On Mon, 10 Jul 1995 21:37:22 -0400 you wrote:
GM>Stephen Jones wrote in response to my quotation of Gilbert about
the small
>changes in the genome which make large changes in the morphology:
>
SJ>Again we have this "it must be evolution" argument!,:-) No one
denies
>that changes to genes can produce changes to forms. If you could add,
>subtract, mutliply and divide fruit-fllies genes enough you could
>presumably make any living thing?
GM>Yes. That is what evolution is all about! But you should ask
yourself why
>is it that these changes produce forms which are reminescent of the fly's
>evolutionary ancestors. If the changes were random changes in morphology due
>to scrambling the genes, why don't the morphologies change in a RANDOM
>fashion. Why don't mammalian, reptilian ar avian morphologies result from
>this type of genetic knockout experiment? Why only the ancestor forms?