Is Guided Evoltion the answer?

[Bro Dave]

Intelligently guided evolution seem like such an obvious choice. Why is it never in contention?

Bro Dave

[Grumpy]

Jose

So tell us, Rob: if the process is wholly biologic, strictly natural, and science must remain agnostic about first causes, how can there be any possible kind of pre-programming? Isn't this rather an extrapolation beyond any reasonable interpretation of the data?

I might suggest, especially for the lurkers, that "evo-devo" is no more than evolution and development (hence the name). Originally, it was devo-evo, but that's just quibbling. It is no magic science. It merely looks at development and evolution together. I suppose that, now, we can consider the elucidation of the Master Pattern Genes and the like to be a part of devo-evo, but when they were discovered they were just plain old ordinary developmental genetics. All that we learn from this is which genes are responsible for morphological changes during evolution. We now have reasonable candidates for how microevolution causes macroevolution.

To imply that devo-evo (pardon me, evo-devo) goes beyond this into some realm of pre-programming or design or guided anything is to go beyond data. If we want to philosophize, we may, of course. But let's not confuse it with science.

[/quote]

Thank you for putting so succintly the very thing I tried to point out to Rob, before he threw his tantrums for me not worshiping at his feet in honor of his new(not really) toy.

Grumpy 8)

[Rob]

So tell us, Rob: if the process is wholly biologic, strictly natural, and science must remain agnostic about first causes, how can there be any possible kind of pre-programming? Isn't this rather an extrapolation beyond any reasonable interpretation of the data?

Hi Jose,

That is a fair question. I think a fuller understanding lies in two areas: 1) understanding what exactly the Modern Synthesis (i.e., population genetics) claims, including an examination of its more narrow interpretation which you seem to ascribe to, but which both Gould and G.G. Simpson and many other scientists have made statements which take a very different view; and 2) the facts and evidence which supports the conclusion there has been a 450+ million year old conservation of Homeobox pattern genes that gave rise to The Origin of Animal Body Plans.

I will answer your question at length in the "Is Science True?" thread since the answer to your questions have nothing to do with either religious belief or intelligent design, but the past and current claims made by evolutionary scientists with regards to such questions as Microevolution vs. Macroevolution, and how these two relate to the new findings of evo-devo and evolutionary theory.

It will be bit as I must gather the evidence from the actual scientists to support my argument that your claim that "microevolution causes macroevolution," which is not supported either by the evidence or the majority of scientists, including some of the original founders of Population Genetics and the Modern Synthesis. This is a narrow view with a historical origin that is fully understood within the scientific community.