Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Experts: “Epigenetics can drive genetics”

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

From ScienceDaily:

Washington State University researchers say environmental factors are having an underappreciated effect on the course of disease and evolution by prompting genetic mutations through epigenetics, a process by which genes are turned on and off independent of an organism’s DNA sequence.

Their assertion is a dramatic shift in how we might think of disease and evolution’s underlying biology and “changes how we think about where things come from,” said Michael Skinner, founding director of the Center for Reproductive Biology in WSU’s School of Biological Sciences.

Why does this remind one of Further to “Philosopher of science: Schoolbook Darwinism needs replacement” (Witzany: All these concepts that dominated science for half a century are falsified now)?

This, said Skinner, suggests that environment has a more important role in mutations, disease and evolution than previously appreciated, and appears to be one of the main drivers of intergenerational changes, not simply a passive component. In short, Skinner and his colleagues say, the environment and epigenetics can drive genetics.

Exciting times.

Here’s the abstract:

A variety of environmental factors have been shown to induce the epigenetic transgenerational inheritance of disease and phenotypic variation. This involves the germline transmission of epigenetic information between generations. Exposure specific transgenerational sperm epimutations have been previously observed. The current study was designed to investigate the potential role genetic mutations have in the process, using copy number variations (CNV). In the first (F1) generation following exposure, negligible CNV were identified; however, in the transgenerational F3 generation, a significant increase in CNV was observed in the sperm. The genome-wide locations of differential DNA methylation regions (epimutations) and genetic mutations (CNV) were investigated. Observations suggest the environmental induction of the epigenetic transgenerational inheritance of sperm epimutations promote genome instability, such that genetic CNV mutations are acquired in later generations. A combination of epigenetics and genetics is suggested to be involved in the transgenerational phenotypes. The ability of environmental factors to promote epigenetic inheritance that subsequently promotes genetic mutations is a significant advance in our understanding of how the environment impacts disease and evolution. (Public access) – Michael K Skinner, Carlos Guerrero-Bosagna, M Muksitul Haque. Environmentally induced epigenetic transgenerational inheritance of sperm epimutations promote genetic mutations. Epigenetics, 2015; 10 (8): 762 DOI: 10.1080/15592294.2015.1062207

See also: Larry Moran misses the point about Gunther Witzany. (The perspective of the critics of the modern synthesis—so far from being shunned—is now one that attracts an “outer circle.” Hardly the sign of a failing cause.)

Note: Moran also misses the point about interviewer Suzan Mazur, of whom he says dismissive things. When journalists who publish in key venues become interested in an otherwise obscure train wreck, we can reasonably suspect that a shift is taking place. That’ why we call it “news” and not “olds.”

