Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

At Phys.org: New study finds our ancient relatives were not so simple after all

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Researchers at the University of Nottingham have solved an important piece of the animal evolution puzzle as their new study reveals that our ancient ancestors were more complex than originally thought.

Way back in our distant evolutionary history, animals underwent a major innovation. They evolved to have a left and right side, and two gut openings. This brought about a plethora of significant advantages in terms of propelling themselves directly forward at increased speed through the early seas, finding food, extracting nutrients, and/or avoiding being eaten.

However, a research team, led by Dr. Mary O’Connell at the University of Nottingham has found that Xenacoelomorphs branch much later in time, they are not the earliest branch on the bilaterian family tree, and their closest relatives are far more complex animals like star fish. This means that Xenacoelomorphs have lost many of the complex features of their closest relatives, challenging the idea that evolution leads to ever more complex and intricate forms. Instead, the new study shows that loss of features is an important factor in driving evolution.

Note: Lacking a naturalistic mechanism for the generation of the new information of novel features, the idea of the “loss of features” is put forward as a driving factor for supposed evolutionary advance.

“There are many fundamental questions about the evolution of animals that need to be answered… many parts of this family tree that are not known or not resolved. But what an exciting time to be an evolutionary biologist with the availability of exquisite genome data from the beautiful diversity of species we currently have on our planet, allowing us to unlock secrets of our most distant past,” says Dr. Mary O’Connell, associate professor in life sciences.

The paper, titled “Filtering artifactual signal increases support for Xenacoelomorpha and Ambulacraria sister relationship in the animal tree of life” has been published in Current Biology. It details the application of a special phylogenetic technique to help in extracting signal from noise over deep time, showing increased support for Xenacoelomorphs being sister to ambulacraria (e.g. star fish) rather than being the deepest diverging of the bilateria.

The research team at the University of Nottingham will now explore other challenging family trees and other connections between genome changes and phenotypic diversity.

Full article at Phys.org.
Comments
My apologies to all. Somehow I lost track of this entire discussion and just came across it again today. Jerry @ 74:
Genetics is excellent science and ID friendly. And genetics while involving change is most definitely not Evolution.
You've always been clear that you think that 'genetics' can be ceded in the discussion between "evolution" and 'ID.' And I've always objected to this on the basis that such a ceding plays right into the Darwinists' hands. Now this is all about strategy, if you will. But I still maintain that there is greater depth to this amalgamation of genetics and mathematics that we call the Modern Synthesis, one which supposes the validity of Darwin's thesis. Thus, if you grant the genetical laws to their mathematics, it seems to me that Darwin wins. Here's my problem. I hope people understand the perspicacity of the statement I'm about to make: Darwin's theory of evolution hinges on his 'Principle of Divergence,' which says that as changes in morphology build up, a point is reached where this new "reconfigured" organism is more "fit" than the ancestor to the present environment and that this added "fitness" forces the 'ancestor' species into extinction. All hinges on this, because otherwise you are left with a group of similar species, one being the 'ancestor' species and the rest being "subspecies" of this 'ancestor' species. Darwin states right away that he does NOT believe that there is such a thing as a "subspecies"; rather, he says that what natural philosophers (today's biologists and zoologists) consider as being "subspecies" are really 'incipient' species--species that are on their "way" to becoming species. Darwin then imposes a chronology to all of this and gives us a visual; that is, the "Tree of Life"--the only figure that appears in his book. What we see--that is, normal people, as "subspecies" that can go no farther (they reach a limit) is not what Darwin sees. Rather, he sees these "subspecies" as being 'incipient' species that will, with the passage of time, give rise to "new" species. When you "chart" this in a time-wise fashion, one 'incipient' species gives rise to one, or several, "new" species; and, graphically, you would see a "divergence" take place (over time) moving forward in time from the 'incipient' species. If no such "Principle of Divergence" exists, then species reach their limits and that's that. This in turn means that there is no such thing as some kind of 'progressive evolution' of species. We're left with "adaptations" alone. This, of course, is all that genetical experiments can confirm, starting with Mendel. [BTW, the alternative is that of one "form" beginning to branch and branch and branch. And along the length of all these branches, some eventual end would come when "species" give rise to "subspecies." This "alternative" very much looks like the fossil-record. Likewise, it is very consistent with what ID--in one of its form/forms suggests: viz., a front-loaded original "form" with subsequent "divergences" occurring because of "loss of function"/"information." To this, one might add horizontal gene transfer and epigenetics.] So, if there is no "progressive" evolution then there is no "Principle of Divergence," and that means that "Darwinian processes" can't explain life's movements over time. I've written enough. I'll leave off here. KF @ 72: It's very interesting stuff, isn't it? Thank you for the kind words. Querius @ 71: I liked your story very much. Somebody says something is true; then people agree; and then it becomes orthodoxy. Yet, if you look into it yourself, you find that it's not true--and that NO ONE wants to listen to you. Science is descending into the incoherent, I'm afraid. It's a "faith" now. Heretics are not allowed.PaV
December 7, 2022
December
12
Dec
7
07
2022
04:01 PM
4
04
01
PM
PDT
Heh. Point taken. -QQuerius
November 16, 2022
November
11
Nov
16
16
2022
09:44 PM
9
09
44
PM
PDT
While the evolution of epigenetic information is a mystery, I like the more gutsy example of insect metamorphosis.
