Evolutionary Catechism: EvoDevo (Evolution)

by David Turell , Wednesday, February 16, 2011, 14:59 (5028 days ago) @ dhw


> Douglas Futuyma says there's "no need to formally revisit the Modern Synthesis". Andreas Wagner says: "If you're interested in evolutionary innovation, you can't get away anymore with a very simple, one-dimensional notion of a phenotype. Now we can recognize that there is a deficiency in the Modern Synthesis."
> 
> Here's another stimulating quote: "Genotypes were assumed to translate more or less directly into phenotypes, and evolutionary change stemmed from the slow, gradual accumulation of random genetic mutations. But with the rise of the EvoDevo field [...] this simplified picture is becoming more complex."
> 
> Epigenesis also comes under scrutiny:
> Vincent Colet: "Epigenetic inheritance is widespread, but that doesn't mean it lasts and causes evolutionarily meaningful effects."
> Jerry Coyne: "Usually epigenetic characters aren't inherited past one or two generations."
> 
> The more complex the process (and the more disagreements there are among the experts), the more difficult it becomes to justify agendas. 
> 
> One very useful term also emerges from the article. In my discussions with George, I've repeatedly argued that in addition to being able to replicate, the first forms of life must have had the potential ability to change ... otherwise there could have been no evolution. Now to my delight I find there is an official scientific word for it: EVOLVABILITY.-Larry Moran's blog Sandwalk on 2/15/11 has a fascinating discussion of Evodevo describing the advent of HOX genes, new genes and control genes in the development of differing forms that are no way homologous. The discussion does not account for these jumps in evolution, and still support Gould's punctuation theory.-http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/