Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • TalkRational: Let's nuke the thread and try to pretend this whole awful mess never happened.

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Saunt Taunga

1
https://ac.els-cdn.com/S0012160696900329/1-s2.0-S0012160696900329-main.pdf?_tid=5b6efc74-268d-4a58-b0da-011b90c5b142&acdnat=1529591046_4633f6b81f6d440cd2ed8bf395fa22f5
Quote
A new and more robust evolutionary synthesis is emerging that attempts to explain macroevolution as well as microevolutionary events. This new synthesis emphasizes three morphological areas of biology that had been marginalized by the Modern Synthesis of genetics and evolution: embryology, macroevolution, and homology. The foundations for this new synthesis have been provided by new findings from developmental genetics and from the reinterpretation of the fossil record. In this nascent synthesis, macroevolutionary questions are not seen as being soluble by population genetics, and the developmental actions of genes involved with growth and cell specification are seen as being critical for the formation of higher taxa. In addition to discovering the remarkable homologies of homeobox genes and their domains of expression, developmental genetics has recently proposed homologies of process that supplement the older homologies of structure. Homologous developmental pathways, such those involving thewntgenes, are seen in numerous embryonic processes, and they are seen occurring in discrete regions, the morphogenetic fields. These fields (which exemplify the modular nature of developing embryos) are proposed to mediate between genotype and phenotype. Just as the cell (and not its genome) functions as the unit of organic structure and function, so the morphogenetic field (and not the genes or the cells) is seen as a major unit of ontogeny whose changes bring about changes in evolution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphogenetic_field
Quote
By the 1930s, however, the work of geneticists, especially Thomas Hunt Morgan, revealed the importance of chromosomes and genes for controlling development, and the rise of the new synthesis in evolutionary biology lessened the perceived importance of the field hypothesis. Morgan was a particularly harsh critic of fields since the gene and the field were perceived as competitors for recognition as the basic unit of ontogeny.[3] With the discovery and mapping of master control genes, such as the homeobox genes the pre-eminence of genes seemed assured. But in the late twentieth century the field concept was "rediscovered" as a useful part of developmental biology. It was found, for example, that different mutations could cause the same malformations, suggesting that the mutations were affecting a complex of structures as a unit, a unit that might correspond to the field of early 20th century embryology.


Quote
Just as the cell (and not its genome) functions as the unit of organic structure and function, so the morphogenetic field (and not the genes or the cells) is seen as a major unit of ontogeny whose changes bring about changes in evolution.
By acknowledging the morphogenetic field we are looking at the fundamental driver of "evolution".
This is where we left off.
The question is where does this morphogenetic field come from?
How about other fields? Magnetic, electric, gravitational? Where do those come from? How about Galois fields?
Could it be that fields in general don't "come from", they are aspects of reality that are always there and get a name when they are interesting or useful?
Simplistically speaking, where there is matter there will be a gravitational field, where there are electrons there will be an electric field, where electrons move there will be a magnetic field, where there are numbers there will be Galois fields.

What is allways present wherever there is a morphogenetic field?
2
https://ac.els-cdn.com/S0012160696900329/1-s2.0-S0012160696900329-main.pdf?_tid=5b6efc74-268d-4a58-b0da-011b90c5b142&acdnat=1529591046_4633f6b81f6d440cd2ed8bf395fa22f5
Quote
A new and more robust evolutionary synthesis is emerging that attempts to explain macroevolution as well as microevolutionary events. This new synthesis emphasizes three morphological areas of biology that had been marginalized by the Modern Synthesis of genetics and evolution: embryology, macroevolution, and homology. The foundations for this new synthesis have been provided by new findings from developmental genetics and from the reinterpretation of the fossil record. In this nascent synthesis, macroevolutionary questions are not seen as being soluble by population genetics, and the developmental actions of genes involved with growth and cell specification are seen as being critical for the formation of higher taxa. In addition to discovering the remarkable homologies of homeobox genes and their domains of expression, developmental genetics has recently proposed homologies of process that supplement the older homologies of structure. Homologous developmental pathways, such those involving thewntgenes, are seen in numerous embryonic processes, and they are seen occurring in discrete regions, the morphogenetic fields. These fields (which exemplify the modular nature of developing embryos) are proposed to mediate between genotype and phenotype. Just as the cell (and not its genome) functions as the unit of organic structure and function, so the morphogenetic field (and not the genes or the cells) is seen as a major unit of ontogeny whose changes bring about changes in evolution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphogenetic_field
Quote
By the 1930s, however, the work of geneticists, especially Thomas Hunt Morgan, revealed the importance of chromosomes and genes for controlling development, and the rise of the new synthesis in evolutionary biology lessened the perceived importance of the field hypothesis. Morgan was a particularly harsh critic of fields since the gene and the field were perceived as competitors for recognition as the basic unit of ontogeny.[3] With the discovery and mapping of master control genes, such as the homeobox genes the pre-eminence of genes seemed assured. But in the late twentieth century the field concept was "rediscovered" as a useful part of developmental biology. It was found, for example, that different mutations could cause the same malformations, suggesting that the mutations were affecting a complex of structures as a unit, a unit that might correspond to the field of early 20th century embryology.


