JP has an interesting post, Why the regulatory changes vs. coding sequence changes debate is inane:
Here's the question we're supposed to answer: which are more important-- protein-coding changes or regulatory changes? And here's the problem with that question: how do you define important? Let's make a list of the ways humans differ from chimpanzees-- we walk on two feet, we have bigger brains, we have less hair, etc. etc. You can add your own if you like. If a protein-coding change gives us the bigger brain, but a regulatory change the lack of hair, who wins? Sure, you could argue about which trait contributes more to some notion of "human-ness", but frankly, who gives a shit? Both are pretty important.
Some of the comments are of interest. The "big picture" is that these debates about "sequence vs. regulation" or "selection vs. neutrality" are probably good for driving scientific research ...
