[Phaedrus]

In fact so similar is this gene, that pieces of the mammalian gene, when spliced into a fruit fly, will cause a wing to appear on the fly.

The implications of this fact are, to me, mind-boggling.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you oh so very much for your post!!!

In fact so similar is this gene, that pieces of the mammalian gene, when spliced into a fruit fly, will cause a wing to appear on the fly.

The implications of this fact are, to me, mind-boggling.

Indeed. And as I follow the discussion between Nebullis and tortoise I am encouraged that the significance of the dilemma is recognized.

For Lurkers – the issue is that genetic mechanisms for development and adaptation of functional biological systems, such as eyes, are evidently virtually identical across phyla, indicating that either:

they were present in a common ancestor (evolution biology) or

they are pre-programmed in ancestors (intelligent design) or

they are a common building block (creationism.)

Notably, if they were present in a common ancestor, it would indicate that the mechanism, such as eyeness, existed long before it would be used.

This runs contrary to the classical evolution hypothesis that the branches of the “tree of life” developed as a result of random mutations. It may however be explained by automata – autonomous self-organizing complexity (tortoise, Wolfram, Rocha, Pattee.)

IMHO, the automata alternative hypothesis is not otherwise counter-indicative to any of the three viewpoints: evolution, intelligent design, creationism. For that reason, I expect it to become the most widely accepted view in the future.

I also predict that the significance of "random mutation" will survive but will become more narrowly construed to virology and bacteriology.