Quote
Just as the cell (and not its genome) functions as the unit of organic structure and function, so the morphogenetic field (and not the genes or the cells) is seen as a major unit of ontogeny whose changes bring about changes in evolution.
By acknowledging the morphogenetic field we are looking at the fundamental driver of "evolution".
This is where we left off.
The question is where does this morphogenetic field come from?
How about other fields? Magnetic, electric, gravitational? Where do those come from? How about Galois fields?
Could it be that fields in general don't "come from", they are aspects of reality that are always there and get a name when they are interesting or useful?
3
I think you may be confusing this with Sheldrake's 'morphic fields' (possibly Socrates is too?) - not at all the same concept

A morphogenetic field is a pretty well established concept based in natural processes
Ah, yes.
4
I wondered if someone would come along and straighten Saunt Taunga out.
So you think Rupert Sheldrake is a silly person with silly notions? That seems too good to be true.
5
https://ac.els-cdn.com/S0012160696900329/1-s2.0-S0012160696900329-main.pdf?_tid=5b6efc74-268d-4a58-b0da-011b90c5b142&acdnat=1529591046_4633f6b81f6d440cd2ed8bf395fa22f5
Quote
A new and more robust evolutionary synthesis is emerging that attempts to explain macroevolution as well as microevolutionary events. This new synthesis emphasizes three morphological areas of biology that had been marginalized by the Modern Synthesis of genetics and evolution: embryology, macroevolution, and homology. The foundations for this new synthesis have been provided by new findings from developmental genetics and from the reinterpretation of the fossil record. In this nascent synthesis, macroevolutionary questions are not seen as being soluble by population genetics, and the developmental actions of genes involved with growth and cell specification are seen as being critical for the formation of higher taxa. In addition to discovering the remarkable homologies of homeobox genes and their domains of expression, developmental genetics has recently proposed homologies of process that supplement the older homologies of structure. Homologous developmental pathways, such those involving thewntgenes, are seen in numerous embryonic processes, and they are seen occurring in discrete regions, the morphogenetic fields. These fields (which exemplify the modular nature of developing embryos) are proposed to mediate between genotype and phenotype. Just as the cell (and not its genome) functions as the unit of organic structure and function, so the morphogenetic field (and not the genes or the cells) is seen as a major unit of ontogeny whose changes bring about changes in evolution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphogenetic_field
Quote
By the 1930s, however, the work of geneticists, especially Thomas Hunt Morgan, revealed the importance of chromosomes and genes for controlling development, and the rise of the new synthesis in evolutionary biology lessened the perceived importance of the field hypothesis. Morgan was a particularly harsh critic of fields since the gene and the field were perceived as competitors for recognition as the basic unit of ontogeny.[3] With the discovery and mapping of master control genes, such as the homeobox genes the pre-eminence of genes seemed assured. But in the late twentieth century the field concept was "rediscovered" as a useful part of developmental biology. It was found, for example, that different mutations could cause the same malformations, suggesting that the mutations were affecting a complex of structures as a unit, a unit that might correspond to the field of early 20th century embryology.


