Here is the Bibliography "H" page of my book outline,
[Left: The late Fred Hoyle's, "Mathematics of Evolution" (1987). See PS below.]
"Problems of Evolution" for authors' surnames beginning with "H." These are books and journals which I will probably refer to in my book (it saves future time to post them all now), but will remove later if I don't.
BIBLIOGRAPHY "H"
Haeckel, E., 1906, "The Evolution of Man," [1903], McCabe J., transl., Watts & Co: London.
Haeckel, E., 1929, "The Riddle of the Universe," McCabe, J., transl., Watts & Co: London, 1937, Fourth impression.
Haldane, J.B.S., 1927, "Possible Worlds: And Other Essays," Chatto and Windus: London, Reprinted, 1932.
Haldane, J.B.S., 1985, "On Being the Right Size and Other Essays," Oxford University Press: Oxford UK.
Haldane, J.B.S., 1990, "The Causes of Evolution," Princeton University Press: Princeton NJ, 1993, Second printing.
Hale, W.G., Margham, J.P. & Saunders, V.A., 1995, "Collins Dictionary of Biology," [1988], HarperCollins: Glasgow UK, Second edition.
Halverson, W.H., 1981, "A Concise Introduction to Philosophy," [1967], Random House: New York NY, Fourth edition.
Hamilton, F.E., 1931,"The Basis of Evolutionary Faith: A Critique of the Theory of Evolution," James Clarke & Co: London.
Hardin, G., 1959, "Nature and Man's Fate," Rinehart: New York NY.
Hardin, G., ed., 1968, "39 Steps to Biology: Readings from Scientific American," W.H. Freeman & Co: San Francisco CA.
Hardy, A.C., 1965, "The Living Stream: Evolution and Man," Meridian: Cleveland OH, Reprinted, 1968.
Harland, W.B., et al., 1990, "A Geologic Time Scale 1989," [1982], Cambridge University Press: Cambridge UK, Revised edition.
Harris, C.L., ed., 1981, "Evolution: Genesis and Revelations: With Readings from Empedocles to Wilson," State University of New York Press: Albany NY.
Harold, F.M., 2003, "The Way of the Cell: Molecules, Organisms, and the Order of Life," Oxford University Press: New York NY.
Hartl, D.L., 1987, "A Primer of Population Genetics," [1981], Sinauer Associates: Sunderland MA, Second edition.
Haught, J.E., 2000, "God After Darwin: A Theology of Evolution," Westview Press: Boulder CO.
Hawking, S.W., 1988, "A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes," Bantam: London, Reprinted, 1991.
Hawking, S.W., 1993, "Black Holes and Baby Universes and Other Essays," Bantam: London.
Haynes, N.L., ed., 1982, "Biological Sciences: An Ecological Approach," BSCS Green Version, Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, Fifth edition.
Hayward, A., 1985, "Creation and Evolution: Rethinking the Evidence from Science and the Bible," Bethany House: Minneapolis MN, Reprinted, 1995.
Hazen, R.M. & Trefil, J, .1991, "Science Matters: Achieving Scientific Literacy," Anchor Books: New York NY, Reprinted, 1992.
Hecht, J., 1993, "Vanishing Life: The Mystery of Mass Extinctions," Charles Scribner's Sons: New York NY.
Heidmann, J., 1995, "Extraterrestrial Intelligence," [1992], Dunlop, S., transl., Cambridge University Press: Cambridge UK.
Heeren, F., 2000, "Show Me God: What the Message from Space is Telling Us About God," [1995], Day Star Publications: Wheeling IL, Revised edition.
Heffernan, D.A., 1987, "The Australian Biology Dictionary," Longman: Melbourne Vic, Australia, Reprinted, 1996.
Henderson, L.J., 1913, "The Fitness of the Environment: An Inquiry into the Biological Significance of the Properties of Matter," Beacon Press: Boston MA, Reprinted, 1958.
Henderson, L.J., 1925, "The Order of Nature: An Essay," [1917], Harvard University Press: Cambridge MA, Second edition.
Henig, R.M., 2000, "A Monk and Two Peas: The Story of Gregor Mendel and the Discovery of Genetics," Phoenix: London, Reprinted, 2001.
Herrick, J., 1985, "Against The Faith: Some Deists, Sceptics and Atheists," Glover & Blair: London.
Herrmann, R.L., 1996, "Theistic Evolution: An Overview," [1994], Zadok Paper S80, Zadok Institute: North Fitzroy Vic, Australia.