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
Mapou:
A company called Monsanto uses genetic engineering to create genetically modified organisms. If chicken shit Monsanto can design new genes, so can advanced designers who created all life on earth. Get a clue.
That would be like buying a car and customizing it with parts that were made by someone else. Design a biological organism from scratch and roll it out into an ecosystem. It can't be done, because it's impossible.Carpathian
August 12, 2015
August
08
Aug
12
12
2015
10:24 AM
10
10
24
AM
PDT
Carpie:
Mapou: Carpie, ID does not claim to have a mechanism. Do you even know what ID is?
Then ID is of no use in explaining how life got to be the way it is today.
Sigh. ID gives half of the answer: Intelligence was required to bring about life on earth.
Its only use seems to be to try and convince people that life cannot be explained by one particular theory. Other than saying life is so improbable it must have been designed because Stonehenge was designed by us , I have not seen anything to indicate that biological ID is possible.
ID does not claim that life is improbable. It claims that it is impossible that life on earth arose by itself. The search space for the human genome is so huge (4 raised to 3 billion) that no random searching mechanism such as RM+NS has a chance to find anything more complex than simple stuff. This is why genetic algorithms are only used for toy applications. The combinatorial explosion just kills them dead as soon as you want to do anything more complex than tic-tac-toe. It is not a matter of improbability. It's impossible to use RM+NS to arrive at anything more interesting than little toy stuff. IMPOSSIBLE.
That is the IDist’s only argument against “Darwinism”, i.e. that it isn’t possible.
ID completely refutes Darwinism. It relegates it into the vast bin of pseudoscientific crap. ID is an awesome argument, if you ask me.
Why can’t anyone show how biological ID is possible? Show how you would design a biological organism and then roll your product out into an ecosystem.
A company called Monsanto uses genetic engineering to create genetically modified organisms. If chicken shit Monsanto can design new genes, so can the advanced designers who created all life on earth. Get a clue.Mapou
August 12, 2015
August
08
Aug
12
12
2015
10:14 AM
10
10
14
AM
PDT
Carpathian:
That is the IDist’s only argument against “Darwinism”, i.e. that it isn’t possible.
So to refute ID all you have to do is demonstrate that it is possible. But you can't so you rail against ID with your ignorance.Virgil Cain
August 12, 2015
August
08
Aug
12
12
2015
09:56 AM
9
09
56
AM
PDT
velikovskys- Intelligent design is a "how". For example, you can build something by intelligent design or just throw it together willy-nilly.Virgil Cain
August 12, 2015
August
08
Aug
12
12
2015
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT
Carpathian:
But ID has no mechanisms at all.
Design is a mechanism. But I digress. ID is not about the mechanism. That doesn't mean there aren't any.
ID itself is no more a “mechanism” for creating biological organisms than saying “horsepower” is a “mechanism” for creating electric motors.
Design is the mechanism for creating electric motors.Virgil Cain
August 12, 2015
August
08
Aug
12
12
2015
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT
Mapou:
Carpie, ID does not claim to have a mechanism. Do you even know what ID is?
Then ID is of no use in explaining how life got to be the way it is today. Its only use seems to be to try and convince people that life cannot be explained by one particular theory. Other than saying life is so improbable it must have been designed because Stonehenge was designed by us , I have not seen anything to indicate that biological ID is possible. That is the IDist's only argument against "Darwinism", i.e. that it isn't possible. Why can't anyone show how biological ID is possible? Show how you would design a biological organism and then roll your product out into an ecosystem.Carpathian
August 12, 2015
August
08
Aug
12
12
2015
09:48 AM
9
09
48
AM
PDT
Carpie, ID does not claim to have a mechanism. Do you even know what ID is? Do you know the mechanism that was used to build Stonehenge? Does that prevent you from knowing that Stonehenge was built by intelligent beings? Why do you people keep repeating the same old tired and stupid arguments? It's annoying.Mapou
August 12, 2015
August
08
Aug
12
12
2015
09:31 AM
9
09
31
AM
PDT
Virgil Cain:
Yours doesn’t have any mechanisms capable of explaining life’s diversity.
But ID has no mechanisms at all. ID itself is no more a "mechanism" for creating biological organisms than saying "horsepower" is a "mechanism" for creating electric motors. Show how ID could work today for biological organisms. Design one from scratch.Carpathian
August 12, 2015
August
08
Aug
12
12
2015
09:12 AM
9
09
12
AM
PDT
How?
Through the use of representations as "boundry conditions that harness the laws of nature" (Polanyi 1968). Its the same as it is today. A singular unambiguous process (semiosis) from a singular unambiguous source (intelligence).Upright BiPed
August 12, 2015
August
08
Aug
12
12
2015
08:08 AM
8
08
08
AM
PDT
What is the evidence of how the designer did it? VC Intelligent Design. ???? That isn't a " how" Virgil. That is a " what".velikovskys
August 12, 2015
August
08
Aug
12
12
2015
07:25 AM
7
07
25
AM
PDT
Zachriel:
Evolution theory currently only explains the long term behavior of life, not its origin.
The two, evolution and origins, are directly linked. That is because how life originated would determine how it evolved.
The contention, then, it would seem, is that the intended evolutionary mechanism is too weak to explain the diversification and adaptation of biological organisms.
That is what the evidence and science has demonstrated.
