On May 31, 4:22 pm, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote:

Here is how I, with only a little study, would respond:

In light of Intelligent design, can you explain the reasoning behind

Size and the amount of yolk has a great deal to do with the
differences, which are not as great as you claim. Evolution of mammals
from terrestrial organisms that had already evolved such terrestrial
specializations as the amniotic sac also has an important role.

"Very different" is in the eye of the beholder.  All vertebrates form
guts asshole first through invagination (the blastopore in amphibians,
the primitive groove in birds, reptiles, and mammals).  Fish, as
exemplified by the zebrafish (PZ has some familiarity with this
organism ;-) produces a dorsal thickening (the embryonic shield) that
is the functional equivalent of the dorsal blastopore lip of
amphibians.   "If one conceptually opens a Xenopus blastula at the
vegetal pole and stretches the opening into a marginal ring, the
resulting fate map closely resembles that of the zebrafish embryo at
the stage when half of the yolk has been covered by the blastoderm."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK10100/
IOW, most of the *differences* are a consequence of egg and yolk size
and the shape of the invagination site rather than any fundamental
difference. Apparently IDiots cannot understand topological homology.

Can you provide the empirical or theoretical reasoning behind the
above assumption?  Does ID provide an alternative testable explanation
for whatever you think you mean for whatever examples you mean?  Or
does it, like the God of the Gaps it is, simply say that whatever
happens is due to the dyslexic doG?

Can you give some examples of what you mean?

That is a claim without examples as stated.  Can you provide specific
examples of what you mean?

Can't creationists wrapped in the cheap tuxedo of ID come up with
anything but the old, tired, "evolution must work by magically poofing
some large change into existence or it is impossible"?  Especially
when *their* explanation is that "some dyslexic doG magically poofed
some large change into existence."  The fact is that all major changes
observed in modern vertebrate structure (like wings or hands) are
modifications of pre-existing vertebrate structures.  So, again, what
*specific* examples are they talking about?

Why do you think that evolution requires that the timing of
development of a tissue must be the same as the timing of its
evolution?   Oh, I see.  IDiots seem to be stuck in the idea that
modern evolutionists all believe that "ontogeny recapitulates
phylogeny" is a universal law.  I hate to Haeckel you, but "It ain't
true."

Perhaps the best example is direct development as opposed to pluteus
development in sea urchins.  Ans: Egg size has a lot to do with it.
What other examples do you propose?  BTW, Rudy Raff has done a lot of
this work.  Hasn't shaken his understanding that evolution explains
the results.
http://members.fortunecity.com/smashx14/urchin.html

Again, no specificity.  If you expect an actual response, you need to
do better than simply make a broad claim/assertion as if it were
'truth'.  And again you seem to have this idea that modern evolution
and evo-devo is nothing but warmed over Haeckel.

Do you mean, for example, like the neotenous salamanders (which are
reproductively-capable embryos)?  In some cases, the embryo simply
does not produce thyroxin (the hormone that triggers conversion to
adult body form) while its reproductive organs continue to mature.  In
those species (axolotl), one can induce adult body form by injecting
thyroxin.  In other species, there is loss of the thyroxin receptor
protein, so, even though the immature forms can produce thyroxin, they
cannot respond to it.  And in yet other species, the change is
facultative and in wet areas, they produce enough thyroxin and in dry
areas they don't.  Notably, the neotenous forms tend to occur in
environments where the land is dry, but there are springs that exist
year around.  Some might attribute that to selective pressure.  But
the genetic "switch" is pretty simple.

And I have already mentioned the pluteus-forming versus direct-
development in sea urchins.  The latter tend to occur in seas where
there has been selection for larger nutrient rich eggs because of
relatively nutrient-poor seas being unable to sustain longer pluteus
development.

Who is misrepresenting whom here?  DNA is ultimately the whole show,
but epigenetic phenomena (like differential methylations) do exist.

Positional information from cell-cell interaction (or its lack, one of
the first such triggers in mammals involves whether a cell is on the
inside or the outside of the blastocyst), interaction with the
environment, or the presence of positional information molecules in
the egg is clearly important in the differentiation process.  Almost
all that information acts through DNA activation or non-activation and
a cascading or spreading or chain of activity.  Did you have a point?
Development and evolution *both* involve the interaction of an
organism's genome with its environment.  Again, what is your point?
Are you claiming that DNA is irrelevant to some important differences?

There is a difference between "interaction" of organismal genome and
environment and the environment acting completely independently of the
genome to produce an organismal feature.  The formation of a human
embryo is dependent on the cell(s) being inside the blastocyst (that
is, positional information).  If there is no such cell inside, no
embryo forms.  But the positional information "triggers" a difference
in the pattern of genetic information expressed.  It doesn't create
that information.

Again with the warmed over Haeckel.  Ontogeny only very roughly
correlates with phylogeny.  It does not recapitulate it. Been a long
evolutionary time since mammals needed actual gills for respiration.

No. In fish, some of these embryonic structures develop *into* slits
that later *become* gills used for respiration.  Except for the ones
that develop *into* jaws and other structures.

Because lungs are *analogous* structures, not *homologous* ones.  The
structures homologous to lungs are swim bladders (which evolved from
primitive lungs in certain fish). Both are blood rich outgrowths of
the gut in fish that initially got oxygen from air by *swallowing*
it.  Gills are not useful for oxygen extraction in terrestrial
settings (as any fish flopping on the deck could tell you).  BTW,
amphibians also get a substantial amount of oxygen through their thin
skins and their lungs and associated circulatory systems tend to be
simpler than the lungs of reptiles.

Yes.  And don't forget jaws. Did you have a point?

Rather ballsy of you to include this.  The question is why is the
testes pulled through the body wall, causing a weak spot where the
intestine can bulge through?  Poor design?  How does ID explain this
other than "Because the dyslexic doG wanted it that way."