Hewitt, P.G., 1998, "Conceptual Physics," [1971] Addison Wesley Longman: Reading, MA, Eighth edition.
Hickman, C.P., Roberts, L.S. & Larson, A., 2000, "Animal Diversity," [1995], McGraw-Hill: Boston MA, Second edition.
Hickman, C.P. & Kats, L.B., 1995, "Laboratory Studies in Animal Diversity," McGraw-Hill: Boston MA, Third edition.
Hickman, F.M., et al., eds., 1980, "Biological Science: An Inquiry Into Life," Harcourt Brace Jovanovich: New York NY, Fourth edition.
Himmelfarb, G., 1959, "Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution," Elephant Paperbacks: Chicago IL, Reprinted, 1996.
Hitching, F., 1982, "The Neck of the Giraffe: Or Where Darwin Went Wrong," Pan: London.
Ho, M-W. & Saunders, P.T., eds., 1984, "Beyond Neo-Darwinism: An Introduction to the New Evolutionary Paradigm," Academic Press: London.
Ho, M-W., 1993, "The Rainbow and the Worm: The Physics of Organisms," World Scientific: Singapore.
Hodge, C., 1874, "What Is Darwinism?: And Other Writings on Science & Religion," [Noll, M.A. & Livingstone, D.N., eds, Baker: Grand Rapids MI, 1994.
Hofstadter, D.R., 1979, "Godel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid,"Vintage: New York NY, Reprinted, 1980.
Hofstadter, R., 1944, "Social Darwinism in American Thought," Beacon Press: Boston MA, Revised, 1955, Fifth printing, 1962.
Holder, R.D., 1993, "Nothing but Atoms and Molecules?: Probing The Limits of Science," Monarch: Tunbridge Wells UK.
Holmes, A.F., 1977, "All Truth is God's Truth," Inter-Varsity Press: Leicester UK, Reprinted, 1979.
Honderich, T., ed., 1995, "The Oxford Companion to Philosophy," Oxford University Press: Oxford UK.
Hooper, J., 2002, "Of Moths and Men: An Evolutionary Tale," W.W Norton & Co: New York NY.
Hooykaas, R., 1957, "Philosophia Libera: Christian faith and the Freedom of Science," Tyndale Press: London.
Hopper, A.F. & Hart, N.H., 1985, "Foundations of Animal Development," [1980], University Press: New York NY, Second edition.
Horgan, J., 1996, "The End of Science: Facing the Limits of Knowledge in the Twilight of the Scientific Age," Little, Brown & Co: London, Reprinted, 1997.
Horgan, J., 1999, "The Undiscovered Mind: How the Brain Defies Explanation," Phoenix: London, Reprinted, 2000.
Horowitz, N.H., 1986, "To Utopia and Back: The Search for Life in the Solar System," W.H. Freeman: New York NY.
Howells, W.W., 1993, "Getting Here: The Story of Human Evolution," Compass Press: Washington DC.
Howells, W.W., 1946, "Mankind So Far," Doubleday, Doran & Co: Garden City NY.
Howland, J.L., 2000, "The Surprising Archaea: Discovering Another Domain of Life," Oxford University Press: New York NY.
Hoyle, F., 1983, "The Intelligent Universe," Michael Joseph: London.
Hoyle, F., 1950, "The Nature of the Universe," Basil Blackwell: Oxford UK.
Hoyle, F., 1999, "Mathematics of Evolution," [1987], Acorn Enterprises: Memphis TN.
Hoyle, F. & Wickramasinghe, N.C., 1978, "Lifecloud: The Origin of Life in the Universe," Sphere Books: London, Reprinted, 1979.
Hoyle, F. & Wickramasinghe, N.C., 1981, "Evolution from Space," Granada: London, Reprinted, 1983.
Hoyle, F. & Wickramasinghe, N.C., 1979, "Diseases from Space," Sphere: London, Reprinted, 1981.
Hoyle, F. & Wickramasinghe, N.C., 1982, "Why Neo-Darwinism Does Not Work," University College Cardiff Press: Cardiff UK.
Hoyle, F. & Wickramasinghe, N.C., 1986, "Archaeopteryx, The Primordial Bird: A case of Fossil Forgery," Christopher Davies: Swansea UK.
Hoyle, F. & Wickramasinghe, N.C., 1988, "Cosmic Life-Force," J.M. Dent & Sons: London.
Hoyle, F. & Wickramasinghe, N.C., 1993, "Our Place in the Cosmos: The Unfinished Revolution," Phoenix: London, Reprinted, 1996.