That vast majority of research in biology is done within the paradigm of evolutionary theory
There isn't any "evolutionary theory"! And thanks to evolutionism we have no idea what makes an organism what it is. Heck not one article supports natural selection's ability to produce ATP synthase. Yours doesn't have any mechanisms capable of explaining life's diversity.Virgil Cain
August 12, 2015
August
08
Aug
12
12
2015
06:14 AM
6
06
14
AM
PDT
EugeneS: The contention is, the intended evolutionary mechanism which is a combination of chance and necessity is too weak for the generation of autonomous evolvable self-replicating rule-based decision support systems such as biological organisms. Evolution theory currently only explains the long term behavior of life, not its origin. The contention, then, it would seem, is that the intended evolutionary mechanism is too weak to explain the diversification and adaptation of biological organisms. EugeneS: On the side of ID is a solid experimental base, on your side all there is, is bare claims. A perusal of the scientific literature clearly shows your claim is false. That vast majority of research in biology is done within the paradigm of evolutionary theory, while ID has a scant record of publication, most of which are found in vanity journals.Zachriel
August 12, 2015
August
08
Aug
12
12
2015
05:54 AM
5
05
54
AM
PDT
Zachriel #26, The contention is, the intended evolutionary mechanism which is a combination of chance and necessity is too weak for the generation of autonomous evolvable self-replicating rule-based decision support systems such as biological organisms. The question about the limits of evolution is interesting but different. These systems are appropriately classed as AI systems rather than products of natural causation. Intelligence is expressed in particular in decision making, planning, forethought. On the side of ID is a solid experimental base, on your side all there is, is bare claims. The strong experimental indicator is that all intelligent systems known to exist are themselves a result of intelligent agency, either human or animal. The only question is about the biological systems themselves. Are you really saying that biological decision support systems are not a result of decision making, planning and forethought? Show how this is possible.EugeneS
August 12, 2015
August
08
Aug
12
12
2015
04:42 AM
4
04
42
AM
PDT
ChrisM, Good comments. Yes, that what I mean. Nature cannot make purposeful choices, cannot aim at pragmatic utility, cannot by itself operate by rules (not to be confused with laws). Simply because nature is blind to utility, it does not care whether anything 'works'. And yet, we see rules operating in living organisms, we see choices being made at all levels of biological organization. Something that is driven exclusively by the laws of nature eliminates a choice, which is only possible where there is a multiplicity of equilibrium states. IN living systems, we see programs and their processors. The only option is to assume that living systems themselves are a result of decision making. On a different note. God wants us to be His children, not necessarily scientists ;). Science is not that important as far as our eternal destiny is concerned, probably not important at all ;) Science should be used with caution because it encourages skepticism, which is not always a good thing, in my opinion. The Book of Proverbs 23,26: "My son, give me your heart and let your eyes delight in my ways". That's what God wants from us. God wants everyone to be saved and to know the truth. Recall what Blaise Pascal said about a peasant's faith. He was a clever chap. He said, "I have learned a lot and I know a lot and I believe as a peasant from Brittany, but if I knew even more, I would believe as his wife". St Paul wrote in his 1st epistle to the Corinthians [3,19]: "For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight. As it is written: "He catches the wise in their craftiness". I believe the testimony of the Orthodox Christian Church.EugeneS
August 12, 2015
August
08
Aug
12
12
2015
02:26 AM
2
02
26
AM
PDT
Just out of interest, you all seem very sure what God wants. But how do you know this? What if God wants science. has a purpose for it.ChrisM
August 11, 2015
August
08
Aug
11
11
2015
04:22 PM
4
04
22
PM
PDT
"The most generic ID claim is that intelligent causation (choice contingency) is a separate causation category " If you mean by intelligent causation (choice contingency) the higher thing of 'conscious choice', Free Will, and so on, then I would certainly agree with you some sort of distinction would be necessary.ChrisM
August 11, 2015
August
08
Aug
11
11
2015
04:20 PM
4
04
20
PM
PDT
Virgil Cain:
Zachriel would have us assume everything that needs to be demonstrated.
Despite the appearances, Darwinism is a faith-based religion after all.Mapou
August 11, 2015
August
08
Aug
11
11
2015
03:10 PM
3
03
10
PM
PDT
Because common descent provides the historical context for understanding the mechanisms of that history.
Yet given that the transition from prokaryote to eukaryote is imagined rather than evidenced, it appears the historical context and the history is unknown. Zachriel would have us assume everything that needs to be demonstrated.Virgil Cain
August 11, 2015
August
08
Aug
11
11
2015
03:00 PM
3
03
00
PM
PDT
EugeneS: How is common descent relevant to the basic claims of ID (whether it is right or wrong)? Because common descent provides the historical context for understanding the mechanisms of that history.Zachriel
August 11, 2015
August
08
Aug
11
11
2015
12:47 PM
12
12
47
PM
PDT
wd400: Where’s the conflict? Where the Conflict Really LiesMung
August 11, 2015
August
08
Aug
11
11
2015
11:52 AM
11
11
52
AM
PDT
