".....on the intersection of genetics and embryology—called developmental genetics—which seeks
to understand how DNA strings are converted into functioning organs and body plans. Our understanding of this breathtakingly complex phenomenon is still exceedingly rudimentary, though modern techniques have finally opened up research. A typical technique maps out where and when, in the embryo, a particular gene is expressed.
Another technique suppresses (or ‘knocks out’) a particular gene and then observes which embryonic characters do, and do not, develop.
“Evo-devo” is the nickname for this field that attempts to explain developmental genetics via evolutionary theory.
...three concepts
(1) there exists a set of genes;
(2) these are essential in the development of innovative body plans; and
(3) evolutionists believe these are inherited from some common ancestor (i.e. these are a homology).
Though homology is said to be a major evidence for evolution, the concept itself is problematic. Wagner notes: “There is no consensus, nor even a narrow consensus on the subject of homology and its mechanistic foundations. … Every biologist will agree that homology is a confused and confusing subject”.
It is awkward to claim natural selection originally created these genes to control diverse body plans: (1) because that common ancestor (whatever it was) didn’t have much of a body;
(2) because natural selection cannot create something for a future use; and
(3) it is unlikely these genes, at their original inception, just happened to be well-suited to a future use for creating such diverse body plans.
A second problem further surprised evolutionists: homologous characters are often not due to homologous genes.
between morphology and its underlying genes—they are not homologous together. This throws a monkey wrench into the homology concept. Will the real homology please stand up: is it morphology, or is it genes, that determine homology?"
CMI
Another technique suppresses (or ‘knocks out’) a particular gene and then observes which embryonic characters do, and do not, develop.
“At stage 40, the pectoral fin buds show classical early colinear HoxD gene expression. HoxD13 is expressed at the posterior margin of the fin bud nested within a slightly more extensive HoxD12 expression domain, which itself is nested in a HoxD11 expression domain that extends even further anteriorly” (p. 350).
They are now vying to amend evolutionary theory to accommodate this new data. “Evo-devo” is the nickname for this field that attempts to explain developmental genetics via evolutionary theory.
...three concepts
(1) there exists a set of genes;
(2) these are essential in the development of innovative body plans; and
(3) evolutionists believe these are inherited from some common ancestor (i.e. these are a homology).
Though homology is said to be a major evidence for evolution, the concept itself is problematic. Wagner notes: “There is no consensus, nor even a narrow consensus on the subject of homology and its mechanistic foundations. … Every biologist will agree that homology is a confused and confusing subject”.
It is awkward to claim natural selection originally created these genes to control diverse body plans: (1) because that common ancestor (whatever it was) didn’t have much of a body;
(2) because natural selection cannot create something for a future use; and
(3) it is unlikely these genes, at their original inception, just happened to be well-suited to a future use for creating such diverse body plans.
A second problem further surprised evolutionists: homologous characters are often not due to homologous genes.
“What is problematic, though, is the fact that clearly homologous characters can derive from different developmental mechanisms in different species” (p. 37). “There is mounting evidence that homologous characters from distantly related organisms, like grasshoppers and fruit flies, often use quite different genes for the development of clearly homologous characters, like insect body segments. Hence, the identity of morphological characters cannot be explained by the identity of the set of genes that directs their development ” (p. 2).In short, there is considerable independence, or disconnect,
CMI
Where is the philosopher of this age?
Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?
Romans 1:20 NIV