Your interpretation of bioelectric effects as summarized in this article seems to have missed something. The bioelectric network is itself an expression of the genes involved in development. It’s not a separate magical force.
Yes, you may need genes to express the proteins of ion channels and gap junctions, but there is no anatomy coded by genes, no genes code for how many limbs will a biosystem have (as reiterated by Levin). And it is this level of resolution that actually mattered for years before the launch of molecular biology and medicine.
>>It’s not a separate magical force.
Indeed, it sort of (suppose - by up to 70%) is. If the fine structure constant, which defines the strength of the interaction between a charge and an electric field, were 4% less or more than its current value, the current world and biosphere wouldn't exist. So far physics can't explain why the fine structure constant has this exact value (~1/137, which is also unique that it is a dimenionless constant). (I'm not inferring anything, just presenting raw data).
What's this supposed to mean? We are already able to develop bugs with missing or additional limbs by modifying their genes.
You do realize this is untrue?
But I remember he was mentioning some study in left/right asymmetry in DevBio, where they've shown that it's cell potentials/bioelectric signalling and not genes that determine the left/right asymmetry in embryos.
No, they've shown that electric signaling is how the genes determine the left/right asymmetry in embryos.
How do you think it is that the same thing happens so consistently every time a new organism develops? Where do you think the electric gradients come from?