Quote
Just as the cell (and not its genome) functions as the unit of organic structure and function, so the morphogenetic field (and not the genes or the cells) is seen as a major unit of ontogeny whose changes bring about changes in evolution.
By acknowledging the morphogenetic field we are looking at the fundamental driver of "evolution".
The morphogenetic field is well known to me. It is very silly.
That is perhaps to be expected from someone called Rupert.
6
https://ac.els-cdn.com/S0012160696900329/1-s2.0-S0012160696900329-main.pdf?_tid=5b6efc74-268d-4a58-b0da-011b90c5b142&acdnat=1529591046_4633f6b81f6d440cd2ed8bf395fa22f5
Quote
A new and more robust evolutionary synthesis is emerging that attempts to explain macroevolution as well as microevolutionary events. This new synthesis emphasizes three morphological areas of biology that had been marginalized by the Modern Synthesis of genetics and evolution: embryology, macroevolution, and homology. The foundations for this new synthesis have been provided by new findings from developmental genetics and from the reinterpretation of the fossil record. In this nascent synthesis, macroevolutionary questions are not seen as being soluble by population genetics, and the developmental actions of genes involved with growth and cell specification are seen as being critical for the formation of higher taxa. In addition to discovering the remarkable homologies of homeobox genes and their domains of expression, developmental genetics has recently proposed homologies of process that supplement the older homologies of structure. Homologous developmental pathways, such those involving thewntgenes, are seen in numerous embryonic processes, and they are seen occurring in discrete regions, the morphogenetic fields. These fields (which exemplify the modular nature of developing embryos) are proposed to mediate between genotype and phenotype. Just as the cell (and not its genome) functions as the unit of organic structure and function, so the morphogenetic field (and not the genes or the cells) is seen as a major unit of ontogeny whose changes bring about changes in evolution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphogenetic_field
Quote
By the 1930s, however, the work of geneticists, especially Thomas Hunt Morgan, revealed the importance of chromosomes and genes for controlling development, and the rise of the new synthesis in evolutionary biology lessened the perceived importance of the field hypothesis. Morgan was a particularly harsh critic of fields since the gene and the field were perceived as competitors for recognition as the basic unit of ontogeny.[3] With the discovery and mapping of master control genes, such as the homeobox genes the pre-eminence of genes seemed assured. But in the late twentieth century the field concept was "rediscovered" as a useful part of developmental biology. It was found, for example, that different mutations could cause the same malformations, suggesting that the mutations were affecting a complex of structures as a unit, a unit that might correspond to the field of early 20th century embryology.


Quote
Just as the cell (and not its genome) functions as the unit of organic structure and function, so the morphogenetic field (and not the genes or the cells) is seen as a major unit of ontogeny whose changes bring about changes in evolution.
By acknowledging the morphogenetic field we are looking at the fundamental driver of "evolution".
The morphogenetic field is well known to me. It is very silly.
7
Your method of analyzing any subject is to argue. That does not interest me.
The way to become smarter is by changing your mind when you are wrong. Disagreeing is very important to changing ones mind. That you are not interested is disappointing and unsurprising.
8
This domain is not separate from the physical. It interpenetrates the physical.
The physical already interpenetrates all of reality, so what does this even mean?
9
It is all part of Nature. We are all part of Nature. Enough said.

