Epigenetics chips away at the Darwinian edifice in the sense that the question of whether one “inherits” a tendency to drink too much alcohol may be obviated if epigenetics change cements the tendency long after fertilization.
Researchers: Prior studies have shown that when grown near mint plants, soybean and field mustard (Brassica rapa) plants display heightened defense properties against herbivore pests by activating defense genes in their leaves, as a result of “eavesdropping” on mint volatiles. Put simply, if mint leaves get damaged after a herbivore attack, the plants in their immediate vicinity respond by activating their anti-herbivore defense systems in response to the chemical signals released by the damaged mint plant.
Well, that’s revealing, isn’t it? The evolutionary biologist admits that epigenetics is controversial, not because it can’t be demonstrated (it can) but because it provides competition for “traditional Darwinian inheritance.”
A short movie which describes why the identical twins Lucky Lyle and Troubled Tim end up with totally different personalities. Is it environment or genetics? Or perhaps both?
The epigenetic ability to transfer memories intergenerationally is — when documented — much more informative than stupid Darwinian claims about “natural selection acting on random mutation” that somehow brings about this specific result with no information content.
Researchers: Scientists have yet to work out how one parental version of a given gene can be switched (or faded) on or off and maintained that way while the other is in the opposite state. It is known that much of the on/off switching occurs during the formation of gametes (sperm and egg), but the precise mechanisms remain unclear. This new study points to the intriguing possibility that some imprinted genes may not be marked in gametes, but become active later in development, or even in adulthood.
For about a year now, from reading various news items on newly published science articles, I’ve begun to consider not DNA, but RNA, the real driver of life. I think that DNA’s essential role is that of information storage–a hard drive, while RNA is like the BIOS system–it tells the “system” what it should be Read More…
From this distance, to whatever extent Lysenko thought epigenetics was a feature of life forms, he was right. To whatever extent Darwinians opposed the idea, they were wrong. The rest is totalitarianism, whether of Lysenkoists or Darwinists. To get some idea how that sort of thing plays out today, consider the current COVID-19 debacle: The lab leak theory has always been a reasonable idea, not a conspiracy theory. Yet it was treated as a conspiracy theory for purely political reasons…
The good news from this mouse study is that if epigenetic stress is recognized, it can be reversed. That means, presumably, that it won’t be passed on: In a study published March 15 in Nature Neuroscience, researchers found that early-life stress in mice induces epigenetic changes in a particular type of neuron, which in turn Read More…
The researchers report that they are homing in on HOW non-DNA information travels in sperm.
Epigenetics may play an important role in addiction and depression. Or, we hope, in fighting them.
At New Scientist: “Subsequent studies in plants and animals suggest that epigenetic inheritance is more common than anyone had expected. Whatʼs more, compared with genetic inheritance, it has some big advantages. Environments can change rapidly and dramatically, but genetic mutations are random, so often require generations to take hold.” Just think, within a few years, genetics might start to make some sense.
You’ve got to hand it to the New Scientist gang; when they rethink, they really do.
Or is it epigenetics? At Science: “But even if the discovery is confirmed, Peng says he is leery of calling the modified adenine an addition to the genetic code. ‘Maybe [part] of the ‘epigenetic code’ instead?'”
That’s the claim at RealClearScience and, wouldn’t you know, Darwin doubters are supposedly to blame.
Of course. Michael Skinner, a Washington State U biology prof, makes good sense. But no, nothing happens. Too many fossils in Darwin world now. They just want dusting off now and then. And, in a world of change, they also expect things to continue that way…