>For too many years now biology has functioned with what I call a
>"one-gene-one-trait" mentality, and employing this paradigm certainly
>gives SOME just cause for a suspicion toward evolution (which, yes, to
>a certain extent, justifies the criticisms Dr. Johnson et. al.)
>However, with the recent explosion of biolmolecular data, in
>particular in developmental biology, there is a new and more robust
>synthesis of evolution emerging. In a word, there is a paradigm shift
>going on and the more I come to appreciate it and view biology through
>these categories the easier it seems to me that the Lord created
>through an evolutionary process. To use Dr. Van Till's term, life and
>its origin looks a lot to me like an "evolutionary creation."
I am afraid that I am being quite lazy in not reading the papers Denis
is refering to, but I am in the process of finishing my
thesis. However, I did have a question that I hope someone could
address. Does not evolutionary theory demand a "one-gene-one-trait"
mentality. The only way that evolution could produce a hierarchical
pattern and "mosaic transitions" is if most major traits could evolve
independently. The fact that mutations causing major changes usually
cause major changes in more than one structure (pleiotroy) would seem
to prevent the possibility of certain structures changing, like a leg
into a wing from reptiles to birds, while keeping other traits, such
as the amniotic egg which is found in both reptiles and birds, the
same. I believe Meyer's mentions in <Populations, Species, and
Evolution> that most mutations are in fact pleiotropic, and the trait
linkings do not at all fit within the evolutionary hierarchical
pattern. Evolutionists seem to be ignoring pleiotropy when it does not
fit into their theories and focusing on it when it does. I believe
this practice is refered to by Walter ReMine as the "evolutionary
smorgasbord."
I will try to look up the references when I have a chance. Thank you
for the information, Denis.
Brian Miller
Dept of Physics
Duke University