>I would have expected you to dissent from the "Most microbiologists"
>part as well. Is this the case - or has the change occurred since
>Harold wrote? I am persisting with this thought because only a year
l>ater, a significant paper appeared in Developmental Biology which
>set out "an alternative to the solely genetic model of evolution and
>development". At that time, the authors were advancing something
>new! Here is an extended quote:
>"Just as the cell is seen to be the unit of structure and function in
>the body - not the genes that act through it - so the morphogenetic
>field can be seen as a major unit of ontogenetic and phylogenetic
>change. In declaring the morphogenetic field to be a major module of
>developmental and evolutionary change, we are, of course, setting it
>up as an alternative to the solely genetic model of evolution and
>development. This, however, is not to be seen as antagonistic to the
>principle that genes are important in evolution or development. This
>is not in any way denied. But just as the genes make the cells and
>the cells form the body, so the gene products first need to interact
>to create morphogenetic fields in order to have their effects.
>Changes in these fields then change the ways that animals develop."
>(page 368).
>Gilbert, S.F., Opitz, J.M. and Raff, R.A. 1996, Developmental
>Biology, 173, 357-372.
Do either of you know where a layman, without access to a university library,
can learn more about these intrieging thoughts?
Bertvan