big breakthrough in Evolutionary Biology

Genetic evidence for macroevolution: http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/science/mchox.htmFIRST GENETIC EVIDENCE UNCOVERED OF HOW MAJOR CHANGES IN BODY SHAPES OCCURRED DURING EARLY ANIMAL EVOLUTIONBiologists at the University of California, San Diego have uncovered
the first genetic evidence that explains how large-scale alterations to body plans were accomplished during the early evolution of animals.In an advance online publication February 6 by Nature of a paper
scheduled to appear in Nature, the scientists show how mutations in
regulatory genes that guide the embryonic development of crustaceans and fruit flies allowed aquatic crustacean-like arthropods, with limbs on every segment of their bodies, to evolve 400 million years ago into a radically different body plan: the terrestrial six-legged insects.The achievement is a landmark in evolutionary biology, not only because it shows how new animal body plans could arise from a simple genetic mutation, but because it effectively answers a major criticism creationists had long leveled against evolutionthe absence of a
genetic mechanism that could permit animals to introduce radical new body designs.The problem for a long time has been over this issue of macroevolution, says William McGinnis, a professor in UCSD’s Division of Biology who headed the study. How can evolution possibly introduce big changes into an animal’s body shape and still generate a living animal? Creationists have argued that any big jump would result in a dead animal that wouldn’t be able to perpetuate itself. And until now, no one’s been able to demonstrate how you could do that at the genetic level with specific instructions in the genome.

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear Schrafinator,
I read this article and it is more of the same: loss of traits. How can you be so happy about the loss of characteristics, while you need the gain of traits in Darwinian evolution? Evolutionists' logic really puzzles me.
Best Wishes
Peter

---

I never grew any bottom wisdom teeth. They simply do not exist.While you may consider it a "loss", I consider it a wonderful adaptation, because I didn't need to get any dental surgery.When the land mammals which evolved into whales lost their limbs, it was an adaptation to moving through water.Horses used to have many toes, but now they only have one.The ToE doesn't require constant "additions", so you saying that it does belies your misunderstanding of the Theory.All the ToE requires is change. It might be change that leads to more complexity, or it might be change that leads to less complexity. IT doesn't matter.It all depends upon what the environment selects for and what variability exists within the population.[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 07-31-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Philip:
Not trying to interrupt; but could you or anyone briefly help me understand the Borg's grand perspective here? Is he YEC, OEC, god-of-the-gaps, or what?

​

I've traced your discussions with earnest but have not seen you state your grand hypothesis of the cosmos, the biosphere, and/or the human-psyche (perhaps in 25 words or less; I wouldn't be offended by crudeness of words). Forgive my untowardness.

​

Meagerly,

​

Philip

---

Philip, so far he seems to be intent upon attempting to overturn the ToE.He hasn't mentioned God, religion, Christianity, or positive evidence for any other theory which explains the evidence.At least, not that I have read.