I want to make Darwin's finches the theme for ID. Behe included them on his book cover for "Darwin Devolves." If they became a staple of ID, that would be embarrassing for those who propose natural evolution because they associate it with Darwin. The changes happen to be epigenetic but it's really not important what is the cause of the quick change and then change back again. https://www.amazon.com/Darwin-Devolves-Science-Challenges-Evolution-ebook/dp/B079L6RTNT/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1668629974&sr=8-1 Essentially nothing happened but people for over a hundred years have been using Darwin's finches as a poster child for Evolution when nothing really happened. I am trying to find ways to persuade people who would be willing to look at it if they knew there was some fake misinformation going on. Right now they just go along because there is no downside to going along. In fact it is actually easier to agree.       Let's Go Finches Aside: I don't believe "Let's Go Bugs" would have the same effect.jerry
November 16, 2022
November
11
Nov
16
16
2022
12:29 PM
12
12
29
PM
PDT
Jerry @76, While the evolution of epigenetic information is a mystery, I like the more gutsy example of insect metamorphosis. How this incredibly complex process evolved in tiny advantageous increments to a complete "reprogramming" of cells into a different body plan is incredibly problematic. For example https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6711285/ -QQuerius
November 16, 2022
November
11
Nov
16
16
2022
11:20 AM
11
11
20
AM
PDT
Unlocking the Hidden History of DNA
Highly recommend this course for amusement and information. Lecturer is a writer with a background in physics, literature and library science. He is a great writer and has written a highly entertaining and informative course. Been through 6 lectures and all are ID friendly so far. Just finished the genome mapping wars between Venter and Watson/Crick from NIH. Aside: natural selection is just what ends up. If it is the same, then it is still selection. What causes changes is something completely different. It's obvious that morphological variation caused by epigenetics that produces a similar or dissimilar gene pool happens. With a similar gene pool, selection of a particular morphological variation can lead to the same gene pool. So did selection happen? Of course it did. One just gets the same gene pool with different morphologies. So to emphasize the obviously best example of this     Let's Go Finches jerry
November 15, 2022
November
11
Nov
15
15
2022
11:09 AM
11
11
09
AM
PDT
Jerry @74, Thanks for the references. A lot depends on a person's definition of "evolution." Darwinist apologists often define it as "change over time," which is both undisputable and vacuous. Changes in allele frequency in a population can be observed and is usually termed "microevolution" as a product of genetic diversity. But that's fundamentally different from "macroevolution," for which there's no evidence, only speculation, not to mention the origin of new body plans (sea stars come to mind) or the origin of life "evolving" out of non-living matter. -QQuerius
November 15, 2022
November
11
Nov
15
15
2022
10:17 AM
10
10
17
AM
PDT
If the establishment wants to hang onto ‘genetics,’ yes, there are ‘laws’ there; but this is not “evolution
You may be starting to get it. Genetics is excellent science and ID friendly. And genetics while involving change is most definitely not Evolution. One of the ironies here at UD is the continuous bashing of Darwin. Darwinian processes are one of the foundations of genetics and thus, good science. But as pointed out, genetics is not Evolution so Darwinian processes have nothing to do with Evolution despite the claims. So in one science, genetics, Darwinian processes are ID friendly but are nonsense in the science of Evolution. Is this essential for establishing ID as valid. I happen to believe it is. If one wants to persuade others of the truth, then different approaches are necessary. Everybody should read the Availability Cascade to understand why people hold the false beliefs they do. And what may be necessary to convince them otherwise. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_cascade Original paper is 90+ pages so maybe just read the conclusions. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=138144jerry
November 15, 2022
November
11
Nov
15
15
2022
05:45 AM
5
05
45
AM
PDT
Genetics, here is another course from The Great Courses.
