Darwin lobby: Don’t teach epigenetics, kids won’t understand

_{Denyse O'Leary

September 20, 2013

Education, News, Science}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Readers may recall that yesterday we noted that Darwin’s darling Zack Kopplin didn’t want to talk about epigenetics (the way in which interactions with the environment affect our genetic instructions).

A friend writes to say that soon-to-retire “Darwin in the schools” lobbyist Eugenie Scott thinks it’s fine not to teach students about epigenetics because

It was almost a relief when an antievolutionist contended that the books should be rejected because they don’t include epigenetics. At least the epigenetics argument is relatively recent (perhaps only 5-8 years old). In creation-think, including epigenetics in biology textbooks will weaken evolution because epigenetics is evidence against evolution. Yeah, I know it isn’t, but to creationists, any process that isn’t natural selection weakens natural selection as an evolutionary mechanism, and if natural selection isn’t strong enough to produce evolution, that means that evolution didn’t take place, and…and…You get the picture. Never mind that epigenetics isn’t in the TEKS, the state science education standards, and generally isn’t a topic for beginning biology learners. [colour emphasis added]

What’s really interesting here is how important Darwin’s hot 19th century theory about natural selection acting on random mutation seems to her. To doubt its near—or actual (I don’t have the script in front of me)—divine power is to doubt that any kind of evolution occurs.

In short, the best-known Darwin lobbyist thinks the evidence for evolution in general is so weak that doubts about the power of natural selection to randomly produce intricate new equipment must mean that evolution never happens. Good thing she said it herself.

By the way, here’s more evidence that some media sources were floating the story that “Texas law bans teaching about evolution in books” as of late yesterday. Who are these airheads, and why do you rely on them for news, if you do?

Comments

'Experimental results in epigenetics and related fields of biological research show that the Modern Synthesis (neo-Darwinist) theory of evolution requires either extension or replacement.' 'This paper explains why replacement rather than extension is called for. The reason is that the existence of robust mechanisms of trans-generational inheritance independent of DNA sequences runs strongly counter to the spirit of the Modern Synthesis. In fact, several new features of experimental results on inheritance and mechanisms of evolutionary variation are incompatible with the Modern Synthesis'. https://jeb.biologists.org/content/218/1/7Truthfreedom_{January 11, 2020
January
01
Jan
11
11
2020
03:22 PM
3
03
22
PM
PDT}

wd400:
Doesn’t the title of that book suggest the new stuff extends rather than supplants the modern synthesis?
Sure it does! But why extended the modern synthesis if it's not necessary?
More than half a century has passed since the integration of several strands of evolutionary thought that came to to be called the Modern Synthesis (MS), the conceptual framework that has defined evolutionary theory since the 1940s. Despite significant advances since then in all methodological and disciplinary domains of biology, including molecular genetics, developmental biology, and the "-omics" fields, the Modern Synthesis framework has remained surprisingly unchanged.
You're mot surprised. Neither am I. So who is surprised?Mung_{September 22, 2013
September
09
Sep
22
22
2013
09:11 PM
9
09
11
PM
PDT}

It was both factually and theoretically WRONG. How? What was WRONG about it? Doesn't the title of that book suggest the new stuff extends rather than supplants the modern synthesis?wd400_{September 22, 2013
September
09
Sep
22
22
2013
07:57 PM
7
07
57
PM
PDT}

IOW, Darwinism, aka neo-Darwinism, aka The Modern Synthesis, has been supplanted. It was both factually and theoretically WRONG. Now, what was the role of evo-devo and epigenetics in the displacement of neo-Darwinism? Sure, let's talk about it. But let's not pretend that it posed no challenge to Darwinism.Mung_{September 22, 2013
September
09
Sep
22
22
2013
06:55 PM
6
06
55
PM
PDT}