The "quantum vacuum" is just the scientific name for a "domain" that philosophers and religious people have concerned themselves with for centuries. It is a scientific confirmation of the existence of this domain.
Some arrogant religious philosophers would like to think so. Sensible scientist who have no need for a "domain" to shelter cherished superstitions not so much.
10
I think a better way of seeing it is as reality, not magic (or natural, not supernatural). 'Physical' doesn't just mean matter based, that's a simplistic way of understanding the concept, energy and quantum states (including actual and potential) are also physical (which is why physics studies all these things, physics is the scientific study of the nature of reality).
:yes:
Quote
Quantum mechanics (QM; also known as quantum physics, quantum theory, the wave mechanical model, or matrix mechanics), including quantum field theory, is a fundamental theory in physics which describes nature at the smallest scales of energy levels of atoms and subatomic particles.[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics
11
The quantum plenum contains all possibilities. It is uncertain which of those will manifest. That is the "innate uncertainty".
http://science.jeksite.org/info1/pages/page4.htm
Quote
Because the human experience most analogous to quantum probability waves is the imagination of hypothetical futures, the attribution of information and mental properties to the quantum domain may be irresistible. Stapp (2009, p. 195) described the quantum domain as "idealike" rather than "matterlike." He pointed out that the basic properties of the quantum domain are represented by potentialities and probabilities, and the actual outcomes that are manifest appear to be selected in a way not controlled by any known mechanical law. The interconnectedness in the quantum domain that supports entanglement and delayed-choice apparently has a means to incorporate all the relevant factors, conditions, and possibilities in a given situation, even though the factors and conditions may be spread over space and time, and the possibilities may be potential or hypothetical events.
Given the above, the nature of the quantum plenum is beyond our capability to comprehend.
The "quantum vacuum" is just the scientific name for a "domain" that philosophers and religious people have concerned themselves with for centuries. It is a scientific confirmation of the existence of this domain.
Worth repeating. People can no longer pretend there is no scientific evidence of a domain beyond the physical.
That it is "beyond the physical" seems to be your personal opinion. From what I've seen I'd say it is entirely physical. The quantum domain is what "the physical" looks like at smaller scales of distance and time, and when looking at smaller amounts of matter and energy.

To me that you are like someone looking at building materials and calling it "beyond architecture".
12
The quantum plenum contains all possibilities. It is uncertain which of those will manifest. That is the "innate uncertainty".
http://science.jeksite.org/info1/pages/page4.htm
Quote
Because the human experience most analogous to quantum probability waves is the imagination of hypothetical futures, the attribution of information and mental properties to the quantum domain may be irresistible. Stapp (2009, p. 195) described the quantum domain as "idealike" rather than "matterlike." He pointed out that the basic properties of the quantum domain are represented by potentialities and probabilities, and the actual outcomes that are manifest appear to be selected in a way not controlled by any known mechanical law. The interconnectedness in the quantum domain that supports entanglement and delayed-choice apparently has a means to incorporate all the relevant factors, conditions, and possibilities in a given situation, even though the factors and conditions may be spread over space and time, and the possibilities may be potential or hypothetical events.
Given the above, the nature of the quantum plenum is beyond our capability to comprehend.
We can know in what ways it goes beyond our comprehension.
For example?
13
The quantum plenum contains all possibilities. It is uncertain which of those will manifest. That is the "innate uncertainty".
http://science.jeksite.org/info1/pages/page4.htm
Quote
Because the human experience most analogous to quantum probability waves is the imagination of hypothetical futures, the attribution of information and mental properties to the quantum domain may be irresistible. Stapp (2009, p. 195) described the quantum domain as "idealike" rather than "matterlike." He pointed out that the basic properties of the quantum domain are represented by potentialities and probabilities, and the actual outcomes that are manifest appear to be selected in a way not controlled by any known mechanical law. The interconnectedness in the quantum domain that supports entanglement and delayed-choice apparently has a means to incorporate all the relevant factors, conditions, and possibilities in a given situation, even though the factors and conditions may be spread over space and time, and the possibilities may be potential or hypothetical events.
Given the above, the nature of the quantum plenum is beyond our capability to comprehend.
The "quantum vacuum" is just the scientific name for a "domain" that philosophers and religious people have concerned themselves with for centuries. It is a scientific confirmation of the existence of this domain.
Whenever new things are not yet well understood the ignorant will pretend it can shelter their superstitions. When understanding grows, shelter shrinks. The quantum vacuum will, like lightning, disease and breath, leave less and less room for superstition.
14
The quantum plenum contains all possibilities. It is uncertain which of those will manifest. That is the "innate uncertainty".
http://science.jeksite.org/info1/pages/page4.htm
Quote
Because the human experience most analogous to quantum probability waves is the imagination of hypothetical futures, the attribution of information and mental properties to the quantum domain may be irresistible. Stapp (2009, p. 195) described the quantum domain as "idealike" rather than "matterlike." He pointed out that the basic properties of the quantum domain are represented by potentialities and probabilities, and the actual outcomes that are manifest appear to be selected in a way not controlled by any known mechanical law. The interconnectedness in the quantum domain that supports entanglement and delayed-choice apparently has a means to incorporate all the relevant factors, conditions, and possibilities in a given situation, even though the factors and conditions may be spread over space and time, and the possibilities may be potential or hypothetical events.
Given the above, the nature of the quantum plenum is beyond our capability to comprehend.
Some apparently think that places beyond our capability to comprehend are good for keeping their cherished fantasies safe from the world. Like the God of the gaps.
15
Saunt Taunga has raised a comparison with human minds. As much as that is an intriguing and fruitful line of thinking I am not intending to go down that path with folks who cannot even acknowledge/understand the points I have been making so far.
Since human minds, to a lesser degree the minds of other animals, and fragments of the human mind that can be delegated to computers, are the only reference we have, all discussion of intelligence that ignores those will necessarily descend into pointless frivolity.
As for your points, they were acknowledged, examined and understood to be unsupported and/or false.
16
The quantum plenum contains all possibilities. It is uncertain which of those will manifest. That is the "innate uncertainty".
http://science.jeksite.org/info1/pages/page4.htm
Quote
Because the human experience most analogous to quantum probability waves is the imagination of hypothetical futures, the attribution of information and mental properties to the quantum domain may be irresistible. Stapp (2009, p. 195) described the quantum domain as "idealike" rather than "matterlike." He pointed out that the basic properties of the quantum domain are represented by potentialities and probabilities, and the actual outcomes that are manifest appear to be selected in a way not controlled by any known mechanical law. The interconnectedness in the quantum domain that supports entanglement and delayed-choice apparently has a means to incorporate all the relevant factors, conditions, and possibilities in a given situation, even though the factors and conditions may be spread over space and time, and the possibilities may be potential or hypothetical events.
Since all known intelligence/intention/planning is something that happens in minds, and all known minds are controlled by mechanical laws, the quantum plenum would not be a good place to look for the basis of intelligence of Nature.
17
Quote
Some people pompously talk as if they know all about this and others seem to not have a clue. The only possible way for new higher taxa to arise is through changes to the regulatory genes during development.
The second point is that random changes to the development process will result in either death or decreased survivability.
The third point is that since random changes lead to death or decreased survivabilty the changes must have been directed. Directed by an intelligence that knows what changes to make.
The result is a combination of common ancestry and design. The common ancestry is the line of modified creatures.
And that is just your opinion, based on assumptions that, as far as we can tell, are not supported by your references and everybody disagrees with.
18
So unsupported by references:

