A Tunable Mechanism Determines the Duration of the Transgenerational Adaptations

Biological mechanism passes on long-term epigenetic 'memories' from parents to children http://www.kurzweilai.net/forums/topic/epigenetic-memories GaryGaulin

OT: How bacteria make a grappling hook for propulsion - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nd49n8YDIlg An up-close view of bacterial 'motors' - March 29, 2016 Excerpt: "Bacteria are widely considered to be 'simple' cells; however, this assumption is a reflection of our limitations, not theirs," says Grant Jensen, a professor of biophysics,,, "In the past, we simply didn't have technology that could reveal the full glory of the nanomachines—huge complexes comprising many copies of a dozen or more unique proteins—that carry out sophisticated functions.",,, In a paper published in the March 11 issue of the journal Science, the Caltech team used this technique to analyze the cell motility machinery that involves a structure called the type IVa pilus machine (T4PM). This mechanism allows a bacterium to move through its environment in much the same way that Spider-Man travels between skyscrapers; the T4PM assembles a long fiber (the pilus) that attaches to a surface like a grappling hook and subsequently retracts, thus pulling the cell forward.,,, "In this study, we revealed the beautiful complexity of this machine that may be the strongest motor known in nature. http://phys.org/news/2016-03-up-close-view-bacterial-motors.html bornagain77

Gaulin just loves to hijack a thread. The OP is not about what is meant by evolution. The context is clear enough. It's about how organisms have no need of RM+NS because they are designed with an adaptive mechanism that responds directly to environmental pressures. In fact, if they had to rely on RM+NS, they would all be extinct. RM+NS is idiotic nonsense created by dirt worshippers. It's just voodoo incantations in the Church of the Flying Dirt Monster. The dirt worshippers are required to say it over and over until they become one with it. LOL Mapou

BA77, I missed your commentary these past few weeks, and it is royally good to have you back again! OldArmy94

as to this comment:

"As we saw recently, new research has demonstrated such transgenerational inheritance to be genetic, rather than via the parent’s behavior, breast milk, etc."

is this related note:

Ask an Embryologist: Genomic Mosaicism - Jonathan Wells - February 23, 2015 Excerpt: humans have a "few thousand" different cell types. Here is my simple question: Does the DNA sequence in one cell type differ from the sequence in another cell type in the same person?,,, The simple answer is: We now know that there is considerable variation in DNA sequences among tissues, and even among cells in the same tissue. It's called genomic mosaicism. In the early days of developmental genetics, some people thought that parts of the embryo became different from each other because they acquired different pieces of the DNA from the fertilized egg. That theory was abandoned,,, ,,,(then) "genomic equivalence" -- the idea that all the cells of an organism (with a few exceptions, such as cells of the immune system) contain the same DNA -- became the accepted view. I taught genomic equivalence for many years. A few years ago, however, everything changed. With the development of more sophisticated techniques and the sampling of more tissues and cells, it became clear that genetic mosaicism is common. I now know as an embryologist,,,Tissues and cells, as they differentiate, modify their DNA to suit their needs. It's the organism controlling the DNA, not the DNA controlling the organism. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/02/ask_an_embryolo093851.html

Well, so much for the central dogma of the modern synthesis, i.e. the 'selfish gene'. At the 10:30 minute mark of the following video, Dr. Trifonov states that the concept of the selfish gene 'inflicted an immense damage to biological sciences', for over 30 years:

Second, third, fourth… genetic codes - One spectacular case of code crowding - Edward N. Trifonov - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDB3fMCfk0E

In the preceding video, Trifonov also elucidates codes that are, simultaneously, in the same sequence, coding for DNA curvature, Chromatin Code, Amphipathic helices, and NF kappaB. In fact, at the 58:00 minute mark he states, "Reading only one message, one gets three more, practically GRATIS!". And please note that this was just an introductory lecture in which Trifinov just covered the very basics and left many of the other codes out of the lecture. Codes which code for completely different, yet still biologically important, functions. In fact, at the 7:55 mark of the video, there are 13 codes that are listed on a powerpoint, although the writing was too small for me to read. Concluding powerpoint of the lecture (at the 1 hour mark):

"Not only are there many different codes in the sequences, but they overlap, so that the same letters in a sequence may take part simultaneously in several different messages." Edward N. Trifonov - 2010

Multiple overlapping codes in DNA? I don't have enough faith to be an atheist! bornagain77

GaryGaulin: At least be precise by making sure readers are aware that you are talking about “evolution by natural selection” theory not the process of “evolution” Darwinian theory attempts to explain.

We are talking about the naturalistic "evolution despite natural selection" theory. Origenes

And to your point directly: if intelligence is involved in the changing of life forms, then does the word “evolution” really apply to the fossil record? Shouldn’t we just call it a progression in life forms, or something similar?

The theory I have only needs the word "development" along with proper qualifier (molecular/genomic, cellular, multicellular) to indicate which intelligence level is being discussed. There is no evo-devo, just the same devo mechanism at up to three levels where the third is the development of a brain made of neurons. Another word that works well where applicable is "speciation" but there are molecular/genomic species, cellular species, and multicellular species. Again have to be precise as to which level is being discussed. With the word "evolution" suggesting that the Darwinian mechanism is involved it is good that I keep it out of the ID theory. It does not need it anyway. GaryGaulin

GaryGaulin: You're nitpicking is rather rich. We, here at UD, have to constantly recall to evolutionists that when they say "Evolution is a fact," that the "fact" they're referring to has to do with the fossil record, and not Darwin's theory. And now you want to turn it around on us? Interesting. It seems to me that it should be quite clear to anyone what Dr. Hunter was talking about. And to your point directly: if intelligence is involved in the changing of life forms, then does the word "evolution" really apply to the fossil record? Shouldn't we just call it a progression in life forms, or something similar? PaV

The word "evolution" defines change over time by any means, including Intelligent Design or even guided by divine intervention. At least be precise by making sure readers are aware that you are talking about "evolution by natural selection" theory not the process of "evolution" Darwinian theory attempts to explain. GaryGaulin

Another nail in the coffin of the Church of the Flying Dirt Monster. LOL Mapou