In the six decades since the publication of Julian Huxley's Evolution: The Modern Synthesis, spectacular empirical advances in the biological sciences have been accompanied by equally significant developments within the core theoretical framework of the discipline. As a result, evolutionary theory today includes concepts and even entire new fields that were not part of the foundational structure of the Modern Synthesis. - Evolution: The Extended Synthesis (back cover)
Mung_{September 22, 2013
September
09
Sep
22
22
2013
06:49 PM
6
06
49
PM
PDT}

In this book we propose a major new scientific theory: facilitated variation that deals with the means of producing useful variations. - The Plausibility of Life: Resolving Darwin's Dilemma
Mung_{September 22, 2013
September
09
Sep
22
22
2013
06:41 PM
6
06
41
PM
PDT}

wd400:
The modern synthesis didn’t include development, which is to say it doesn’t include how genetic variants give rise to morphological variants.
Development was not included for a reason, it was not by accident. The how was considered unimportant. Unnecessary to the theory. Irrelevant. Prior to "the modern synthesis," developmental biology was thought to be important to evolutionary theory. Amundson's book is worth reading, even if you disagree. If the how is important, then it follows that this is a problem for Darwinism (neo-Darwinism, aka "the modern synthesis"), since it was excluded from the theory. wd400:
You are now talking about epigenetics meaning all of development, which is not what most people mean by the term these day.
Right. But it seems to have become a subject of focus by both you and Elizabeth. Where and when are the primary effects of "epegenetics" relevant? During development? Then I think I am on point.Mung_{September 22, 2013
September
09
Sep
22
22
2013
04:07 PM
4
04
07
PM
PDT}

The evolutionary synthesis was not so much a synthesis as it was a cut-down of variables considered important in the evolutionary process ... What was new in this conception of evolution was not the individual variables, most of which had long been recognized, but the idea that evolution depended on so few of them ... This I will now call the "evolutionary constriction," which seems to me to be a more accurate description of what actually happened to evolutionary biology. - William Provine
Mung_{September 22, 2013
September
09
Sep
22
22
2013
03:57 PM
3
03
57
PM
PDT}

Mung, You are now talking about epigenetics meaning all of development, which is not what most people mean by the term these day. The modern synthesis didn't include development, which is to say it doesn't include how genetic variants give rise to morphological variants. Now we know a lot more about how genetic variants give rise to morphological variants, and thus we understand evolution much better. That doesn't mean population and quantative genetic don't work any more. The alleles involved in development are subject to mutation selection and drift, after all. So it's not at all clear to me that developmental biology is a problem, even for new synthesis.wd400_{September 22, 2013
September
09
Sep
22
22
2013
03:49 PM
3
03
49
PM
PDT}

...for population genetics to be the foundation of an evolutionary theory, it must be able to take account of the two general factors involved in evolutionary change: heredity and adaptation. The MCTH concept of narrow heredity allowed this to happen. Narrow heredity divorced ontogenetic development from heredity itself. - The Changing Role of the Embryo in Evolutionary Thought
But now we're asked to ignore the divorce. Heredity is what takes place during development. No challenge to Darwinism here. Move along.Mung_{September 22, 2013
September
09
Sep
22
22
2013
03:47 PM
3
03
47
PM
PDT}

EL:
Mung, you are incorrect.
At least I understand the distinction between what needs to be explained and what the explanation is. And if I'm incorrect, so is William Provine.Mung_{September 22, 2013
September
09
Sep
22
22
2013
03:34 PM
3
03
34
PM
PDT}

wd400:
It’s not a shell game, I don’t usually use the term Darwinism because if it means anything (and I’m not sure it does) it’s a restricted part of evolutionary biology.
It's also known as "the modern synthesis" (aka neo-Darwinism) and it is the dominant version of evolutionary theory sold to the public at large and has been for decades now. An it is a shell game because when someone addresses one aspect of the theory and shows why it is inconsistent with emerging facts it all of a sudden becomes "that's not what I was talking about." Elizabeth has already been kind enough to explain the core aspects of "the modern synthesis" and even agrees that it is deficient. The only question that remains is whether once all is said and done there will be anything recognizable left of the original theory. "Modern Evolutionary Theory" is remarkably plastic. What is the role of developmental biology in "the modern synthesis" (aka neo-Darwinism)? None? So yeah, it's a challenge to "Darwinism."Mung_{September 22, 2013
September
09
Sep
22
22
2013
03:31 PM
3
03
31
PM
PDT}

Lifespy, What are you talking about? There are tonnes and tonnes of studies associating observed phenotypic variation with specfic genetic variants? How are these studies going to vanish now we can measure DNA methylation?wd400_{September 22, 2013
September
09
Sep
22
22
2013
03:00 PM
3
03
00
PM
PDT}

Mung, It's not a shell game, I don't usually use the term Darwinism because if it means anything (and I'm not sure it does) it's a restricted part of evolutionary biology. Evo devo is different to the 1960s versino of the modern synthesis, but the two fields attempt to understand evolution through complimenting frames rather than offering competing explanations for biology. For a population geneticists it's not usually important to know if an allele has its phenotypic effect via a change in protein sequence or a change in some regulatory element. Evo devo lets us understand the molecular and development basis of phenotypic variablity. That's cool. Why it's a problem for evolution or "Darwinism" I can't imagine.wd400_{September 22, 2013
September
09
Sep
22
22
2013
02:55 PM
2
02
55
PM
PDT}

lifepsy: Because eventually people are going to learn that most of the phenotypic changes you guys have been bullhorning as the result of neo-darwinian processes are actually epigenetically induced by the environment. Elizabeth,
Oh, right. Well, if there was evidence that phenotypic variation is “most[ly]” caused by epigenetics not genetics, you might have a point. But there isn’t.
I'm not talking about the fairytales you guys tell about where existing phenotypes came from. I'm talking about *observed* phenotypic variations in living populations. These changes have been bullhorned far and wide as neo-darwinian evolution, or selection of genetic variants, but they aren't. That's why Darwinian-mystics don't like Epigenetics. It shows how much imaginary storytelling you guys have been publishing over the years.lifepsy_{September 22, 2013
September
09
Sep
22
22
2013
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PDT}

Mung, you are incorrect.Elizabeth B Liddle_{September 22, 2013
September
09
Sep
22
22
2013
02:30 PM
2
02
30
PM
PDT}

Jerry, This is really typical of what happens when people are pushed to explain why epigentics is such a big deal. Most of you comment has nothing at all to do with epigenetics, and what does is a collosal extrapolation from a twig of evidence. First, I have mentioned the concept of gene expression and that it may be what is thought to have been evolution may be just changes in gene expression. Why "just". Lots of change is brought about by changes in gene expression, which in turn are brought about my mutation and selection. That's evolution, I don't know why anyone who deny that. Some of these methylation changes are brought on by the environment and some can be passed on to offspring through germ cells. There is no given that if passed on by inheritance that the changes will stay. Is this evolution? Very few cases of direct environmental impact methylation leading to a stably inherited trait are known, and none of them are beneficial changes in expression. So it's very hard to see how this how apparent-adaptation could be explained by this sort of mechanism. And some of these gene expressions may be just changes to control mechanisms But the control mechanisms, epigenetic or not, are ultimately encoded by genes which are subject to mutation and selection and drift and all the evolutionary mechanisms we already understand. So why "just" changes to control mechanisms? An interesting question is since these are just one species how did the changes to the control mechanisms arise? Was it through mutation or did the environment create the changes? I am certainly not an expert but this is an interesting question. You don't have to be an expert to read the Grants' papers and see the traits are heritable, no matter what the environment that have thrown at them, so it'c can't be simply the environment creating changes (they also aren't one species). Second, I also mentioned the new level of complexity coding for functionality of the organism... To convince someone else you will have to establish more than your own incredulity Third, I mentioned the problem of body plans and that the information for this is not in the genome. Not methylation but it is epigenetic. It is here that very severe challenges to Darwinian evolution are apparent. Well, you'd first need to establish such a thing exists. I'm not aware of any evidence for this idea. So, we are left with your own misunderstandings of how gene expression is controlled, some speculative ideas about direct environmental impacts of methylation being benifical, personal incredulity and an evidnce-free idea about development. I'm not sure evolutionary biology is in as bad a shape as you think it is.wd400_{September 22, 2013
September
09
Sep
22
22
2013
02:17 PM
2
02
17
PM
PDT}