Hrdy, S.B., 1999, "Mother Nature: Natural Selection and the Female of the Species," Chatto & Windus: London.
Hudson, L., et al., 1972, "Some Myths in Human Biology," British Broadcasting Corporation: London.
Hume, D., 1777, "An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding," Hackett Publishing Co: Indianapolis IN, 1977, Third printing, 1980.
Hummel, C.E., 1989, "Creation or Evolution?: Resolving the Issues," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove.
Hummel, C.E., 1986, "The Galileo Connection: Resolving Conflicts between Science & the Bible," Intervarsity Press: Downers Grove IL.
Humphrey, N., 1995., "Soul Searching: Human Nature and Supernatural Belief," Chatto & Windus: London.
Hunter, C.G., 2001, "Darwin's God Evolution and the Problem of Evil," Brazos Press: Grand Rapids MI.
Hunter, C.G., 2003, "Darwin's Proof: The Triumph of Religion Over Science," Brazos Press: Grand Rapids MI.
Huse, S.M., 1993, "The Collapse of Evolution", [1983], Baker: Grand Rapids MI, Second edition.
Hutchinson, P., 1974, "Evolution Explained," Wren: Melbourne, Australia.
Huxley, A.L., 1937, "Ends and Means: An Enquiry into the Nature of Ideals and into the Methods Employed for their Realization," Chatto & Windus: London, 1938, Third impression.
Huxley, J.S., 1926, "Essays in Popular Science," Penguin: London, Reprinted, 1937.
Huxley, J.S., 1923, "Essays of a Biologist," Penguin: London, Reprinted, 1939.
Huxley, J.S., 1964, "Essays of a Humanist," Penguin: Harmondsworth UK, Reprinted, 1969.
Huxley, J.S., 1953, "Evolution in Action," Penguin: Harmondsworth UK, Reprinted, 1963.
Huxley, J.S., 1942, "Evolution: The Modern Synthesis," George Allen & Unwin: London, Fourth impression, 1945.
Huxley, J.S., 1970, "Memories," Penguin Books: Harmondsworth UK, Reprinted, 1972.
Huxley, J.S., 1973, "Memories II," Penguin Books: Harmondsworth UK, Reprinted, 1978.
Huxley, J.S., 1958, "Religion Without Revelation," [1957], The New American Library, Mentor: New York NY, Revised edition.
Huxley, J.S., 1941, "The Uniqueness of Man," Chatto & Windus: London, Third impression.
Huxley, J.S. & Fisher, T., eds, 1939, "The Living Thoughts of Darwin," Fawcett: Greenwich CT, Reprinted, 1959.
Huxley, J.S. & Kettlewell, H.B.D., 1965, "Charles Darwin and His World," Book Club Associates: London, Reprinted, 1975.
Huxley, T.H., 1931, "Lectures and Essays," Thinker's Library, Watts: London, Second impression.
Huxley, T.H., 1910, "Lectures and Lay Sermons," Everyman's Library, J.M. Dent & Co: London, Reprinted, 1926.
Huxley, T.H., 1863, "Man's Place in Nature and Other Essays," Everyman's Library, J.M. Dent & Co: London, Reprinted, 1906.
PS: These `tagline' quotes at the end of this post (my emphases bold) are all from the late Fred Hoyle's "Mathematics of Evolution" (1999). Hoyle was one of the world's leading astrophysicists who reworked from scratch the entire mathematical basis of Neo-Darwinism and found (as these brief excerpts show-see full quotes in the `tagline' below) that: 1) it only works for microevolution (small-scale change), not macroevolution (large-scale change):
"... the Darwinian theory is correct in the small but not in the large ... the theory does not work at broader taxonomic levels; it cannot explain the major steps in evolution" (pp.6,10. My emphasis);
and 2) to the extent that Neo-Darwinism worked at all, albeit only at that microevolutionary level, it depended on there already being an exquisitely sophisticated system of sexual reproduction with crossover:
"To have any hope of success the neo-Darwinian theory must therefore appeal to a reproductive model quite different from the model mostly adopted by single-celled organisms. ... How exquisitely complex the model needs to be to achieve such a remarkable result ... subject to the choice of a highly sophisticated reproductive model, the theory works at the level of varieties and species ..." (p.10). ... It is only when the present asexual model is changed to the sophisticated model of sexual reproduction accompanied by crossover that the theory can be made to work, even in the limited degree ..." (p.20. My emphasis)
but (3) which Neo-Darwinism (nor indeed any known naturalistic) mechanisms could produce in the first place:
"... how a primitive system could then improve its fidelity and also evolve into a sexual system with crossover beggars the imagination." (p.20) "... primitive systems without sexuality and crossover cannot evolve. ..." (p.102. My emphasis).
