In a message dated 4/23/01 11:23:57 AM, firstname.lastname@example.org writes:
I do not expect additional great new designs now or in the future because
believe we are in the August, so to speak, of earth's biota. Designs
"planted" early, and now they are bearing fruit;>>
But that's just a "belief," Bob, Is there any particular evidence you can
attest to which supports it?
I understand it is an analogy, and so don't want to attack it as more
than that. But in some climes, at least, seeds do get planted in the
fall. Just ask anyone (such as me) who has lived in South Florida.
Burgy (John Burgeson)
I used the gardening analogy to illustrate the idea that design precedes
application in the biological world. Here is a scientific illustration that
I received from another listserve: Check the following:
"I am in agreement with Mr. Gross when he refers to "new and
astonishing evidence" about the origin of the eye. Herewith the
facts. Halder, Callaerts, and Gehring's research group in
Switzerland discovered that the ey gene in Drosophila is virtually
identical to the genes controlling the development of the eye in
mice and men. The doctrine of convergent evolution, long a
Darwinian staple, may now be observed receding into the darkness.
The same group's more recent paper, "Induction of Ectopic Eyes by
Targeted Expression of the Eyeless Gene in Drosophila" (Science
267, 1988) is among the most remarkable in the history of biology,
demonstrating as it does that the ey gene is related closely to the
equivalent eye gene in Sea squirts (Ascidians), Cephalopods, and
Nemerteans. This strongly suggests (the inference is almost
irresistible) that ey function is universal (universal!) among
multicellular organisms, the basic design of the eye having been
their common property for over a half-billion years. The ey gene
clearly is a master control mechanism, one capable of giving general
instructions to very different organisms. No one in possession of
these facts can imagine that they support the Darwinian theory.
How could the mechanism of random variation and natural
selection have produced an instrument capable of anticipating the
course of morphological development and controlling its expression
in widely different organisms?" (Berlinski D., "Denying Darwin:
David Berlinski and Critics", Commentary, September 1996,
I suggest that the ey gene is a design gene that precedes and is applied by
many organisms in an evolutionary manner. What is the origin of this gene?
The anti-Dawkinsian ex-Cambridge geneticist Gabriel Dover thinks that *all*
genes will turn out to be modules of master genes like the Pax-6 gene:
"I'm sure that when the full glory of all the genes in all the modular
'packages' of development and behaviour are exposed, no large
numbers of species-unique or package-unique genes will be found.
Instead, differences in the modular construction of organisms will
be the result of specific permutations of universally shared modules.
For example, some of the genes that are known to interact with Pax
6 in Drosophila, such as twin of eyeless, sine oculis, eyes absent,
dachshund, eyegone and teashirt, are involved in the development
of the sex gonads, legs and embryo segments. And there is no
simple linear pathway for eye development starting with Pax-6. As
with the genes influencing embryo development that I described
previously, there is a complex network of interactions involving
multifunctional genes regulating each others' activities via versatile,
modular and compound promoters." (Dover G.A., "Dear Mr
Darwin," 2000, p.172)
I take these modular genes and Pax-6 fall in the design category and indicate
that design precedes application and is used in many different applications.
I don't see straightforward natural selection in it, although natural
processes are undoubtedly involved.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Apr 25 2001 - 08:14:32 EDT