Elizabeth Liddle:
Natural selection results in adaptation: tick
No, Elizabeth, adaptation results in natural selection. You have it backwards. That's why it should not be taught to children. Even grown adults who "know a lot" about it can't get it straight.Mung_{September 22, 2013
September
09
Sep
22
22
2013
02:00 PM
2
02
00
PM
PDT}

Elizabeth:
Can you explain why epigenetics is evidence against Darwinian evolution
wd400:
why is epigentics a problem for evolutionary biology?
Do you folks really think we don't notice the shell game? I respond to the question posed by Elizabeth and wd400 claims I haven't addressed it because he's asking a different question. Now if epigenetics is what happens during development, then the reason it's a problem for Darwinian theory is because Darwinian theory is explicitly not evo-devo. Again, Ron Amundson has written an entire book on the subject and the subject is also treated in What Darwin Got Wrong, and Part Two of Meyer's latest is "How to Build an Animal so no doubt it's covered there as well." Elizabeth says she's read Darwin's Doubt, so surely none of this is "News" to her.Mung_{September 22, 2013
September
09
Sep
22
22
2013
01:55 PM
1
01
55
PM
PDT}

Jerry:
Never said that. Said that a lot of phenotype change could be epigenetic and should be investigated. There are several places in all my comments where I give natural selection its due. But it is all trivial. That is the word I frequently use and will use it below a few times. I don’t do off the charts. My Navy experience taught me that.
That was lifepsy at 73. By "off the charts" I mean the probability, based on current evidence, that transgenerational epigenetics will turn out to have a greater effect on the phenotype than genetics is infinitessimal. We have copious examples of the second, and a few interesting examples of the first.
BTW, re teaching evolutionary biology: Universal common descent: untick – no clear proof – suggest one produces evidence of such that is not begging the question
As I said, jerry, there's no proof in science. But a vast amount of evidence.
Natural selection results in adaptation: tick – yes but trivial
No reason to think it is trivial.
Phenotypic variation reflects genotypic variation: tick – but not an issue for anyone on the planet
Quite. Apart, possibly from lifepsy.
Phenotypic variation in multicellular organisms is largely due to differences in regulatory genes affecting the developmental timetable of gene expression: untick – I haven’t a clue what this means so I may agree or disagree.
OK. This is from the evo-devo literature. And just devo.
There is phenotype variation without regulatory causes. There is phenotype variation due to regulatory causes. Have to define regulatory and what constitutes it to have a clear dissuasion. Speciation results when a population splits into two, and the two subpopulations evolve down separate lineages: tick – yes it probably happened but it is trivial unless you have some specific examples
Every single bifurcation in the phylogenetic tree.
Evolution results from drift as well as adaptation: tick – yes but trivial
Not at all. Hugely important.
The species most closely related to humans are the great apes: tick – but what this means, I haven’t a clue. How does this relate to Darwinian evolution
It places us on the next branch in the tree of life.Elizabeth B Liddle_{September 22, 2013
September
09
Sep
22
22
2013
11:24 AM
11
11
24
AM
PDT}

I don’t think “kiddies” or anyone, should be told that any scientific model is sufficient.
Rather than repeat all your points. They are all trivial except UCD for which there is no proof and symbiosis which is all speculation above the prokaryote level. So welcome to the ID side.jerry_{September 22, 2013
September
09
Sep
22
22
2013
11:02 AM
11
11
02
AM
PDT}