  • The only possible way for new higher taxa to arise is through changes to the regulatory genes during development.
  • Random changes to the development process will always result in either death or decreased survivability.
  • Since random changes lead to death or decreased survivabilty the changes must have been directed. Directed by an intelligence that knows what changes to make.
Also, that this intelligent direction resides in the quantum realm, that your own reference characterizes with "innate uncertainty" is very shaky.
One could say "it does not stand up".
19
So unsupported by references:

  • The only possible way for new higher taxa to arise is through changes to the regulatory genes during development.
  • Random changes to the development process will always result in either death or decreased survivability.
  • Since random changes lead to death or decreased survivabilty the changes must have been directed. Directed by an intelligence that knows what changes to make.
Also, that this intelligent direction resides in the quantum realm, that your own reference characterizes with "innate uncertainty" is very shaky.
20
Seriously, this is Galileo vs. the Scholars all over again.  And this sort of thing has happened ALL THROUGHOUT HISTORY.

It's a bizarre human phenomenon.
Reminding people of Bozo the Clown is something to avoid.
Because you don't know your audience, which is aware of this meme:
Quote
But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
you weakened your point.
21
Seriously, this is Galileo vs. the Scholars all over again.  And this sort of thing has happened ALL THROUGHOUT HISTORY.

It's a bizarre human phenomenon.
Reminding people of Bozo the Clown is something to avoid.
22
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012160696900329?via%3Dihub#!
Quote
A new and more robust evolutionary synthesis is emerging that attempts to explain macroevolution as well as microevolutionary events. This new synthesis emphasizes three morphological areas of biology that had been marginalized by the Modern Synthesis of genetics and evolution: embryology, macroevolution, and homology. The foundations for this new synthesis have been provided by new findings from developmental genetics and from the reinterpretation of the fossil record. In this nascent synthesis, macroevolutionary questions are not seen as being soluble by population genetics, and the developmental actions of genes involved with growth and cell specification are seen as being critical for the formation of higher taxa. In addition to discovering the remarkable homologies of homeobox genes and their domains of expression, developmental genetics has recently proposed homologies of process that supplement the older homologies of structure. Homologous developmental pathways, such those involving thewntgenes, are seen in numerous embryonic processes, and they are seen occurring in discrete regions, the morphogenetic fields. These fields (which exemplify the modular nature of developing embryos) are proposed to mediate between genotype and phenotype. Just as the cell (and not its genome) functions as the unit of organic structure and function, so the morphogenetic field (and not the genes or the cells) is seen as a major unit of ontogeny whose changes bring about changes in evolution.


If "macroevolutionary questions are not seen as being soluble by population genetics" then those people (including the folks here) who have been claiming that macroevolutionary questions are soluble by population genetics, have been going down the wrong path.
And everyone started down the wrong path since the time of Darwin.
But it is not necessary to continue going down the wrong path.
Instead:
"the developmental actions of genes involved with growth and cell specification are seen as being critical for the formation of higher taxa."

So the focus now shifts to the plausibility of higher taxa being formed by changes to "growth and cell specification genes" (regulatory genes).
The first point is that the published material (which I have posted) shows that higher taxa being formed by changes to "growth and cell specification genes" (regulatory genes) is indeed plausible. Indeed credible.
This is the first point. If anyone wishes to deny this, now is the time.
Some people pompously talk as if they know all about this and others seem to not have a clue. The only possible way for new higher taxa to arise is through changes to the regulatory genes during development.
The second point is that random changes to the development process will result in either death or decreased survivability.
The third point is that since random changes lead to death or decreased survivabilty the changes must have been directed. Directed by an intelligence that knows what changes to make.
No reference for this. At all.
23
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012160696900329?via%3Dihub#!
Quote
A new and more robust evolutionary synthesis is emerging that attempts to explain macroevolution as well as microevolutionary events. This new synthesis emphasizes three morphological areas of biology that had been marginalized by the Modern Synthesis of genetics and evolution: embryology, macroevolution, and homology. The foundations for this new synthesis have been provided by new findings from developmental genetics and from the reinterpretation of the fossil record. In this nascent synthesis, macroevolutionary questions are not seen as being soluble by population genetics, and the developmental actions of genes involved with growth and cell specification are seen as being critical for the formation of higher taxa. In addition to discovering the remarkable homologies of homeobox genes and their domains of expression, developmental genetics has recently proposed homologies of process that supplement the older homologies of structure. Homologous developmental pathways, such those involving thewntgenes, are seen in numerous embryonic processes, and they are seen occurring in discrete regions, the morphogenetic fields. These fields (which exemplify the modular nature of developing embryos) are proposed to mediate between genotype and phenotype. Just as the cell (and not its genome) functions as the unit of organic structure and function, so the morphogenetic field (and not the genes or the cells) is seen as a major unit of ontogeny whose changes bring about changes in evolution.


If "macroevolutionary questions are not seen as being soluble by population genetics" then those people (including the folks here) who have been claiming that macroevolutionary questions are soluble by population genetics, have been going down the wrong path.
And everyone started down the wrong path since the time of Darwin.
But it is not necessary to continue going down the wrong path.
Instead:
"the developmental actions of genes involved with growth and cell specification are seen as being critical for the formation of higher taxa."