Unlocking the Hidden History of DNA 1 - Genes versus DNA 2 - The Quest for DNA’s Structure 3 - The Double Helix Revealed 4 - From Genetic Codes to DNA Fingerprints 5 - The War over the Human Genome 6 - How DNA Controls Itself and Shapes Our Culture 7 - Microbes Manipulate Us, Viruses Are Us 8 - How Epigenetics Turns Genes On and Off 9 - Apes, Humans, and Neanderthals 10 - How DNA Reveals History 11 - CRISPR’s Rise, Promise, and Peril 12 - How DNA Redefines Medicine and Our Future
Just got it. Great history of Crick, Watson, Franklin, Wilkins, Mendel, Miescher, Pauling, Nirenberg etc. Also excellent discussion of epigenetics. So far it’s ID friendly. Genetics is good science and ID friendly. Aside: epigenetics is relatively new. There were occasional references to it in early UD threads but in the scientific world it didn’t start to take off till 2015 when NIH mapped the epigenetic markers in 111 different cell types. The realization that the environment can turn epigenetic markers on and off is becoming a major focus of research. This has implications for disease both physical and mental (mental is probably physical too) and addiction. There are changes to individuals over time due to epigenetic changes/mutations. My guess they are just beginning.jerry
November 15, 2022
November
11
Nov
15
15
2022
04:58 AM
4
04
58
AM
PDT
PaV, 61, mas excellente mi amigo. KFkairosfocus
November 14, 2022
November
11
Nov
14
14
2022
09:51 PM
9
09
51
PM
PDT
PaV @70, Yes, the bold defenders of orthodoxy do not permit thinking outside the box, novel experiments, or asking "disruptive" questions in a class. Here's an example that I've used in the past that usually draws jeers and derision online. A biologist once suggested that I write a paper on the subject, but in researching the topic, I found that the information was already known but published in an old reference tome.
When I was in high school, I thought hydra were cool. They were like some kind of mini-monsters. As a project, I tried to raise them according to the instructions–in a small covered Petrie dish with distilled water and a few drops of some chemical to discourage algae, I think. I introduced some daphnia for their food as the instructions indicated, and I waited for the carnage to begin. I was in high school, remember. But the hydra seemed to be afraid of them, withdrawing their tentacles when they came into contact. The hydra started getting smaller every day. The instructions said that hydra will sometimes go into “depression” for reasons not yet completed understood, but to try doing some things I don’t remember. But they kept getting smaller, like little blobs and then disappeared. I was determined, so I made some hypotheses: – Hydra don’t normally eat daphnia. – The hydra weren’t “depressed” but rather they simply starved. – Distilled water isn’t natural. – The Petrie dishes were too small. So . . . I cut the top off a large glass jug, filled it with pond water, added elodea along with daphnia and checked them every day. The results were astonishing! The hydra absolutely thrived! They reproduced mainly asexually by budding and their lengths, body and tentacles together, reached 20-25 cm, crisscrossing each other across the circular tank. Their tentacles were extremely thin and sparkly. They rarely withdrew their tentacles except when some wild daphnia crashed into them. I never saw any daphnia being ensnared, though I suppose it could be made to happen for biology text photos. I kept records of their increase in population stopping at 100 because it became too tedious. My conclusion was that the hydra were most likely feeding on on protozoans. I learned a lot about observation, making hypotheses (although I changed several variables, not just one), and not just accepting what the instructions and book claimed. My biology teacher also loved my experiment because it enabled him to trade a virtually endless supply of hydra all over the district for other lab stuff he needed. Of course, he never shared my secret. To this day, I still think hydra are cool and I still challenge baloney science.
