Coyne Jerry A
Department of Ecology and Evolution, University of Chicago, 1101 East 57th Street, Chicago, IL 60637, USA.
Science. 2006 Aug 11;313(5788):761; author reply 761. doi: 10.1126/science.1126454.
Davidson and Erwin (Reviews, 10 February 2006, p. 796) argued that known microevolutionary processes cannot explain the evolution of large differences in development that characterize phyla. Instead, they proposed that phyla arise from novel evolutionary processes involving large mutations acting on conserved core pathways of development. I question some of their assumptions and show that natural selection adequately explains the origin of new phyla.
戴维森和欧文（《综述》，2006年2月10日，第796页）认为，已知的微观进化过程无法解释构成门的发育过程中巨大差异的进化。相反，他们提出门起源于新的进化过程，涉及作用于保守核心发育途径的大突变。我对他们的一些假设提出质疑，并表明自然选择足以解释新门的起源。