Getting stuck in a local minimum or maximum is the least of the problems that Darwinists must solve. The hard and painful truth is that RM+NS can never reach far enough to get stuck in any kind of local minima or maxima because the combinatorial explosion (CE) has already killed it dead before it could set foot out of the gates. CE is the biggest enemy of stupid blind evolutionary searches. It kills them even at the minimum useful complexity for life. This is why genetic algorithms are only used for little toy problems. The space that evolution must search to arrive at the human genome is 4 raised to 3 billion! Darwinian evolution never gets out of the gates. What a pathetic bunch of morons evolutionists are. It's painful to just watch you people squirm. Go learn some simple math and let the world be.Mapou
August 11, 2015
August
08
Aug
11
11
2015
11:29 AM
11
11
29
AM
PDT
velikovskys:
A designer who creates a fine tuned universe needs bacteria ?
Bacteria are part of the design. And yes, the design needs them.
What terraforming did the dinos preform?
It's not my design.
Funny that is the same answer as naturalism proposes
That is naturalism's answer to everything. Shit happens and some sticks.
What is the evidence of how the designer did it?
Intelligent Design. :cool:
So design does not have a purposeful plan?
Of course it does.Virgil Cain
August 11, 2015
August
08
Aug
11
11
2015
11:18 AM
11
11
18
AM
PDT
wd400:
I think most people would agree N.S can approach local optima, and sometimes even traverse from one to another.
If, and only if, natural selection was an actual selection process. However it isn't and given the changing nature of nature "local optima" is an unhittable moving target.Virgil Cain
August 11, 2015
August
08
Aug
11
11
2015
11:12 AM
11
11
12
AM
PDT
The TSZ ilk have. Lizzie says that natural selection optimizes- a local optimum. Go there and ask.
I think most people would agree N.S can approach local optima, and sometimes even traverse from one to another. But that's not the same as finding a global optimum.wd400
August 11, 2015
August
08
Aug
11
11
2015
11:07 AM
11
11
07
AM
PDT
vc: Terraforming A designer who creates a fine tuned universe needs bacteria ? What terraforming did the dinos preform? In order to understand the evidence for common descent one has to start with the transition from prokaryote to eukaryote. Unfortunately for you there isn’t any evidence that such a thing is possible. What is the evidence of how the designer did it? Shit happens. Funny that is the same answer as naturalism proposes. So design does not have a purposeful plan? Eugene: Pardon? Why “her”? Oh, boy! Why? I thought ID cannot say anything about the designer specifically?velikovskys
August 11, 2015
August
08
Aug
11
11
2015
10:52 AM
10
10
52
AM
PDT
wd400:
Mapou, has anyone claimed evolution finds globally optimal solutions? Or biological systems are optimal?
The TSZ ilk have. Lizzie says that natural selection optimizes- a local optimum. Go there and ask.Virgil Cain
August 11, 2015
August
08
Aug
11
11
2015
05:31 AM
5
05
31
AM
PDT
tintinid:
By the way, how does ID explain the high percentage of extinct species?
Shit happens.Virgil Cain
August 11, 2015
August
08
Aug
11
11
2015
05:17 AM
5
05
17
AM
PDT
The vast majority of species that have ever lived have gone extinct.
Terraforming.
Evolution provides a scientific explanation for diversification and extinction.
Your equivocation is duly noted.
In order to understand the broad sweep of evolutionary history, start with the evidence for common descent.
In order to understand the evidence for common descent one has to start with the transition from prokaryote to eukaryote. Unfortunately for you there isn't any evidence that such a thing is possible.
Most biologists have probably never heard of Behe.
Most biologists cannot support the claims of their own position. Most are too specialized to care about universal common descent. And not one can do any better than Lenski, who has proven evolution is very limited.Virgil Cain
August 11, 2015
August
08
Aug
11
11
2015
05:16 AM
5
05
16
AM
PDT
Zachriel, "Was the designer a petulant child who broke all her toys?" Pardon? Why "her"? Oh, boy! How is common descent relevant to the basic claims of ID (whether it is right or wrong)? These issues are orthogonal. Darwinism has already been debunked. Those who insist upon Darwinism today are incompetent and/or have a hidden agenda. Don't conflate Darwinism with a Darwinian model, which has, as everything else in science, its application area and limitations. Vast experimental data meticulously recorded and available suggests that the capabilities of Darwinian evolution are rather modest. But even that is a side issue as far as the basic claims of ID are concerned. The most generic ID claim is that intelligent causation (choice contingency) is a separate causation category irreducible to chance and law-like necessity. Certain phenomena are best explained as having intelligent origin. Please don't hypothesize about most biologists. This is pointless.EugeneS
August 11, 2015
August
08
Aug
11
11
2015
05:16 AM
5
05
16
AM
PDT
EugeneS: There is no need to concoct a caricature of Nazi experiments or other nonsense. The vast majority of species that have ever lived have gone extinct. Was the designer a petulant child who broke all her toys? Evolution provides a scientific explanation for diversification and extinction. EugeneS: ID has problems with statements like ‘all observed bio-complexity can be explained by NS+RV’ or even ‘by neutral evolution’. For such grand claims one needs the same scale empirical support, which is not there. In order to understand the broad sweep of evolutionary history, start with the evidence for common descent. EugeneS: M. Behe is famous for shedding light on this issue in detail. Most biologists have probably never heard of Behe. He's a sideshow in the ID movement.Zachriel
August 11, 2015
August
08
Aug
11
11
2015
04:25 AM
4
04
25
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply