tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post7035653965288379534..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: Sean Carroll's View of Evo-DevoLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-41547295892690939852011-08-21T10:33:58.042-04:002011-08-21T10:33:58.042-04:00Tammy posted:
"I thought, 'why didn't...Tammy posted:<br />"I thought, 'why didn't I learn this stuff in school'?"<br /><br />I agree. <br />The idea that very small changes can have <i>very </i>large effects is very significant. <br />It turns the usual idea of gradual accumulation of random mutations on its head. <br /><br />This should be taught from the beginning, instead of young people being given the outdated, old ideas that so many people take as given. <br /><br />It seems to me that this is the sort of curriculum change that ID folk promote and that makes perfect sense.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-53645701461041553322011-08-21T03:39:33.112-04:002011-08-21T03:39:33.112-04:00Thank you for pointing out the problems with Evo-d...Thank you for pointing out the problems with Evo-devo as theory. I have been reading the New Science of Evo-Devo. For me personally, many of the points made by Carroll were revolutionary, but that is because I learned to believe that evolutionary theory in general is highly complex and full of holes. That a "small set of genes can produce drastically different body types" was news to me (sadly enough), and incredible news at that. That you could learn about furry things (or an elephant) from fruit flies fascinates me. Either I did not learn this in high school/college, or I just did not listen very well, which could be the case (I do feel embarrassed for my lack of knowledge in this seemingly fundamental area of biology). <br /><br />It is very good to know that the big ideas presented in the book are not as new or revolutionary as Carroll seems to imply. I will admit that I like how he presents the information---I can sense his excitement and I, too, feel that same excitement. I thought, "why didn't I learn this stuff in school?" However, I also felt led to believe that this "revolutionary" science can explain everything in the fields of biology and evolution, that it is foundational. So, this blog post helped me to see the book within the bigger picture of scientific thought. Thank you!Tammy Gladwinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08152411195885287502noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-18719480392454623142011-02-16T12:08:18.142-05:002011-02-16T12:08:18.142-05:00I appreciate Sean B. Carroll's assistance in e...I appreciate Sean B. Carroll's assistance in elucidating for interested laypersons some of the bases for morphological change in the animal kingdom from the Cambrian through the present. His explanations of change occurring through common types of mutations in regulatory genes helped me understand species changes on a level other than the usual (at least in what I read and was taught) "Here's a flower with a really deep throat, and wouldn't ya know it, here's a moth with a really long tongue." I'd certainly wondered how, from a genetic and biomolecular point of view, such morphological changes came about.<br /><br />On a deeper level, others evidently wondered as well. I still remember Gould asking near the end of <i>Wonderful Life</i> why the post-Cambrian hadn't seen more diversification in basic animal body plans.<br /><br />In helping raise awareness of how factors on the molecular level play an important role in what sorts of changes we see on a morphological level, I think of Carroll's and Arlin Stoltzfus' work as analogous.Judnoreply@blogger.com