And the idea that most phenotypic variation is epigenetic rather than genetic really is off the charts.
Never said that. Said that a lot of phenotype change could be epigenetic and should be investigated. There are several places in all my comments where I give natural selection its due. But it is all trivial. That is the word I frequently use and will use it below a few times. I don't do off the charts. My Navy experience taught me that.
BTW, re teaching evolutionary biology:
Universal common descent: untick - no clear proof - suggest one produces evidence of such that is not begging the question Natural selection results in adaptation: tick - yes but trivial Phenotypic variation reflects genotypic variation: tick - but not an issue for anyone on the planet Phenotypic variation in multicellular organisms is largely due to differences in regulatory genes affecting the developmental timetable of gene expression: untick - I haven't a clue what this means so I may agree or disagree. There is phenotype variation without regulatory causes. There is phenotype variation due to regulatory causes. Have to define regulatory and what constitutes it to have a clear dissuasion. Speciation results when a population splits into two, and the two subpopulations evolve down separate lineages: tick - yes it probably happened but it is trivial unless you have some specific examples Evolution results from drift as well as adaptation: tick - yes but trivial The species most closely related to humans are the great apes: tick - but what this means, I haven't a clue. How does this relate to Darwinian evolutionjerry_{September 22, 2013
September
09
Sep
22
22
2013
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PDT}

Actually, yes, I do agree, CS. I don't think "kiddies" or anyone, should be told that any scientific model is sufficient. Nor do I think "kiddies" or anyone should be told it is not "sufficient". Neither is knowable. What I do think is that Common Descent should be taught as the best explanation for the nested hierchical distribution of morphological features of living things, and about the statistical methods that test for these hierarchies in the science of phylogenetics. I think they should also be taught that the best accounts we have to date for how living things might have diversified and adapted is heritable variance in reproductive success plus drift and speciation events (when a population subdivides and two subpopulations continue to evolve down largely and increasingly separate lineages). In addition they should be taught that adaptation by means of heritable variance in reproductive success has been observed in real time, in the lab and in the field, including the evolution of novel adaptive features not present in the ancestral population. They should be taught that variance arises from a number of mechanisms that result in changes to DNA sequences between generations of cells and of whole organisms, and that some of these mechanisms themselves may be the result of population-level adaptation, but that a great deal of research remains to be done in this area. They should also be taught that one of the most important vectors for phenotypic variation in multicellular organisms is changes to regulatory genes that affect the timetable of gene expression in the developing organism, as well as changes to regulatory genes that affect how the organism functions in daily life. But that it is possible that other sources of heritable variation are possible, including symbiosis, and this may account for certain step-changes in the lineage. As for OoL, they should be taught that although there are a number of promising leads, but as yet we do not know how the first life-forms, or proto-life forms emerged from non-life. Also, some more stuff. But as I said in another thread, and was puzzled to be disagreed with - I don't think science should be taught as a body of facts. I think it should be taught as what it is - a body of models of reality, many of which are extremely well-supported but all of which have some fuzzy stuff around the edges that further hypothesis testing may elucidate.Elizabeth B Liddle_{September 22, 2013
September
09
Sep
22
22
2013
10:31 AM
10
10
31
AM
PDT}

EL:But at least we agree that we shouldn’t be teaching stuff to kids that has no evidential support.
So you agree that random variation + natural selection is responsible for all the cell types, tissue types, organs and body plans found among Earth's biosphere should not be taught to the kiddies? Well, brava, Dr Liddle, brava! Welcome to "our side."CentralScrutinizer_{September 22, 2013
September
09
Sep
22
22
2013
10:02 AM
10
10
02
AM
PDT}

Well, you are just wrong about that Jerry :) But at least we agree that we shouldn't be teaching stuff to kids that has no evidential support. And the idea that most phenotypic variation is epigenetic rather than genetic really is off the charts. BTW, re teaching evolutionary biology: Universal common descent: tick Natural selection results in adaptation: tick Phenotypic variation reflects genotypic variation: tick Phenotypic variation in multicellular organisms is largely due to differences in regulatory genes affecting the developmental timetable of gene expression: tick Speciation results when a population splits into two, and the two subpopulations evolve down separate lineages: tick Evolution results from drift as well as adaptation: tick The species most closely related to humans are the great apes: tick. That seems to be a fairly substantial amount of evolutionary theory that is very well supported by evidence.Elizabeth B Liddle_{September 22, 2013
September
09
Sep
22
22
2013
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PDT}

