This:

book review

is by a YEC of Carroll's "Endless Forms Most Beautiful". I post it FYI - no doubt most of you will just pick out the creationist stuff and dismiss the rest. For those interested, this is a good intro to evo devo. I've read the book(skimmed, lightly) but without much comprehension, but because of this review I may re-read it.

This:

NY Times Article

is a very brief overview which also speculates on the possible demise of the modern synthesis.

I just love this quote, though not exactly on the point of this post, it does show I'm not crazy to question the fossil record:

Good to know there are at least 3 people who puzzle over the fossil record - me, Dawkins and the NYT.

Edit: Thanks, Jib.

Link needs to be fixed

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/26/sc...ssay.html?_r=2

reading article now.

The book review was interesting (although it is like reading Dawkins as a creationist )

The quotes from the book were very interesting and I would love to hear some comments on the book and the idea of evo devo from some of you. If what Carroll is saying is true this seems like it would definitely be a paradigm shift for evolution.

Saltationism is the answer!

I don't understand enough about evolutionary theory to know if its a paradigm shift or not, so for now I'll just say:

And its good to know that of those three people, two of them have no ****ing clue what they are talking about.

Don't be so hard on poor Dawkins and the NYT - they're trying their best.

I'm pretty much in the same camp. As I said in another post, if the modern synthesis is thrown out today, tomorrow the number of atheists on the planet Earth will be exactly the same. I really think the ideas I see in evo devo are fascinating - atheist or theist, you have to see how interesting this is.

I meant to add this in my original post so will say it here.

I found the book review because I was researching something involving a post some time ago in which I said RTB had said that evolutionists, before genome sequencing, had said they expected to find genomes were very dissimilar so that the genetic similarity between chimps and humans was the exact opposite of what was expected. ChrisV wanted me to back it up and though I couldn't at the time, I did post an update in that thread. In the book review above there is a quote from Ernst Mayr to the same effect, which I expect is what RTB was referring to.

Just opened the article-- First paragraph --
hmmmmm.... must be martian scientists. According to the anti-science crowd in this forum that statement is WRONG here on our conspiracy laden earth.
ok, back to the article....

Ha. One day you'll figure it out. What am I saying, no you wont. Keep up the work though, I do get enjoyment out of your posts. Its a rare treat to come and interact with that guy that will always try and prove evolution wrong. That it was intelligently designed, or that evolution doesnt involve unpredictable chance, whatever your stance is that particular day.

'Does all this add up to a new modern synthesis?'. No. Not with the evidence presented.

As I understand it a true paradigm shift requires all the old guys to die off so might be a while.

It's does nothing but add some refinement ( important refinement) to the current theory, it doesn't overturn it, surely a decent paradigm shift should shift paradigms. As starry-eyed as Carroll is ( he reminds me of Gould trying to blow up minor issues to revolutionary status) even he realizes that evo devo doesn't cover the advent of vertebrates, for example... which was a fourfolding of genes.
Taking Evo-devo as a valid account in some cases we still end up with the forms animals take continuing to center around DNA sequences changing and on the fitness of the animal based on Darwinian terms... nothing new there.
Very valuable work but no revolution ... perhaps a Gouldian mutiny in a squadron.

Fixed the statement, which we've all known and been discussing for like - 40 years now. It's not like a new idea.

It's funny how you are making a mild-mannered, eloquent and very knowledgable biologist out to be some raging, froathing and rhetorical monster who is so dumb and petty he can never be taken seriously.

I have seen it develop over time, and it's rather fascinating. People cry cognitive dissonance over many silly things, but this must be a prime example.

Fwiw; I became an atheist when I was 14 and first heard of Dawkins when I was approaching 30 (on this board). I would rethink the inevitable fanboy or disciple insult you likely planned to retort with.

This place loses its sense of humor a little each day.

I think his patience is wearing thin.

Maybe it's the quality of the jokes?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4CxY...eature=related

Don't bother - they're here.