Why Evo-Devo/ Developmental Biology is Useless wrt Universal Common Descent
-
If you have read "Endless Forms Most Beautiful" or "Making of the Fittest" by biologist Sean Carroll you will read a lot about stripes and spots. But what you will not read is how natural selection or any other materialistic process A) produced metazoans in the first place B) produced the genetic toolkit required to build metazoans nor C) how eveo-devo can change body plans.
The same goes for "Your Inner Fish"- all three books start with huge claims but then fail to advance them nor provide scientific evidence to support them.
It's pathetic that anyone still calls on these books to actually try to support some position because they don't support anything. Only gullible morons would thinks these are science books. Well they are n part because they do discuss developmental biology. However when the authors start using developmental biology for evidence of universal common descent that is when they smooch the pooch.
Evo-devo/ developmental biology has been a bust wrt universal common descent. No one has been able to take any of its principles and demonstrate that new body plans can arise from mutatimg any of the genetic toolkit genes that evos think determine the body plan. That is because genes influence but do not determine body plans. Evos need thenm to determine body plans so we are wasting millions of tax-payer dollars looking for something that doesn't exist. Nice.
What is the point? Kevin Reject McCarthy thinks that these books actually refute Meyer's claims in "Darwin's Doubt". Kevin must be ignorant of the fact that Jonathan Wells is also a developmental biologist who has as much knowledge of the subject as Carroll and Shubin and Meyer and Wells worked together.
AS I have already posted:
What prevents macroevolution? This says it best
IOW the mutations responsible for microevolution are not the same genes that can possibly produce macroevolutionary change. And the genes responsible for microevolution are variable while the genes that can possibly produce macroevolutionary are are not.
Nothing has changed since 1983- not wrt macroevolution. Evo-devo has been a huge bust but evos are still clinging to it because that is their only hope.
If you have read "Endless Forms Most Beautiful" or "Making of the Fittest" by biologist Sean Carroll you will read a lot about stripes and spots. But what you will not read is how natural selection or any other materialistic process A) produced metazoans in the first place B) produced the genetic toolkit required to build metazoans nor C) how eveo-devo can change body plans.
The same goes for "Your Inner Fish"- all three books start with huge claims but then fail to advance them nor provide scientific evidence to support them.
It's pathetic that anyone still calls on these books to actually try to support some position because they don't support anything. Only gullible morons would thinks these are science books. Well they are n part because they do discuss developmental biology. However when the authors start using developmental biology for evidence of universal common descent that is when they smooch the pooch.
Evo-devo/ developmental biology has been a bust wrt universal common descent. No one has been able to take any of its principles and demonstrate that new body plans can arise from mutatimg any of the genetic toolkit genes that evos think determine the body plan. That is because genes influence but do not determine body plans. Evos need thenm to determine body plans so we are wasting millions of tax-payer dollars looking for something that doesn't exist. Nice.
What is the point? Kevin Reject McCarthy thinks that these books actually refute Meyer's claims in "Darwin's Doubt". Kevin must be ignorant of the fact that Jonathan Wells is also a developmental biologist who has as much knowledge of the subject as Carroll and Shubin and Meyer and Wells worked together.
AS I have already posted:
What prevents macroevolution? This says it best
Loci that are obviously variable within natural populations do not seem to lie at the basis of many major adaptive changes, while those loci that seemingly do constitute the foundation of many if not most major adaptive changes are not variable.- John McDonald, “The Molecular Basis of Adaptation: A Critical Review of Relevant Ideas and Observation”, Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics: 14, 1983, p77-102
IOW the mutations responsible for microevolution are not the same genes that can possibly produce macroevolutionary change. And the genes responsible for microevolution are variable while the genes that can possibly produce macroevolutionary are are not.
Nothing has changed since 1983- not wrt macroevolution. Evo-devo has been a huge bust but evos are still clinging to it because that is their only hope.
posted by Joe G @ 7:24 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home