21AR26-01
( - previous issue - / - next issue - )
AR 26:1 - How hybrids are overturning evolutionary theory
In this issue:
FALUN DAFA - pursuing "sentient beings" in (at least) 22 languages
ORIGINS - "an important amendment to evolutionary theory"
Apologia Report 26:1 (1,506)
January 6, 2021
FALUN DAFA (FALUN GONG)
In the previous edition of AR we said that we wouldn't be publishing another issue until 2021. Then came the December 14 Epoch Times documentary video "Who's Stealing America?" -- the best summary of the 2020 presidential election controversy that we've seen to date. <www.bit.ly/3gV6bmd>
If that video doesn't provide the source credit detail that you would like, this may help: On December 17th, Director of the Office of Trade and Manufacturing Policy and Assistant to the President, Peter Navarro, released a thirty-six page report on the 2020 election. You'll find it here: <www.bit.ly/2WpSFxo>
We also came across this mischievous related document somewhere online: <www.bit.ly/34nW982>
In anticipation of ongoing questions about the origins and sponsorship of the Epoch Times, we've recently learned of two interesting tidbits from Ira Rifkin <www.bit.ly/3p2zqWO> on the GetReligion blog ("Pay attention to this sect-run news source," Nov 11 '20).
First, the Epoch Times "publishes separate English-language editions for the United States, Canada, Australia and Europe, while also offering its product in 21 other languages spoken around the globe. That's even more than offered by Reuters, the most widely translated international wire service, which offers 16."
Second, Rifkin mentions "a recent in-depth New York Times story <www.nyti.ms/3gYs8k8> about The Epoch Times that went largely overlooked when it was published during the hectic run up to Election Day." He includes the following quote from that story: "In an April 2017 email to the [ET] staff obtained by The New York Times, the paper's leadership envisioned that [its] Facebook strategy could help turn The Epoch Times into 'the world's largest and most authoritative media.' It could also introduce millions of people to the teachings of Falun Gong, fulfilling the group's mission of 'saving sentient beings.'" <www.bit.ly/3ak139V>
For more on Falun Dafa from our past-issue archive, visit <www.bit.ly/2Kxd5C2>
---
ORIGINS
"Hybrids and Evolution: Match and Mix" (no byline, Economist, Oct 3 '20, pp67-70) -- in the online edition, this becomes: "How hybrids have upturned evolutionary theory: The origin of species is more complex than Darwin envisaged." The print summary explains: "Species used to be seen as reproductive isolates. No longer. They breed with each other, often creating new ones. And that was once true of Homo sapiens as well. ...
"[A]s genetic testing has proliferated, biologists have been confronted with an unexpected fact. Hybrids are not an evolutionary bug. They are a feature." The explanation says that "the primacy of mutation in generating the variation which natural selection then winnows is being challenged. The influx of genes accompanying hypbridisation creates [classic family tree] variation too - and the harder people look, the more important that seems to get. Hybridisation also offers shortcuts on the long march to speciation that do not depend on natural selection at all. ... Instead of taking millennia to emerge, a new species can appear almost overnight.
"In truth, all this had already been recognised for simple organisms like bacteria." The extent of it wasn't appreciated until DNA research opened the door. "The conventional view of evolution is that mutations happen at random. Maladaptive ones are then eliminated by competitive pressure while adaptive ones proliferate. The result, over long periods of time and assisted by populations sometimes being split up by external circumstances, is change which eventually crystalises into new and separate species." Along the way, "even viable hybrids are frequently infertile (think mules) and are also at higher risk of developmental and other types of illnesses. ...
"Both the maleficient and beneficent effects of hybridisation are real. The question is, which wins out more often in practice?" The answer depends on the organism, e.g., plants vs. mammals. "These findings muddy Darwin's concept of speciation as a slow and gradual process. Biologists now know that in the right circumstances, and with the help of hybridisation, new species can emerge and consolidate themselves in a mere handful of generations. That is an important amendment to evolutionary theory.
"It is nevertheless true that, for animals, hybrid speciation in its full form remains rare. ...
"The best-studied case of introgression in animals is, though, closer to home than wolves, big cats and bears. It is looking back at you from the mirror. The most up-to-date evidence suggests that Homo sapiens arose more than 315,000 years ago from gene flow between a series of interlinked population groups spread across Africa. Whether these populations were different enough to be considered distinct species is still debated. ... And interspecies mating seems to have been rife. ...
"To be human, then, is to be a multispecies mongrel. ... Hybridisation, once seen as a spear-carrier in evolution's grand theatre, is rapidly becoming a star of the show. Meanwhile, Darwin's idea of a simple, universal family tree is relegated to the wings.
"In its place, some experts now prefer the idea of a tangled bush of interconnected branches. But this, too, is an imperfect comparison. A more fitting analogy is a braided rope. Species are braided from individual strands. Where evolution proceeds in an orthodox Darwinian manner, braids unravel, strands split and new species result. But the rope does not fray neatly. Filaments of introgression criss-cross from braid to braid and, occasionally, two tangle to form a new braid altogether." [1]
-------
SOURCES: Periodicals
1 - Economist (UK), <www.economist.com> (paywall awaits)
------
( - previous issue - / - next issue - )