-QQuerius
November 14, 2022
November
11
Nov
14
14
2022
07:50 PM
7
07
50
PM
PDT
Querius: You're most welcome. It has been my history here at UD, that anytime I try to see things other than through the lens of the established orthodoxy of evolutionists, they come and tell me how wrong I am, seeming to not be interested in the least that the explanations they provide fail to satisfy the questions that beg to be answered. Thinking "outside of the box" is not permitted. And so, as you suggest, science is thwarted.PaV
November 14, 2022
November
11
Nov
14
14
2022
07:13 PM
7
07
13
PM
PDT
Jerry, I apologize if I came across as belittling you. Perhaps there's a bit of frustration in the comments I made. But I'm happy you cleared up what you meant. One of the frustrations in this area of evolution is that of definitions that dangle. Species is one; alleles is another. And 'fitness' is one more to add to the list. In fact, the whole notion of 'fitness' takes a beating in the paper I linked to above. If an "allele" (represented by an organism introduced into a population with an "allele" that is different from the homogeneous population) at various "frequencies," i.e., 5, or 15, or 85%, formed by introducing new organisms ("alleles") into a population that together total 100 (e.g., 5 new organisms and 95 homogenous organisms= 0.05%= frequency of the "allele"), they find that the "allele" is "beneficial" at low frequencies and high frequencies, but is "deleterious" for the intervening frequencies. [These are worms they're working with.] How can the same "allele" be both "beneficial" and "deleterious" depending on the total number of organisms? IOW, who's keeping track of the "frequencies"? The only honest answer to what they observe is that they don't know what's going on. Since they're not capable of this kind of honesty, you're left with a confusing, somewhat slippery notion of both "frequencies" and "beneficial" mutations. Pile all of these slippery terms on top of one another, and, to me at least, it's simply a mess. If the establishment wants to hang onto 'genetics,' yes, there are 'laws' there; but this is not "evolution" unless Mendel is the discover of "evolution."PaV
November 14, 2022
November
11
Nov
14
14
2022
07:09 PM
7
07
09
PM
PDT
Why do you say I’m making stuff up?
Because you are. For example, your comment was
your infatuation with ‘alleles
I am certainly not infatuated with alleles, so why make the comment. You also made a belittling comment about something I don't believe
That’s your challenge, Jerry. Hope you’re up to it
I have no idea what game you are playing and I certainly do not believe epigenetic processes arrived on the scene by Darwinian processes. So I am reluctant to continue answering you. You seem to have a problems understanding what others are saying. Maybe you should ask questions first. If you want to discuss obscure studies that may suggest a new mechanism/process at work, have at it. But I will not answer you because I am not interested. I have no interest in delving into the areas you seem interested in.jerry
November 14, 2022
November
11
Nov
14
14
2022
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT
PaV @65, Thanks for the excellent comment! What it points out to me is how Darwinism continues to slow down scientific progress by suppressing any valuable work that doesn't conform to its ideologically based science fantasy. -QQuerius
November 14, 2022
November
11
Nov
14
14
2022
11:28 AM
11
11
28
AM
PDT
Whistler @59, Let me also add my thanks to Jerry's for posting the link to the video on epigenetic tags. While I was put off at first by the cartoon format, the explanations were clear and compelling! -QQuerius
November 14, 2022
November
11
Nov
14
14
2022
11:23 AM
11
11
23
AM
PDT
Jerry, Why do you say I'm making stuff up? What stuff? What I'm doing is drawing your attention to experimental results and asking you to interpret them. Now, it's fine if you feel that you cannot answer them or if you give me an answer; but, to simply say that I'm "making up things" gets no one anywhere. For example, in the link concerning "alleles," you will find this quote from the press release:
The result of these complex dynamics is that genetic diversity could be maintained indefinitely, without one allele or the other ever being fixed in the population.
Now, this is the problem: According to Motoo Kimura's "Neutral Theory," population genetics CANNOT work!! Why? Because based on actual genetic diversity--that is, "alleles" being different from one another within the population and the individual organisms that make it up, all known from protein assays using get electrophoresis, the mutational load on an organism, and the population of organisms by extension, is TOO great. That is: so many individual organisms would have to "DIE" (that is, after all, what natural selection is--DEATH by attrition), since at every allele location (loci) purifying selection would have to take place to maintain the proper frequencies, that the population would go extinct, simply die off. The "Neutral Theory" was Kimura's solution to this dilemma, called Haldane's Dilemma. It says that within organisms most mutations, if not all, are neutral--neither beneficial nor harmful. And that with enough time, 4Ne generations, these mutated alleles eventually become "fixed." But from the article under consideration(Discussion) , we find this:
As also shown, however, once beneficial alleles are established in a population, they might not speed to fixation, but be maintained, because at intermediate frequencies their adaptive values can change in sign.
