 |
 |
|
|
| |
| |
| |
|
|
| Articles about Animal Body |
| Response to Comment on 'Gene Regulatory Networks and the Evolution of Animal Body Plans' (Science) | | 2006-09-18 11:17:12 | | The journal Science 11 August 2006:Vol. 313. no. 5788, p. 761DOI: 10.1126/science.1126765Douglas H. Erwin and Eric H. DavidsonContrary to Coyne's assertions, our paper did not advocate a macromutational innovation of phyla but considered the consequences of the introduction of developmental constraints for the evolution of gene regulatory networks based on recent empirical studies of gene regulatory networks.Most of Coyne's concerns (1) are restatements of long-standing debates over the nature of evolutionary change (2). The comment offers no new data or interpretations but rather comments on issues, such as the nature of phyla, that have a lengthy and disputed history in evolutionary biology and which were not the subject of our paper. Specifically, Coyne seems to reject the role of regulatory genes in evolution. This is refuted by experimental studies of Drosophila, butterflies, echinoderms, fish, amniotes, and other organisms. Therefore, Coyne's conflict is not with our review as much as with developmental biology and its implications for evolutionary process. [Response]--See Comment on "Gene Regulatory Networks and the Evolution of Animal Body Plans"and the originalGene Regulatory Networks and the Evolution of Animal Body Planstechnorati tags: journal, science, innovation, phyla, developmental, constraints, evolution, gene, regulatory, networks, nature, evolutionary, change, new, data, history, biology, genes, experimental, drosophila, butterflies, fish, organisms, process, response, comment
| | By: Evolution Research - Main Blog | | |
| | Comment on "Gene Regulatory Networks and the Evolution of Animal Body Plans" | | 2006-08-11 01:28:05 | | Davidson and Erwin (Science Reviews, 10 February 2006, p. 796) argued that known microevolutionary processes cannot explain the evolution of large differences in development that characterize phyla. Instead, they proposed that phyla arise from novel evolutionary processes involving large mutations acting on conserved core pathways of development. I question some of their assumptions and show that natural selection adequately explains the origin of new phyla.(Jerry A. Coyne, Department of Ecology and Evolution, University of Chicago, 1101 East 57th Street, Chicago, IL 60637, USA)See: Gene Regulatory Networks and the Evolution of Animal Body Planstechnorati tags: science, evolution, phyla, novel, evolutionary, processes, mutations, development, natural+selection, origin, ecology, chicago, university
| | By: Evolution Research - Main Blog | | |
|
|
| |
 |
|
| |
| |
|
 |