Stephen E. Jones, BSc. (Biology).
My other blog: TheShroudofTurin
"The criticism of the Darwinian theory given in this book arises straightforwardly from my belief that the theory is wrong, and that continued adherence to it is an impediment to discovering the correct evolutionary theory. To the extent that one is deflected by socioreligious considerations from correcting what is wrong, one hands a victory to opponents. To deny the paleontological evidence of evolution, and in particular man's place in it, is on par with denying that water flows downhill. In the Darwinian theory, while water flows downhill all right, it flows in rivers that are claimed to be uniformly graded, a graded river being one that goes downhill at a steady angle from its source to the sea." (Hoyle, F., "Mathematics of Evolution," [1987], Acorn Enterprises: Memphis TN, 1999, p.xv).
"The biggest physical storm occurring in ten years usually produces as much change as all the rest put together. And the biggest in a hundred years as much or more than all the rest. And, perhaps, even the biggest in a thousand years.... Something of the same sort seems to happen with evolution. The fine-tuning of genes produces small changes. The addition of entirely new genes, perhaps whole batteries of new genes, produces large changes, grafted onto the genetic complement of an already existing organism." (Hoyle, 1999, p.xv. Ellipses original).
"The trouble was that in reading widely during my early teens I ran into the Darwinian theory, for a little while with illusions and then with less respect than adults with bated breath were wont to show. The theory seemed to me to run like this: `If among the varieties of a species there is one that survives better in the environment than the others, then the variety that survives best is the one that best survives.' If I had known the word tautology I would have called this a tautology. People with still more bated breath, called it natural selection. I made them angry, just as I do today, by saying that it did nothing at all. You could select potatoes as much as you pleased but you would never make them into a rabbit. Nor by selecting oak trees could you make them into colonies of bats, and those who thought they could in my opinion were bats in the belfry." (Hoyle, 1999, p.2).
"It was-and still is-very hard to arrive at this concept from inside biology. The trouble lay in an unremitting cultural struggle which had developed from 1860 onward between biologists on the one hand and the supporters of old beliefs on the other. The old believers said that rabbits had been created by God using methods too wonderful for us to comprehend. The new believers said that rabbits had been created from sludge, by methods too complex for us to calculate and by methods likely enough involving improbable happenings. Improbable happenings replaced miracles and sludge replaced God, with believers both old and new seeking to cover up their ignorance in clouds of words, but different words. It was over the words that passions raged, passions which continue to rumble on in the modern world, passions that one can read about with hilarious satisfaction in the columns of the weekly science magazine Nature and listen to in basso profundo pronouncements from learned scientific societies." (Hoyle, 1999, p.3).
"Because the old believers said that God came out of the sky, thereby connecting the Earth with events outside it, the new believers were obliged to say the opposite and to do so, as always, with intense conviction. Although the new believers had not a particle of evidence to support their statements on the matter, they asserted that the rabbit producing sludge (called soup to make it sound more palatable) was terrestrially located and that all chemical and biochemical transmogrifications of the sludge were terrestrially inspired. Because there was not a particle of evidence to support this view, new believers had to swallow it as an article of faith, otherwise they could not pass their examinations or secure a job or avoid the ridicule of their colleagues. So it came about from 1860 onward that new believers became in a sense mentally ill, or, more precisely, either you became mentally ill or you quitted the subject of biology, as I had done in my early teens. The trouble for young biologists was that, with everyone around them ill, it became impossible for them to think they were well unless they were ill, which again is a situation you can read all about in the columns of Nature." (Hoyle, 1999, pp.3-4).