Now, if "neutral" mutations cannot get a foothold on a small population and later moving to fixation, then the Neutral Theory loses its value for small populations. [Assuming (!) that what is true for small populations (the experiment as set up) is also true for larger populations, then this would be true for ALL of evolution.] So, if Haldane's Dilemma (mutational load) drove Kimura to the 'Neutral Theory' and small populations cannot "fix" up-and-coming "neutral" mutations, then "evolution" loses its ability to explain things. All this talk about "alleles" leads us nowhere: it only tells us what we see. Any knowledge firmer than what we can test remains elusive. ID offers the better explanation. *************************************** Now, as to what this experiment may be showing: The press release I quoted from contains this:
Ivo Chelo [the lead author] explains: "Our data suggests that the value a new allele brings to the individuals is not fixed. . . . Initial stages when the new alleles appear cannot tell us what the effects of the alleles will be a few generations later, when the population has already changed."
Reasoning this through, I then reached this conclusion of what was happening (from my OP): What these two examples suggest is that the ‘genome’ has the ability to monitor the level of use of any particular ‘allele’, and that depending on its current ‘use’, the ‘allele’ that would be ‘deleterious’ for the current environment is held at some minimal level so that should the environment change in the future, the needed ‘allele’ [then ‘beneficial’] would be ready at hand. [Which makes sense given how improbable it is to generate an allele from scratch] But, in this scenario—backed up by the two experiments I’m speaking of—it is the population itself which determines what is ‘deleterious’, and hence eliminated via “death,” and which is ‘beneficial.’ In this case, it is the genome—very likely communicating with itself via individual genomes—that is making the “SELECTION;” NOT ‘nature.’ What makes sense is this: NOT that "Natural Selection" has a "mind of its own" (which is the impression you get when evolutionists talk about evolution), but that there is information within the genome that assesses the group dynamics of the population itself and "makes use" of differential death, otherwise known as NS. I don't see how you arrive at this information via neo-Darwinian suppositions.PaV
November 14, 2022
November
11
Nov
14
14
2022
11:21 AM
11
11
21
AM
PDT
PaV @36 & 61,
The history of evolutionary theory since Darwin’s time till present is one of amalgamation. I call it the “Blob.” Just like the “Blob” from movie fame, Darwinism has the ability to incorporate anything into its theory, thus making it unfalsifiable and hence, despite debate about unfalsifiability, unscientific.
Yup. Darwinism can rationalize (or amalgamate) anything, but isn’t very successful in predicting anything.
Years ago, right here at UD, I highlighted the case of the Adriatic lizards moved from one island to another island having no lizards whatsoever and being left there, uninspected for forty years because of the Bosnian/Serbian war. When the biologist went back to the island, they found that their genome had NOT change; but that their physiology DID change. Now, my question to you: if no “alleles” changed, then HOW did these physiological changes come about–the most dramatic being the development of cecal valves in their stomachs? How does “genetics” answer this question? How did these changes happen in forty to eighty generations?
Excellent. No, I haven’t heard of the Italian wall lizards growing cecal valves in generation 0. Wow! Apparently, evolutionary biologists have their version of “name it and claim it.” LOL -QQuerius
November 14, 2022
November
11
Nov
14
14
2022
11:18 AM
11
11
18
AM
PDT
As to your infatuation with ‘alleles
I haven’t a clue what you are talking about. You seem to be making up things. For what reasons, I don’t know.jerry
November 14, 2022
November
11
Nov
14
14
2022
04:20 AM
4
04
20
AM
PDT
Jerry, As to your infatuation with 'alleles,' maybe you can look at this thread from 2013.PaV
November 13, 2022
November
11
Nov
13
13
2022
01:02 PM
1
01
02
PM
PDT
Jerry: In answer to how the lizard changed in so short a number of generations, you wrote:
Diet. Interesting is the Wikipedia article on the lizards does not really call this evolution, even with the external and internal changes. It’s like the world forgot about them. All the relevant articles are from 2008. They also don’t appear in recent books on evolution.
