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…
Raised cortisol levels have been found in children separated from family for thirty or more hours a week, especially those in substandard care.
Layers on layers, systems on systems. Puts one in mind of Darwin’s Warm Little Pond, doesn’t it? Legacy science media should ramp up those Pond graphics. And keep the speculation about random events accidentally producing life coming. Speculate HARDER!
Looking past the tabloid prose, they say they found that selection can occur at the level of the epigenome. So what becomes of neo-Darwinism if selection isn’t tied to the all-powerful but accidental gene?
To the extent that the Darwin-in-the-schools lobby permits the discussion of epigenetics, we can be reasonably sure they restrict it to the narrower, less threatening sense. And what better stronghold for Darwinism than the public school, which all taxpayers are forced to fund and most parents obliged to send their kids to?
If epigenetic treatment holds up, was Lamarck still as wrong as generations of Darwinists made him out to be?