You surely don’t want kids to learn something in science class that no scientist has actually discovered?
The best rationale for deleting Darwinian evolution from the curriculum (except for minor changes in genome) I have seen. Thank you for agreeing with the pro-ID people on the elimination of Darwin's ideas from biology textbooks. Bravo on your road to Damascus moment!!!jerry_{September 22, 2013
September
09
Sep
22
22
2013
08:50 AM
8
08
50
AM
PDT}

So far, in 72 comments, Jerry has offered some ideas about gene expression generally, but noone, as far as I can tell has been able to answer this simple question: why is epigentics a problem for evolutionary biology?
No true. First, I have mentioned the concept of gene expression and that it may be what is thought to have been evolution may be just changes in gene expression. Some of the phenotype changes that are held up as evolution may be just changes in gene expression. Some of these methylation changes are brought on by the environment and some can be passed on to offspring through germ cells. There is no given that if passed on by inheritance that the changes will stay. Is this evolution? And some of these gene expressions may be just changes to control mechanisms which have not usually been thought as the source of these changes. As an example I mentioned the Darwinian Finches which are essentially all one species with no genetic reasons to prevent inner breeding. So are these finches an example of Darwinian evolution even though they have been held up as such by evolutionary biologists. An interesting question is since these are just one species how did the changes to the control mechanisms arise? Was it through mutation or did the environment create the changes? I am certainly not an expert but this is an interesting question. Second, I also mentioned the new level of complexity coding for functionality of the organism. A code on top of the code that must be coordinated with these exquisitely fine tuned entities. If one does not admit that is a problem for Darwinian evolution, they are being dishonest. Maybe it was somehow accomplished by a small change here, a small change there but it just got extremely more complicated. How does all these methylation changes come and go in the history of an organism. Or should we say how does the gene pool expand to include an ever changing methylation pool. One that is constantly varying to ensure the organism is viable. Third, I mentioned the problem of body plans and that the information for this is not in the genome. Not methylation but it is epigenetic. It is here that very severe challenges to Darwinian evolution are apparent. So, yes epigenetic poses a problem for simple story telling of Darwinian evolution. The off hand remark used constantly, "that this or that was selected for", is really a non scientific way of say we haven't any WAGs as to how it happened.jerry_{September 22, 2013
September
09
Sep
22
22
2013
05:23 AM
5
05
23
AM
PDT}

lifepsy:
Because eventually people are going to learn that most of the phenotypic changes you guys have been bullhorning as the result of neo-darwinian processes are actually epigenetically induced by the environment.
Oh, right. Well, if there was evidence that phenotypic variation is "most[ly]" caused by epigenetics not genetics, you might have a point. But there isn't. The evidence of links between genetic variation and phenotypic variation completely dwarfs the albeit interesting links between trans-generational epigenetic variation and phenotypic variation. You surely don't want kids to learn something in science class that no scientist has actually discovered?Elizabeth B Liddle_{September 22, 2013
September
09
Sep
22
22
2013
12:49 AM
12
12
49
AM
PDT}

That's a nice story Gensci but, and we are now 72 comments into this thread, why is epigenetics bad for "Darwinists" even in this new definition of the word you are offering us? If folks are repressing epigenetics to protect Darwinism, what threat does epigentics hold for that idea? So far, in 72 comments, Jerry has offered some ideas about gene expression generally, but noone, as far as I can tell has been able to answer this simple question: why is epigentics a problem for evolutionary biology?wd400_{September 21, 2013
September
09
Sep
21
21
2013
11:30 PM
11
11
30
PM
PDT}

Elizabeth,
Can you explain why epigenetics is evidence against Darwinian evolution?
Because eventually people are going to learn that most of the phenotypic changes you guys have been bullhorning as the result of neo-darwinian processes are actually epigenetically induced by the environment.lifepsy_{September 21, 2013
September
09
Sep
21
21
2013
11:29 PM
11
11
29
PM
PDT}

1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply