Definition of Evolution

Really? The 5th example seems to be about forams and has a link to an extensive article on the foraminifera.TTFN,WKEdited by Wounded King, : No reason given.

You're right and you're wrong here Percy.You're right in dismissing Nem's argument principally because the intent of all of the mutational experiments he refers to was never to duplicate evolution in a lab. You are also right in saying that a technique such as x-irradiation or any other broad spectrum mutagen is unlikely to produce specific results in the sense of a result which has been prespecified as a desired outcome, but you are wrong to the extent that a specific mutation may simply be a distinct and localised one.The most famous example of a large scale mutagenic screen would be Wieschaus and Nusslein-volhard's screen of embryonic lethal mutations induced by exposure of the males lines to ethylmethylsulfonate (EMS). As in almost all such screens the intention is not to in anyway duplicate evolution but rather to severely genetically disrupt the organism to the point where an identifiable phenotype is produced which can then be traced back to a particular genetic lesion.Several homeotic mutations of the type NJ refers to have been induced with x-irradiation. Ed Lewis produced a number of classic homeotic mutations using x-irradiation, such as the transition of halteres to wings. Perhaps that is a bad example since that particular mutation is thought to reflect the evolution of the halteres as a derived form of wing.TTFN,WKEdited by Wounded King, : No reason given.Edited by Wounded King, : No reason given.

Hi NJ,I see a lot of people have replied to your previous post. Just so you don't miss out my comments on Drosophila mutational screens in my reply to Percy I'll give you some relevant highlights. Since you have given us absolutely no reference point for any experiments whatever it is hard to tell how well your memory serves you. Must mutational screens have historically been intended to disrupt the organisms genetics severely enough to produce a significant phenotypic difference, frequently one which compromises the viability of the embryo. The initial mutagenesis is usually entirely untargeted and when a phenotype is identified it can then be traced back to the genetic cause.The vast majority of mutational experiments have nothing to do with evolution except in as much as the genetic information gained from them may be relevant to evolution.I certainly haven't heard of any experiments to 'tweak' homeobox genes to speed up speciation, and Evo-Devo is my field. Considering you haven't even identified any experiments whatsoever it seems a bit strange that you are now telling us how disappointing they were. Why not actually give us references to some actual papers NJ?TTFN,WK

Sadly in your mind was the only place it did anything of the sort. If the 'it' in question was the whole field of experimentation using Drosophila and by 'macroevolution' you mean speciation then you are wrong. If you mean something else by 'macroevolution' then you should be more explicit what it is.If by 'it' you are specifically referring to mutational screens then as I have pointed out repeatedly you are talking about a class of experiments which were never intended in any way to explore 'macroevolution'. Even so it would be misleading to suggest the prove nothing in favour of macroevolution, the similarities in phenotypes between mutants of highly divergent species are clear evidence for the highly homologous nature of their developmental systems.As far as showing anything about beneficial mutations goes you are just trying to make something from nothing. The type of mutations that were intentionally induced in the vast majority of such experiments were supposed to be radical and ideally to compromise the function of genes entirely, there was neither any intent to produce nor any effort to find beneficial mutations. The fact that they therefore reported finding none is hardly surprising.TTFN,WK

I'd like you to clear up quite what you mean by this. Do you mean that they recognise that epigenetic factors such as methylation exist? The fact that there can be heritable traits outside of simply the primary sequence of DNA hardly means that 'evo-devo' people in any way discount the importance of genetics. Are you saying that epigenetic factors like DNA methylation are not heritable, there is considerable research showing they can be?I have to agree with the other opinions questioning your focus on the beneficial nature of alleles being important for evolution, for the success of any particular species perhaps but not for the process of evolution.TTFN,WK

And I've worked in evolutionary and developmental biology for several years. Homology is not an equivalence term for genetic heritability. Two genetic sequences can as well be homplastic as any other trait. Either West-Eberhard has meade up her own definitions of some of those words or you are not accurately presenting her position.you make it sound as if she is advocating some sort of vitalist form of intelligent design or process structuralism where similar environnments cause organisms to converge even on the gentic level. As it is none of West-Eberhard's writings that I can access fail to make much of the interplay of both the environmental and genetic factors in the evolution. For instance her 2005 paper Developmental plasticity and the origin of species differences. she says in the abstract... This certainly doesn't suggest in the slightest evolution happening without the inheritance of genetic traits, it may perhaps suggest that you don't need the entirely de novo development of novel traits through gentic mutation.Where she mentions homoplasy it is not as any sort of genetic context but simply in terms of similar traits developing in similar genetic backgrounds in response to similar environments, although these need not have exactly the same genetic basis. Balderdash, an entire population need not be adapted to a particular pressure for the trait to be adaptive, or are you using fixed in an unusual way here to merely mean genetic or heritable? If you are it seems obtuse since fixation in allelic terms is a pretty specific phenomenon. Whatthe heck does this have to do with saying that 'evolution can happen even without the inheritance of genetic traits.'You have singularly failed to show either of your big 'evo-devo-ist' names saying anything like what you attribute to them. Then you obviously don't actually read any research on evo-devo. I don't know why it is but recently people have been saying pretty whacky things about evo-devo and what evolutionary developmental biologists believe.You were the one claiming 'evo-devo-ist's were saying evolution could happen without the inheritance of genetic traits, I had no idea what you were talking about so I suggested phenomena which many consider to not be strictly genetic. Now not only do I not really know what you are talking about, but I get the impression that you don't either.TTFN,WK

Hoot, do you never get tired of 'winging it' which presumably means the way you just make up all sorts of shit and then use them to smear the people your talking to? What the hell? What on Earth has this got to do with my question 'an entire population need not be adapted to a particular pressure for the trait to be adaptive, or are you using fixed in an unusual way here to merely mean genetic or heritable?' in response to your contention that 'adaptation does not occur until the benefical alleles are fixed.'Neither of these statements has a dickie bird to do specifically with development, they are purely questions of population genetics, unless as I suggest you are just making up a new meaning for the concept of 'fixation' of an allele. What are you whining about now? Gould makes a very clear distinction between different types of convergencce and the way in which genetics has allowed us to make further distinctions. Is your point that you were just too confused so you decided all the terms were interchangeable or what? None of what Gould says supports your previous usage of the terms. Again you attribute a position with no evidence that anyone actually holds it. To argue that the environment holds as important a position in evolution hardly seems controversial, as you yourself admitted, so just what is your beef. You don't like them picking on Richard Dawkins? I'm sure he is more than capable of holding his own. I'm not going to read an entire book to see if you are right when the papers I have read strongly suggest you are wrong, why not read the developmnental plasticity paper I referenced and highlight for me where she makes the sorts of claims you ascribe to her. I've read plenty of his original research. Well that is harder to see from his actual research than his merely personal statements. Certainly he overemphasises the inevitable nature of evolution with his claims that something like a human was bound to come about. But I would only call this the weak sort of ID that any sort of theistic evolutionist must ascribe to no more Discovery Institute ID than the fact that a theistic evolutionist believes in a divine creator would make them a 6-day creationist.I still don't understand how you can post so much and say so little substantively. You are like MartinV, your whole argument seems to be vague and elliptical inferences based on non-specific elements of other peoples work and the occasional complete misinterpretation of that work.TTFN,WK

Have you just totally given up on having your posts make any sort of sense?You were moaning about Conway-Morris 'grinding an ID axe', I was simply pointing out that he was not neccessarily any more ID than any theistic evolutionist and certainly not a proponent of ID as it would be generally be understood on this site, i.e. the position espoused by Philip Johnson, Michael Behe, Will Dembski and promoted by the Discovery Institute.I likened this to describing a theistic evolutionist as a creationist, since the believe in a creator, which would still be quite distinct from the common usage of creationist on this site either in the young earth or old earth context.Are you actually going to address any of the points I made or just keep dodging and whining?TTFN,WK

Wouldn't it be easier just to reread the posts you totally failed to address rather than getting to repeat myself over and over?I'll give you the condensed version...

You attributed to 'evo-devo-ists' in general, and Mary West-Eberhard and Simon Conway-Morris in particular, a position which there is absolutely no evidence that they ascribe to. Namely that 'evolution can happen even without the inheritance of genetic traits.'

​

You explicitly state that Conway-Morris has 'an ID axe to grind', which can only be true if you use ID as such a loose term as to make it virtually meaningless in discriminating between different positions held by anyone who believes in god.

​

I totally agree with your analysis of the DI so I don't see why you want to tar a perfectly reputable scientist with the same brush.

​

Your claim that 'adaptation does not occur until the benefical alleles are fixed.' is clearly wrong unless you are using 'fixed' in a radically different way to how it is understood in population genetics. Your subsequent dialogue with RAZD suggests that you were using it as it is used in population genetics so your claim makes no sense at all. An adaptive trait can just as easily exist in one individual as it can in a whole population.

​

TTFN,

​

WK

You forgot to point out the teleological language suggesting that mutation, genetic change, or evolution, as population genetic change, is an 'attempt' to do something.TTFN,WK