"As it became clear that the Darwinian theory could not be broadly correct, a question still remained, however, for I found it difficult to accept that the theory could be wholly incorrect. When ideas are based on observations, as the Darwinian theory certainly is, it is usual for those ideas to be valid at least within the range of the observations. It is when extrapolations are made outside the range of observations that troubles may arise. So the issue that presented itself was to determine just how far the theory was valid and exactly why beyond a certain point it became invalid. The issue was a mathematical one ... and I thought at first that it might be settled the easy way, by reading in the literature and in classic texts on mathematical genetics. My experience proved unrewarding. After a session with `the books,' I would retreat, baffled. The mathematics was never difficult in itself. It was the words in which the mathematics was shrouded .... At first I took the fault to be mine, but as the frustrating sessions were repeated again and again over a period of years, I came to suspect that the confusion was in the heads of the writers themselves. Eventually therefore, I decided to tackle this mathematics myself working de novo .... Although my results were all arrived at independently, some-perhaps most-have been obtained before. Their arrangement, however, is I believe original. ... And the outcome of this essay? Well as common sense would suggest, the Darwinian theory is correct in the small but not in the large. Rabbits come from other slightly different rabbits, not from either soup or potatoes. Where they came from in the first place is a problem yet to be solved, like much else of a cosmic scale." (Hoyle, 1999, pp.5-6).
"I am convinced it is this almost trivial simplicity that explains why the Darwinian theory is so widely accepted, why it has penetrated through the educational system so completely. As one student text puts it, `The theory is a two-step process. First variation must exist in a population. Second, the fittest members of the population have a selective advantage and are more likely to transmit their genes to the next generation.' But what if individuals with a good gene A carry a bad gene B having the larger value of |s|. Does the bad gene not carry the good one down to disaster? What of the situation that bad mutations must enormously exceed good ones in number? ... The essential problem for the Darwinian theory in its twentieth century form is how to cope with this continuing flood of adverse mutations, a far cry indeed from the trite problem of only the single mutation in (1.1). Supposing a favourable mutation to occur among the avalanche of unfavourable ones, how is the favourable mutation to advance against the downward pressure of the others?" (Hoyle, 1999, pp.8-9).
"To have any hope of success the neo-Darwinian theory must therefore appeal to a reproductive model quite different from the model mostly adopted by single-celled organisms. This is already an immense climb down from what is usually claimed for the theory. Gone is its `obvious' status. Only if a model can be found that contrives to uncouple the selective properties of one gene from another, permitting the occasional good mutation to survive and prosper in a sea of bad mutations, can evolution be made to work at all. How exquisitely complex the model needs to be to achieve such a remarkable result ... ." (Hoyle, 1999, p.10).
"Then the mathematical properties of the complex model will be investigated ... Thereafter ... we shall be in a position to discuss the extent to which the neo-Darwinian theory can be considered to work and the extent to which it cannot. To anticipate the eventual outcome it will be found that, subject to the choice of a highly sophisticated reproductive model, the theory works at the level of varieties and species, just as it was found empirically to do by biologists from the mid-nineteenth century onward. But the theory does not work at broader taxonomic levels; it cannot explain the major steps in evolution. For them, something not considered in the Darwinian theory is essential." (Hoyle, 1999, p.10).
"Two points of principle are worth emphasis. The first is that the usually supposed logical inevitability of the theory of evolution by natural selection is quite incorrect. There is no inevitability, just the reverse. It is only when the present asexual model is changed to the sophisticated model of sexual reproduction accompanied by crossover that the theory can be made to work, even in the limited degree to be discussed .... This presents an insuperable problem for the notion that life arose out of an abiological organic soup through the development of a primitive replicating system. A primitive replicating system could not have copied itself with anything like the fidelity of present-day systems .... With only poor copying fidelity, a primitive system could carry little genetic information without L [the mutation rate] becoming unbearably large, and how a primitive system could then improve its fidelity and also evolve into a sexual system with crossover beggars the imagination." (Hoyle, 1999, p.20).
"This latter advantage of sexual reproduction seems to be the strongest argument claimed in the books for it over the asexual model ... . Fisher's The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection carries the point in the exquisite ellipticities that were so characteristic of Fisher. With quite some searching one can find it in Sewell Wright's treatise in four volumes Evolution and the Genetics of Populations (University of Chicago Press, 1984) and more directly and clearly in J. Maynard Smith's The Evolution of Sex (Cambridge University Press, 1978) What one does not find, however, is an appreciation of the really crucial aspect of the matter, that only with sexual reproduction accompanied by crossover can positive mutations make headway against the deleterious mutations which occur with far greater frequency, and which otherwise would swamp the advantageous mutations, not permitting them to make any headway at all." (Hoyle, 1999, p.39).
"The ability of species to adapt by changing one base pair at a time on any gene, and to do so with comparative rapidity if selective advantages are reasonably large, explains the fine details of the matching of many species to their environment. It was from the careful observation of such matchings by naturalists in the mid-nineteenth century that the Darwinian theory arose. Because the observations were made with extreme care, it was highly probable that immediate inferences drawn from them would prove to be correct .... What was in no way guaranteed by the evidence, however, was that evolutionary inferences correctly made in the small for species and their varieties could be extrapolated to broader taxonomic categories, to kingdoms, divisions, classes, and orders. Yet this is what the Darwinian theory did, and it was by going far outside its guaranteed range of validity that the theory ran into controversies and difficulties which have never been cleared up over more than a century." (Hoyle, 1999, p.137).
"Finding the neo-Darwinian theory to work only weakly in the general situation, my impression is that some evolutionists have sought to speed things up by wrongly considering cases where species are only coping with environmental conditions they have experienced before, so that memory is being misinterpreted as discovery. The peppered moth, Biston betularia, so called because it has speckled lack and white wings, is frequently misinterpreted in this sense.." (Hoyle, 1999, p.98).
"I am told by zoologists that the growth of fur is controlled by a single gene, which in humans has gone inactive. ... The extreme rarity with which furred children appear in the human population, even with a minimal error in the relevant gene, shows by a practical example how impossibly rare it would be for a gene with several errors to be again set in a working condition. The situation for three or more errors would be rare beyond any possibility of experience, while the situation for a hundred or more errors would be beyond consideration even in the most abstract sense. Yet there are of the order of a thousand genes in the simplest biological systems, and many more than a thousand in the higher plants and animals, that each demand more than a hundred base pairs to be just so in order that they be in a working condition. The problem for the neo-Darwinian theory is, not to explain situations like the peppered moth involving only a single error on a single gene, but the evolution of thousands of genes each requiring a specific arrangement of hundreds of base pairs if they are to function at the level of even the simplest organisms." (Hoyle, 1999, pp.101-102).
"Because of redundancy in the genetic code it is not possible to work backward from the amino acids of a protein to the triplets of base pairs which coded for it-on the average there are about three different triplets coding for the same amino acid. Even though natural selection may hold a protein to a unique chain of amino acids, shifts of base pairs can occur provided they do not go outside the redundancy permitted by the genetic code. Such selectively neutral variations in the DNA are found in the case of the protein histone-4, which has a chain of 102 amino acids. In humans about thirty distinct genes code for histone-4, apparently because there is need for a large amount of this particular protein to be produced. The genes have variations in their base pairs, but the variations are all of the kind permitted by the redundancy of the genetic code. They all code for the same amino acid chain. Other variations that did not code for the same amino acid chain must surely have occurred but were stamped out by natural selection. Essentially, the same amino acid chain being found also in other animals and even in plants, we have a case in histone-4 where more than 200 base pairs are conserved across the whole of biology. The problem for the neo-Darwinian theory is to explain how the one particular arrangement of base pairs came to be discovered in the first place. Evidently not by random processes, for with a chance 1/4 of choosing each of the correct base pairs at random, the probability of discovering a segment of 200 specific base pairs is 4-200, which is equal to 10-120. Even if one were given a random choice for every atom in every galaxy in the whole visible universe the probability of discovering histone-4 would still only be a minuscule ~10-40." (Hoyle, 1999, pp.102-103).
"The histones are a small class of protein which play a critical role in the process of cell division. Except at times of cell division the chromosomes exist freely and separately in the cytoplasm of a cell. With the approach of cell division, the chromosomes are first duplicated and then condensed into a compact, much more visible structure known as chromatin, which can be stained by suitable dyes to make it accessible to microscopic examination. The histones appear to provide physical support for the chromosomes in this process of condensation and in the complex maneuvers, which then lead to crossover and cell division. A form of histone-4 with rogue properties that led to wrong crossover or to chromosomes being torn during cell division would clearly be lethal, just as wrong t-RNA molecules would be lethal. So can one plausibly explain the observed uniqueness of histone-4. Without histone-4 being exactly right, cells could not divide properly and nothing in the whole biological system would work correctly. Faced with this situation, neo-Darwinians retreat into an untestable position. Histone-4 evolved step by step they characteristically argue, with each step requiring no more than a single base pair change. To the objection that step-by step evolution was not possible because histone-4 is an all-or-nothing case, they reply by admitting that, while in the present situation this may be true, the situation as it once was differed in this respect. In a more primitive situation, histone-4 evolved step by step it is claimed, thereby retreating neatly into the unknowable and untestable, a device which, however, is not logically tenable because primitive systems without sexuality and crossover cannot evolve." (Hoyle, 1999, p.103).
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment