Monday, September 18, 2006
The journal Science 11 August 2006:
Vol. 313. no. 5788, p. 761
Douglas H. Erwin and Eric H. Davidson
Contrary 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 original
technorati 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