Now, I believe there's a reason that the "world forgot about" these Adriatic lizards. It's because of an experiment conducted in late 2008, or there about, and published in an off-beat journal. As to this experiment, if you look at comment #6 on a prior thread of mine, you'll find that in RESPONSE to YOU, I urged a simple experiment be performed based on the original article about the changes to these Adriatic lizards. I said that the only reason that this could happen is via the environment, that is, the diet. And, further, I said the natural follow-up experiment should be this: take some of the original lizards, place them in a lab, and change their diet. Well, months after this comment, this experiment was actually carried out. They found that by changing the diet, these 'original' lizards grew cecal valves there in the lab in around 10 weeks. This isn't even one generation of replication; this is zero generations of replication. Since this dramatic result--which should have been deserving of much attention and thought, so seriously cast '"neo-Darwinian/Modern Synthesis" thinking into question, it was relegated to a second tier journal and forgotten about for the most part. [Here's the original thread. There's a follow-up thread about the results of the experiment once I found out about it, which, IIRC, was years after.] Here we are, Jerry, fourteen years later, and you still have the same position as then--as do I. But I predicted what the results of the experiment would produce. Yes, evolutionists will call this "phenotypic plasticity." A mind not grounded in reality will always come up with a word to describe something that cannot be explained and the whole idea of having a word for this unexplained phenomena gives the coiner of this new word the feeling of control and understanding, when this understanding doesn't exist. We see it all the time with evolutionists. There's always a word for what they can't explain. But it's no more than 'fairy dust.' How did this epigenetic capability develop? That is, how is it that latent forms of being exist for this lizard? How did selection bring that about? That's your challenge, Jerry. Hope you're up to it.PaV
November 13, 2022
November
11
Nov
13
13
2022
12:36 PM
12
12
36
PM
PDT
#59 Excellent video on epigenetics. I believe one of the first studies on the effect of epigenetics on offspring was with Dutch children as a result of near starvation during WWII. This is similar to the Swedish study in the video.jerry
November 12, 2022
November
11
Nov
12
12
2022
12:24 PM
12
12
24
PM
PDT
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvB0q3mg4sQwhistler
November 12, 2022
November
11
Nov
12
12
2022
11:56 AM
11
11
56
AM
PDT
Jerry: One is on evolution in general and one is on humans. I watched each today and each is ID friendly. That is, there is nothing in them that challenges ID. Except the unguided part.JVL
November 12, 2022
November
11
Nov
12
12
2022
11:50 AM
11
11
50
AM
PDT
The genetics course that I listed above had two lectures on “evolution.” One is on evolution in general and one is on humans. I watched each today and each is ID friendly. That is, there is nothing in them that challenges ID. Maybe a useful distinction is ID friendly science. And science that challenges ID. So far the only science that I’ve seen that challenges ID is science fiction.jerry
November 12, 2022
November
11
Nov
12
12
2022
11:45 AM
11
11
45
AM
PDT
Jerry at 54, I must have missed all those Diet BOOKS for Lizards at the bookstore.relatd
November 12, 2022
November
11
Nov
12
12
2022
11:28 AM
11
11
28
AM
PDT
CD at 48, The tsar has religion on his side this time.relatd
November 12, 2022
November
11
Nov
12
12
2022
11:26 AM
11
11
26
AM
PDT
How did these changes happen in forty to eighty generations
Diet. Interesting is the Wikipedia article on the lizards does not really call this evolution, even with the external and internal changes. It’s like the world forgot about them. All the relevant articles are from 2008. They also don’t appear in recent books on evolution.jerry
November 12, 2022
November
11
Nov
12
12
2022
10:50 AM
10
10
50
AM
PDT
Jerry: Epigenetics. Which affects gene expression. That's genetics. Ain't it? It doesn't change the genome just which parts are in play.JVL
November 12, 2022
November
11
Nov
12
12
2022
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PDT
you’ll see a pose a question to you. If you could be so kind as to give it a response
How did these changes happen in forty to eighty generations?
Epigenetics. I’ll have to look in to it much closer. I actually did read over it recently. Morphology changes obviously happen by allele shuffling but as the Grants have shown that epigenetics also causes morphology changes. I believe there are other examples of epigenetics causing morphology changes or other internal changes that affect selection. So we have allele shuffling, epigenetics and devolution as processes that lead to changes for selection to work on. There could be others but these are off the top of my head. All micro evolution or genetics and endorsed by ID.jerry
November 12, 2022
November
11
Nov
12
12
2022
09:46 AM
9
09
46
AM
PDT
Jerry @ 39: Jerry, if you could do me the courtesy of reading through my entire post. At the end, you'll see a pose a question to you. If you could be so kind as to give it a response. P.S. Thank you for looking up a definition of genetics. I'm entirely incapable of such a thing. I asked you what you meant by genetics. Shall I presume that it's simply whatever genetics is said to be?PaV
November 12, 2022
November
11
Nov
12
12
2022
09:20 AM
9
09
20
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply