Of course it's heritable. Never said it wasn't.
This is why radiations occur after the introduction of an evolutionary
novelty. A novelty arises and before canalization (which can be thought of
simply as selected fine-tuning) a diversity of forms arises. Once any
selected fine-tuning has occurred, the organism is stuck on the dime.
Isn't that the pattern of the fossil record?
Perhaps HOX genes is the pre-radiative novelty in the case of metazoans.
No response to my comment on cleavage patterns?
Most of what follows is elicited by Art Chadwick's post, but it still has
Paul in mind.
Is this stuff speculative? Sure it is, that doesn't make it unscientific.
Is it reasonable? I think so.
Is there any evidence for it? Seems like there is to me. And the
confluence of many different
perspectives is very impressive in my mind.
Is the last word? Never is in science!
Is it contrary to scripture? I don't think so.
What's the problem here? Oh, no doubt, many in science want to buttress
their atheism with their science, and WE'RE ALL AGAINST THAT, right! But
if you have special creationist control beliefs, then don't be surprised if
those of us without them are not sympathetic with your views.
As I've said to you many times Paul, you make the criticisms of evolution
stick and provide the alternative and you will get a hearing. I know that
you are working hard to do that. And, obviously, there are some
sociological factors at work here. But that goes both ways. You have the
majority of the American evangelical public on your side and someday you
will probably have the political clout to get the funding agencies on your
side. I on the other hand am fighting a two front battle--the atheistic
naturalists on the one hand and Creationist who are intolerant of an
evolutionary creationist perspectives on the other hand. Wouldn't it be
nice if you could raise your criticisms of evolution without being labelled
a Creationist? And wouldn't it be nice if I could raise my defense of
evolution without being labelled a compromising bed-fellow of those
atheistic naturalists (or even worse "a theistic naturalist").
Of course you don't need to be a Creationist to be critical of the
neo-Darwinian synthesis. There are many critics within the camp--Eldredge,
Gould, Goodwin, Kauffman, Gilbert, Raff--it's just too bad that their
voices are muted because of need to rally against their common enemy
(Scientific Creationist) who pursuade primarily by non-technical tracts
aimed at laypersons and who can't make a dent among the professionals. Oh
yes, there are a few professionals, a mere handful, and as I get to know
more and more of them personally, I find that they are driven primarily by
a commitment to a certain view of origins that FORBIDS their acceptance of
the scientific status quo, however well substantiated and well accepted it
is.
Whew...talk about venting steam.
TG
_____________________________________________________________
Terry M. Gray, Ph.D. Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry
Calvin College 3201 Burton SE Grand Rapids, MI 40546
Office: (616) 957-7187 FAX: (616) 957-6501
Email: grayt@calvin.edu http://www.calvin.edu/~grayt