Re: A revolution in the field of evolution

On Apr 11, 12:15 pm, "limitationsofscience"
<limitationofscie...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 11, 6:55 am, "limitationsofscience"



<limitationofscie...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 10, 10:47 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

limitationsofscience wrote:
On Apr 10, 9:15 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

limitationsofscience wrote:

by H. Allen Orr October 24, 2005 Carroll, Sean; "Endless Forms Most
Beautiful" (Evo Devo (Evolutionary Developmental Biology); Evo devo.

Nice review. I can't shake the idea that you think something in this
review invalidates our current understanding of evolution. If that's so,
what?

[snip]

Is this the SOMETHING in the shaking idea?

Can you do more than cut and paste? I do see below a few claims that
evo-devo upsets the modern synthesis in some way. Perhaps you should
focus on them. I happen to disagree with those claims, but perhaps you
can come up with arguments in favor, rather than regurgitating random
statements by other people.-
From DNA to Diversity is used for a graduate course.

Endless Forms Most Beautiful, a book by Sean Carroll which covers the
same topic.

"The making of each eye-like organ is directed by a PAX6 tool kit
gene. Not only that, if the PAX6 gene from the mouse is artificially
introduced into the genetic material destined for the leg of the fly,
an eye will form on the fly leg...and it's not a mouse eye - it's a
fly eye. The mouse PAX6 gene switches - influenced by chemical
gradients from adjacent tissue in the fly embryo - cause the gene to
produce a fly eye!

Despite more than 600 million years of separate evolution of flies and
mice, the introduction of the [Pax6] mouse gene into flies can induce
new eye tissue -- not of the camera-like eyes of mammals, but of the
insect compound eye!"

The HOX genes are remarkably similar in many different types of
animals, from worms to fruit flies to mammals indicating ancient
origin.

Ancient origin of the Hox gene cluster.Ferrier DE, Holland PW.
School of Animal & Microbial Sciences, University of Reading,
Whiteknights, Reading RG6 6AJ, UK. d.e.k.ferr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

The Hox gene cluster has a crucial function in body patterning during
animal development. How and when this gene cluster originated is being
clarified by recent data from Cnidaria, a basal animal phylum. The
characterization of Hox-like genes from Hydra, sea anemones and
jellyfish has revealed that a Hox gene cluster is extremely ancient,
having originated even before the divergence of these basal animals.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&;...

Jonathan Wells says the arrangement in flies is so similar to
vertbrates, it must have been a recent aquisition, not an ancient one.
This is somewhat contradictory.

"Last year seven different arrangements of Hox genes were reported in
various species of Drosophila - all fruit flies, in only one of the
six model systems mentioned by Jenner and Wills. Apparently, the
arrangement in Drosophila melanogaster that so strikingly resembles
the arrangement in vertebrates has not been inherited from a common
ancestor but is a relatively recent acquisition."

B. Negre and A. Ruiz, "HOM-C evolution in Drosophila: Is there need
for Hox gene clustering?" Trends in Genetics 2006, doi:10.1016/j.tig.
2006.12.001

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&;...

reply/ rebuttal to Jonathon Wells by Meyers:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/04/wells_flagrantly_false_com...Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Wells response to PZ Meyers

http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/jonathan-wells-responds-to-p...

"Actually, the 2006 paper I cited includes the data to prove my point
that Hox gene order in Drosophila melanogaster is derived rather than
ancestral, but the paper also bravely tries to interpret the data in a
Darwinian context. I didn't mention this; if I had, I would have
explained why I think the paper's attempt to protect Darwinian
orthodoxy fails. No matter. Myers ignored the point I made and
criticized one I didn't make."


This response basically boils down to the bare assertion that all
evolutionary biologists are wrong in their interpretation of hox gene
sequences and he is right. Have I missed the bit where he offers some
evidence to support this assertion?

RF

.