disappointing results have required evolutionists to devise several ad
> hoc mechanisms to explain the ubiquitous inconsistencies. Examples include
> lateral gene transfer (LGT), differential gene loss, and convergent
> evolution. Yet, the widescale appeal to LGT has been seriously questioned.

LGT is a synonym for HGT. I'm not sure why the article brings this up, since
the model (DAG vs tree) and the mechanical implementation (LGT, etc.) are
different things. The need for a mechanical explanation (defined by
observation) does not change with a new model (also defined by observation).
That said, new models can provide the right mental states to speed up
discovery of correct mechanisms, so this work may have some significance, but
it will be impossible to tell a priori.

------
supernovae
The "conventional simple tree" is just a depiction of data put into visual
representation easy for humans to understand.

On the lineage of species, the actual heritage and relationship through
evolution is more of an acyclic graph. We just have species that we know fill
the gap between other species enough to know that a tree is the simplest way
to depict evolution over billions of years, just like a tree may depict a
family genealogy or family tree but even then we know its not all linear
because humans have married between families and been incestuous at times.

------
corpMaverick
May be they are Modules with feature toggles and evolution just turns on/off
what is there already.

~~~
sago
This is part of the post-intelligent-design attack on evolution. The idea that
we couldn't have evolved, because evolution can't create information. It
merely turns on and off information that is already there. The website linked
here is an intelligent design site. But the idea in your comment would be used
in various forms on a number of other creationist sites. It allows them to
imply that these feature modules were created by God. And evolutionary change
is merely flicking switches.

~~~
corpMaverick
Yeah, I noticed as I made my comment that this was a likely conclusion. Either
God or Aliens. Or Both.

However, I didn't know that the web site itself was an intelligent design
site.

