Theory of Evolution and model of evolution

I have to say its not clear how plausible this actually is. I can't get the whole article and Williamson has not published anything in the general scientific literature on this, only in a couple of books.Where is the genetic evidence that should be evident if these larval forms all derive from the Rotifers. Do clams and snails have clear rotifer like sets of genes which are more similar between clams and snails than between either and the octopus/cephalopods?I'd be much more inclined to a convergent explanation of "these larval forms use several primitive cellular elements such as cilia or flagella and when you only have a matter of dozens of cells there are limits to how you can arrange them to perform a particular function" than hypothesising, only on morphology as far as I can tell, that there have been these multiple 'hybridisations' between rotifers and other organisms which have led to larval forms but have failed to leave any genetic trace.I can see this multiple transfer thing getting some traction, its almost like a multicellular elaboration of the endosymbiosis hypothesis except without any of the compelling genetic evidence which actually lends the endosymbiosis hypothesis its strength.Sounds a whole lot more 'hooky' than convergent evolution to me.TTFN,WK

Well American Scientist is a pretty insignificant publication and the University I am at currently doesn't carry it. I could get it but I'm not sure what the point would be since you don't wish to talk about it.Are you saying you think the hypothesis is interesting but not interesting enough to discuss? Just interesting enough to randomly post and then disown then, and to be snotty when someone suggests that it isn't as good as you seem to think.If you don't want to believe in convergent evolution then clearly you still prefer to pontificate rather than look at evidence and current research. It may not explain the similarity of larval forms but to doubt that the phenomenon exists just suggests a total lack of understanding of pretty much anything to do with comparative morphology and genetics.TTFN,WKEdited by Wounded King, : No reason given.

Hey, calm down! I'm not saying its a bad journal, just that it isn't one that a library would have to have to keep at the cutting edge of research. It has an impact factor greater than 1 so it can't be that bad, none of the various Edinburgh Societies' journals get that high.TTFN,WK