Cliff Lundberg writes
in message <4.1.20000830210717.009d3910@pop.sfo.com>:
> > > <http://www.cab.com/segment/tablecon.html>.
>
> -- There is a vertebrate archetype; in a limited context where evolution
> proceeds through only reduction and distortion of pre-existing parts, it
> makes sense to think about what it is that is being reduced and distorted;
> call it an archetype. Archetypes are antithetical to open-ended Dawkinsian
> evolution.
>
> -- The formation of the prototype (or archetype) is rapid,
> through parabiotic macromutation.
But you have to tie this into hox genes at some point. Talking
about body plans and segments without mentioning hox genes is
like talking about evolution and not mentioning mutation. It
is a fact that 1) hox genes control body plans, 2) hox genes &
clusters have been duplicated (assuming that the locations and
sequences aren't just coincidence) and 3) the duplications
correlate roughly with the complexity of the body plan. That
seems to be the sort of smoking gun that can't be ignored.
Hox genes and the evolution of vertebrate axial morphology:
http://www.biologists.org/Development/121/02/dev4446.html
Evolution of the tetrapod limb:
http://www.sccs.swarthmore.edu/users/99/mahowald/limb-evol.html
What they're teaching college kids today in Biology class:
http://www.utm.edu/~rirwin/391RegGeneEvol.htm
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Aug 31 2000 - 12:57:37 EDT