Re: The evolution of "evolution"

From: Derek Gatherer (
Date: Thu 06 Oct 2005 - 08:24:31 GMT

  • Next message: Joel.M Dimech: "Re: The evolution of "evolution""


    >How can you possibly say that nuclear genes are not relevant to the
    >physical development of the embryo? It's been _totally_ proven that
    >they are.


    >Not quite. What has been totally proven is the leading role of
    >extra-nuclear genes, and the crucial importance of the ovum's kinetic moment.

    No, I'm sorry, I have to insist that it has been been absolutely and completely proven that nuclear genes are vital in embryogenesis. They are orders of magnitude more important than any slight extranuclear or kinetic effects. Do you deny the hundreds of experiments that have been performed? Nobel prize winning experiments - do you dispute the opinion of the Nobel committee? Do you think that the entire field of molecular developmental genetics is wrong? Where did you get this opinion from?

    Look at this recent review:

    It's by Eric Davidson, one of the founding fathers of modern dev. biol. and Mike Levine, one of the team who discovered homeoboxes - the genes (nuclear genes) that control axial development and positional specification, and many aspects of limb development, in everything from flies to mammals. The link will give you free access to an entire issue of PNAS, filled with more reviews explaining the current state of our molecular understanding of developmental programming (by _nuclear_ genes).

    In the face of this avalanche of evidence, how can you, or anyone, still believe otherwise?

    =============================================================== This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing) see:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu 06 Oct 2005 - 08:42:20 GMT