So the focus now shifts to the plausibility of higher taxa being formed by changes to "growth and cell specification genes" (regulatory genes).
The first point is that the published material (which I have posted) shows that higher taxa being formed by changes to "growth and cell specification genes" (regulatory genes) is indeed plausible. Indeed credible.
This is the first point. If anyone wishes to deny this, now is the time.
Some people pompously talk as if they know all about this and others seem to not have a clue. The only possible way for new higher taxa to arise is through changes to the regulatory genes during development.
The second point is that random changes to the development process will result in either death or decreased survivability.
You also forgot the reference for this. All you had was one one for "usually results in either death or decreased survivability".
24
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012160696900329?via%3Dihub#!
Quote
A new and more robust evolutionary synthesis is emerging that attempts to explain macroevolution as well as microevolutionary events. This new synthesis emphasizes three morphological areas of biology that had been marginalized by the Modern Synthesis of genetics and evolution: embryology, macroevolution, and homology. The foundations for this new synthesis have been provided by new findings from developmental genetics and from the reinterpretation of the fossil record. In this nascent synthesis, macroevolutionary questions are not seen as being soluble by population genetics, and the developmental actions of genes involved with growth and cell specification are seen as being critical for the formation of higher taxa. In addition to discovering the remarkable homologies of homeobox genes and their domains of expression, developmental genetics has recently proposed homologies of process that supplement the older homologies of structure. Homologous developmental pathways, such those involving thewntgenes, are seen in numerous embryonic processes, and they are seen occurring in discrete regions, the morphogenetic fields. These fields (which exemplify the modular nature of developing embryos) are proposed to mediate between genotype and phenotype. Just as the cell (and not its genome) functions as the unit of organic structure and function, so the morphogenetic field (and not the genes or the cells) is seen as a major unit of ontogeny whose changes bring about changes in evolution.


If "macroevolutionary questions are not seen as being soluble by population genetics" then those people (including the folks here) who have been claiming that macroevolutionary questions are soluble by population genetics, have been going down the wrong path.
And everyone started down the wrong path since the time of Darwin.
But it is not necessary to continue going down the wrong path.
Instead:
"the developmental actions of genes involved with growth and cell specification are seen as being critical for the formation of higher taxa."

So the focus now shifts to the plausibility of higher taxa being formed by changes to "growth and cell specification genes" (regulatory genes).
The first point is that the published material (which I have posted) shows that higher taxa being formed by changes to "growth and cell specification genes" (regulatory genes) is indeed plausible. Indeed credible.
This is the first point. If anyone wishes to deny this, now is the time.
Some people pompously talk as if they know all about this and others seem to not have a clue. The only possible way for new higher taxa to arise is through changes to the regulatory genes during development.
You forgot the reference that says it is the only way. You quoted one opinion that uses the word "critical".
25
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012160696900329?via%3Dihub#!
Quote
A new and more robust evolutionary synthesis is emerging that attempts to explain macroevolution as well as microevolutionary events. This new synthesis emphasizes three morphological areas of biology that had been marginalized by the Modern Synthesis of genetics and evolution: embryology, macroevolution, and homology. The foundations for this new synthesis have been provided by new findings from developmental genetics and from the reinterpretation of the fossil record. In this nascent synthesis, macroevolutionary questions are not seen as being soluble by population genetics, and the developmental actions of genes involved with growth and cell specification are seen as being critical for the formation of higher taxa. In addition to discovering the remarkable homologies of homeobox genes and their domains of expression, developmental genetics has recently proposed homologies of process that supplement the older homologies of structure. Homologous developmental pathways, such those involving thewntgenes, are seen in numerous embryonic processes, and they are seen occurring in discrete regions, the morphogenetic fields. These fields (which exemplify the modular nature of developing embryos) are proposed to mediate between genotype and phenotype. Just as the cell (and not its genome) functions as the unit of organic structure and function, so the morphogenetic field (and not the genes or the cells) is seen as a major unit of ontogeny whose changes bring about changes in evolution.


If "macroevolutionary questions are not seen as being soluble by population genetics" then those people (including the folks here) who have been claiming that macroevolutionary questions are soluble by population genetics, have been going down the wrong path.
And everyone started down the wrong path since the time of Darwin.
But it is not necessary to continue going down the wrong path.
Instead:
"the developmental actions of genes involved with growth and cell specification are seen as being critical for the formation of higher taxa."

So the focus now shifts to the plausibility of higher taxa being formed by changes to "growth and cell specification genes" (regulatory genes).
The first point is that the published material (which I have posted) shows that higher taxa being formed by changes to "growth and cell specification genes" (regulatory genes) is indeed plausible. Indeed credible.
This is something that folks here cannot even deny. So everyone goes quiet.
Please go on. Faster would be fine.