Re: [asa] Question on molecular biology and Darwinism

From: PvM <>
Date: Wed Jul 02 2008 - 11:06:16 EDT

Why would this not be part of evolutionary models? I believe it is
known as evolutionary development.

On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 7:40 PM, Collin Brendemuehl
<> wrote:
> I read gradualism as continuity of indiscernable changes over time
> and PE as nearly the same, but with periods of rapid change, probably still
> minute.
> Yet from a molecular biologist (doppleganger, a PhD in the field) I learn
> that
> "a single point mutation in one gene altered ALL of those things in the
> limbs and head of the individual. You do NOT, in fact, need specific
> mutations to alter every part of a limb. That is just naive folk science."
> It would appear that gene changes might often be significant, and not as the
> evolutionary models might indicate.
> The whole discussion began with a premise:
> If 65M years ago, after the Yucatan impact, the only mammals remaining were
> little rodents,
> what gene changes were necessary to take them from chipmunk to human?
> It would seem that there would be millions of them in order to accomplish
> minute changes.
> What might I be missing here?

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Jul 2 11:06:37 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Jul 02 2008 - 11:06:37 EDT