Re: ID vs ?

From: Cliff Lundberg (cliff@cab.com)
Date: Fri Sep 01 2000 - 04:12:34 EDT

  • Next message: Bertvan@aol.com: "ID vs. ?"

    Tedd Hadley wrote:

    > > -- 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.

    I haven't inferred anything from hox genes; I came up with the idea
    long before I'd heard of hox genes. It would be nice if I could find
    corroboration in hox genes, but I just don't know enough.

    My model is morphological; it's simply what you get when you
    extrapolate back in time from the pattern of reduction and
    specialization of skeletal segments: an array of symmetrical
    parts, formed through some kind of multiplicative mutations,
    a mass of morphological raw material to be sculpted by
    reduction and distortion.

    --Cliff Lundberg  ~  San Francisco  ~  415-648-0208  ~  cliff@cab.com



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 01 2000 - 04:36:10 EDT