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
tintinnid #12, Please stop it. If you were really interested, you would not speak like that. ID explains it as simply loss of information in autonomous replicating systems. Some of this loss is attributed to the limitations of physical systems themselves and others to the hostile environments in which living systems operate. There is no need to concoct a caricature of Nazi experiments or other nonsense. It is simply bad taste. Please don't go down the route of imperfect designs etc. either because chances are you don't even appreciate the grandeur of the engineering task and challenges behind possible implementations of living systems. I already conversed with people who claimed 'they could do it better'. From such conversations I have taken away nothing else but a feeling of wasted time. ID is perfectly fine with degradatory (and BTW sometimes beneficial) mutations in a Darwinian fashion. 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. What Darwinian evolution explains is small adaptations with loss of information. M. Behe is famous for shedding light on this issue in detail. But in order for such adaptations to even be possible one needs a stable functional replicating system. Living organisms are decision making systems whereas there is absolutely no decision making in non-living nature. The only sensible explanation to that is that naturalistic causation is not enough to explain life. Life (biological decision making) required purposeful decision making (i.e. agency) to kick-start it. There is NO other alternative. All these RNA worlds, multiverses and other rubbish are smoke in mirrors intended to camouflage the bankruptcy of naturalism in addressing life and how it started.EugeneS
August 11, 2015
August
08
Aug
11
11
2015
04:12 AM
4
04
12
AM
PDT
tintinnid:
“Another reason that evolution is crap. Getting stuck in a local minimum is a surefire strategy for mass extinction…” Who has said that RM + NS can’t lead to extinction? It can certainly lead to dead-ends. In fact, it is inevitable for a large percentage of lineages. I think that is what you call a prediction, one of those sciency things that Virgil says that evolution can’t do.
The problem is that any optimizing system eventually gets stuck in a local minimum and that means extinction for all lineages because they are all optimizing something. The environment will not wait for a lineage to get out of a local minimum. It kills it dead.
By the way, how does ID explain the high percentage of extinct species? Bad design? Nazi-like experiments? A malicious god? An incompetent god? Free will? But seriously, how does ID explain this? I am curious.
ID itself does not explain it but based on what we know about intelligence, we can say the following. The designers either made mistakes, were conducting ecological-terraforming/data collection experiments or they were having fun. Mistakes or not, those who designed the amazing variety and complexity of lifeforms on earth could hardly be called incompetent. When it comes to know how and scientific understanding, you are an insignificant cockroach compared to them.Mapou
August 10, 2015
August
08
Aug
10
10
2015
10:23 PM
10
10
23
PM
PDT
"Another reason that evolution is crap. Getting stuck in a local minimum is a surefire strategy for mass extinction..." Who has said that RM + NS can't lead to extinction? It can certainly lead to dead-ends. In fact, it is inevitable for a large percentage of lineages. I think that is what you call a prediction, one of those sciency things that Virgil says that evolution can't do. By the way, how does ID explain the high percentage of extinct species? Bad design? Nazi-like experiments? A malicious god? An incompetent god? Free will? But seriously, how does ID explain this? I am curious.tintinnid
August 10, 2015
August
08
Aug
10
10
2015
09:57 PM
9
09
57
PM
PDT
wd400:
Mapou, has anyone claimed evolution finds globally optimal solutions? Or biological systems are optimal?
Another reason that evolution is crap. Getting stuck in a local minimum is a surefire strategy for mass extinction. But RM+NS will never reach far enough to get stuck in any kind of local minima because the combinatorial explosion has already killed it dead before it could set foot out of the gates. Evolution is like a dead sloth in a horse race.Mapou
August 10, 2015
August
08
Aug
10
10
2015
06:48 PM
6
06
48
PM
PDT
Mapou, has anyone claimed evolution finds globally optimal solutions? Or biological systems are optimal?wd400
August 10, 2015
August
08
Aug
10
10
2015
05:25 PM
5
05
25
PM
PDT
Where's the conflict?wd400
August 10, 2015
August
08
Aug
10
10
2015
05:22 PM
5
05
22
PM
PDT
From the paper ...
Our observations provide an example of the ability of epigenetic mechanisms to drive genetic change. Environmental epigenetics may be the major molecular mechanism involved in environment-gene interactions and emergence of genetic variation. The predominant current view for the origin and evolution of disease considers genetic mutations as the primary molecular mechanism involved.
There's a conflict between "the predominant current view" and "our observations". What do we call it when a theory fails to explain observations?Silver Asiatic
August 10, 2015
August
08
Aug
10
10
2015
05:07 PM
5
05
07
PM
PDT
Epigenetics kills Darwinian evolution dead. It gets rid of the need for RM+NS. Not that RM+NS was a viable mechanism to start with. As anybody who has experimented with genetic algorithms knows, the combinatorial explosion kills them dead. This is why they're only good for toy stuff. Besides, all optimization systems, which is what RM+NS is, invariably get stuck in local minima or local maxima. The theory of evolution is pure pseudoscience based on superstition.Mapou
August 10, 2015
August
08
Aug
10
10
2015
05:05 PM
5
05
05
PM
PDT
I really don't think you've read the paper, vh. There is no reason to think the mutations are adaptive and they're pretty haphazardwd400
August 10, 2015
August
08
Aug
10
10
2015
04:11 PM
4
04
11
PM
PDT
wd400, it's just another confirmation that the adaptive force is within the individual...that the mechanisms of variation are nonrandom and sufficiently adaptive. In this case epigenetics is leading to genetic mutations, which indicates that mutations are not haphazard. It indicates that they're regulated just as epigenetic changes are regulated. ToE says the adaptive mechanism is external (selection.)...that the source of variation is random. Neither seem to be the case, hardly ever anyway. In short, it's just another indicator that Lamarck was right, that evolution (if you want to call it that) is accomplished by a one-step mechanism, not a two-step mechanism. that the inheritance of acquired characteristics is true and that populations change almost immediately in response to environmental threats and challenges. The whole darwinian paradigm has collapsed. ToE is a dud of a theory and it's really tragic that so many people believe in it still. But I guess some people like to believe in lies. not me.vh
August 10, 2015
August
08
Aug
10
10
2015
03:16 PM
3
03
16
PM
PDT
Have you guys read the paper? What do you think it has to do with "Darwinism" or ID -- I honestly can't see a link.wd400
August 10, 2015
August
08
Aug
10
10
2015
03:05 PM
3
03
05
PM
PDT
The only thing dumber than Neo Darwinism is the crowd who was dumb enough to fall for it for decades, who Lynn Margulis boldly and accurately described as “a minor 20th-century religious sect within the sprawling religious persuasion of Anglo-Saxon Biology....Neo-Darwinism is (in) complete funk.” All you can do is pity these people at this point.vh
August 10, 2015
August
08
Aug
10
10
2015
02:51 PM
2
02
51
PM
PDT
nightlight, your comment reveals that you don't know the first thing about Dr. Meyer's project and that you did not read his book (Darwin's Doubt), which has a lengthy section on epigenetics. If you did, you would know that he has taken epigenetics into account and that far from being "bad news" it makes the ID case stronger.Barry Arrington
August 10, 2015
August
08
Aug
10
10
2015
02:26 PM
2
02
26
PM
PDT
That's bad news for Meyer's Seattle ID -- the intelligence guiding the biological evolution is already built into the cell. Hence, there is no need to look for Meyer's external 'intelligent mind' stepping in and out of 'nature' at his whim to tweak the molecular reactions for particular irreducibly complex structure that 'nature' according to Meyer can't do on its own. The 'nature' of the cell (as intelligent computing system) is doing it on its own just fine.nightlight
August 10, 2015
August
08
Aug
10
10
2015
02:02 PM
2
02
02
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply