Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: exDemMom

As far as I know, the manner in which shape is obtained from genotype has never been described.

What you’ve done is no more than suggesting a possible general mechanism—responding to chemical signals—which is only described on a microscopic level yet seems to be missing a lot of the details. I don’t think you can bridge the gap to show how shape is determined on a macro level.

That is, I don’t think you can take a set of gene sequences and predict what shape will come of it, for example shape of extremities or shape of trunk region. Or how to change the gene sequences in order to produce a particular phenotype size or shape.

As for transitional species—can you give me at least one example?


43 posted on 06/11/2014 4:59:57 PM PDT by reasonisfaith ("...because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved." (2 Thessalonians))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies ]


To: reasonisfaith
As far as I know, the manner in which shape is obtained from genotype has never been described.

Actually, we do have many instances in which the appearance of the phenotype can be predicted from the genotype. And research is turning up more details all the time. It is a logical fallacy to assume that because we do not yet have the knowledge of exactly how *every* gene contributes to phenotype, that we have *no* knowledge in that area.

What you’ve done is no more than suggesting a possible general mechanism—responding to chemical signals—which is only described on a microscopic level yet seems to be missing a lot of the details. I don’t think you can bridge the gap to show how shape is determined on a macro level.

Every multicellular organism has its shape determined by molecular events. There are no exceptions. The propagation of chemical signals throughout the developing embryo is hardly a "possible general mechanism"--it is the only mechanism. Those signals direct cells when to grow, when to stop growing, when and how to differentiate, when to die (cell death is an integral part of development), etc.

As far as not being able to "bridge the gap", the fact that it is not yet possible to look at a genome and predict the person's appearance is meaningless. That does not mean that it will never be possible. The fact is that many features *are* predictable from genotype. For instance, since a few Neanderthal genomes have been sequenced, it is possible to determine their hair color without having any sample hair.

As for transitional species—can you give me at least one example?

Only one? Humans.

Don't fall into the trap of thinking that there is a defined end point for evolution, and that either species are heading for that end point or are already there. There is no end point since evolution is a continuous process. Therefore, by definition, every living species is a transition species.

44 posted on 06/11/2014 7:35:27 PM PDT by exDemMom (Current visual of the hole the US continues to dig itself into: http://www.usdebtclock.org/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson