Name It / Claim It: Epigenetics Now Just Another Evolutionary Mechanism

_{Cornelius Hunter
April 19, 2016

Epigenetics, Intelligent Design

1}_{Categories
Epigenetics
Intelligent Design}

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

It is often said that all truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. And so it is with epigenetics which evolutionists opposed and blackballed for a century before finally appropriating it as just another mode of evolutionary change. (see here, here, andhere for more discussion of this history of misdirections regarding Lamarckism and epigenetics). Here is an example of evolutionists, after a century of denial and rejection, claiming epigenetics as their own. Read more

Comments

gpuccio: Do you really believe that “The signaling is the control”? That is what signaling cascade means. One signal triggers the next; that is, the effect is the cause of the next event. This sort of network is consistent with evolution because they form a tree-like structure, wherein primordial switches are modified by future adaptations.Zachriel_{April 24, 2016
April
04
Apr
24
24
2016
12:20 PM
12
12
20
PM
PST}

gpuccio's excellent comments posted in this thread (this far) are literally textbook material and could be a separate new OP in UD: [I have used some 'artistic freedom' to make minor adjustments to the lyrics so that it fits within the melody, without changing the meaning of the author's message]
1. Epigenetics is a constant interaction between a static form of information (the nucleotide sequence stored in DNA, both protein coding and non coding) and its dynamic expression as transcriptomes and proteomes in each different cell state. In that sense, there is no condition in the cell life which is not at the same time genetic and epigenetic. For example, the zygote which originates multicellular beings has its own distinctive epigenetic state: the DNA is expressed in the zygote in different ways than it will be expressed in different states of the embryo, or in different specific tissue cells, both stem cells and differentiated cells. The epigenetic state of the zygote, in turn, is derived mainly from the cytoplasm of the oocyte, but also from epigenetic messages in the sperm cell. So, at each moment of the life of a cell, or even more of a multicellular being, the total information which is being expressed is a sum of genetic and epigenetic information. And, whatever you may think, any theory about the origin of biological information must explain how the total information content which is expressed during the life span of some biological being came into existence. 2. Does the actual “information” still rely on the DNA.? Not all of it, certainly. The cytoplasm, as I said, bears information too. And so does the state in which DNA is when it is transmitted in cell division. There is never a moment where DNA is in some “absolute” state. It is always in some epigenetic state. And the cytoplasm, or the nucleus itself as a whole, have specific information content at each state. The sum total of proteins and RNAs expressed, for example. As “life always comes from life”, life is always a continuous dynamic expression of genetic and epigenetic information. When Venter builds his “artificial” genomes, copying and modifying natural genomes, he has to put them into a living cell. IOWs, he is introducing a modified genetic component into a specific existing epigenetic condition. Remember, life is a dynamic, far from equilibrium condition, not a static storage of information. 3. Haven’t evolutionists known this for decades? Not exactly. The huge complexity of epigenetic networks, the whole complex and parallel levels which contribute to them (DNA methylation, histone code, topologically associated domains and dynamic 3d DNA structures, the various influences of different regulatory RNAs, the incredibly combinatorial complexity of transcription factors, the role of master regulators in differentiation, are all topics which have been “discovered” recently enough, and all of them are still really poorly understood. Whatever controls and coordinates the whole system of epigenetic regulations, moreover, is still a true mystery, be it in DNA or elsewhere. 4. I would like to mention here that epigenetics has at least two rather different aspects. One is the way that biological beings can interact with the outer environment, and then pass some information derived from that environment to further generations, through persistent epigenetic adaptations. This is what we could call the “Lamarckian” aspect of epigenetics. It is an aspect which is now well proven and partly understood, and it is certainly interesting. But, IMO, the truly revolutionary aspect of epigenetics is the complex network of regulations that allow different expressions of the same genome under different biological conditions, especially cell differentiation. That aspect has practically nothing to do with environment, either outer or inner, if we intend environment as something which is independent of the biological being, and which can modify its responses according to unpredictable, random influences. Indeed, this second aspect of epigenetics is all about information, and the management of information. IOWs, it’s the biological being itself which in some way guides and controls its own development. Now, you seem to believe that any form of such control must necessarily originate from the genome, because we have thought for a long time that the genome was the only depository of transmissible information. But today we know that the simple sequence of nucleotides in the genome is not enough. I will try to be more clear. In Metazoa, we have hundreds, maybe thousands, of different genomic expressions from the same genome. In the same being. How is that possible? DNA is a rather static form of information, in a sense: it is just a sequence of nucleotides. That sequence can be of extreme importance, but in itself it has no power. For example, even a protein coding gene is of no use if it is not “used” by the complex transcription / translation machinery. So, let’s say that we have a zygote. Let’s call its genetica information G1. G1 is not the basic DNA sequence which is the genome, but the specific DNA in the zygote condition, with all the modifications which make it partly expressed and partly inhibited, in different ways and grades. So, it is not “the genome”, but “one of the possible forms of the genome”. At the same time, the zygote has an active epigenome, in the cytoplasm and the nucleus, in the form of proteins (especially transcription factors), RNAs, and so on. IOWs, we have a specific transcriptome and proteome of the zygote, which we can call E1. So, we have: Zygote = G1 + E1 Now, the important point is that even in the “stable” condition of that zygote (IOWs, before any further differentiation happens) the flow of information goes both ways: from G1 to E1, and vice versa. The existing epigenome can and does modify the state of the existing genome, and vice versa. IOWs: G1 -> <- E1 Now, let's say that the zygote divides, and becomes two cells which are no more a zygote. IOWs, we have a division with some differentiation. Now, in each of the two daughter cells (in the simpler case of a symmetric division) there is a new dynamic state: G2 E2 Both the genomic state and the epigenomic state have changed, and that’s exactly what makes the daughter cell “different”: IOWs, cell differentiation. Now, the points I would like to stress are the following: 1) Any known and existing state of a living cell or being is always the sum of some G + some E. There is no example of any isolated G or E capable of generating a living being. 2) We really don’t know what guides the transition from any G1 + E1 state to the differentiated G2 + E2 state. We know much of what is involved in the transition, of what is necessary, and of how many events take place. But the really elusive question is: what kind of information initiates the specific transition, and chooses what kind of transition will happen, and regulates the process? Is it part of G1? Is it part of E1? Or, more likely, some specific combination of both? IOWs, I would suggest to consider as biological information not only the sequence of nucleotides in the basic genome, but also all the complex forms that G and E take in specific and controlled sequences. At any state, the information present is always the sum total of a specific G and a specific E, and never simply the basic genome G. Now, whatever you may think, or hope, the same evolutionary science that you invoke, and that has never been able to explain the origin of a single complex functional protein (but at least has tried), has really nothing to say about those epigenetic regulatory networks, for two very simple reasons: a) For the greatest part, we have no idea of where the information is, and it’s really difficult to explain what we don’t know and understand. b) The part that we know and understand (and it’s now a rather huge part) is simply too complex and connected [interwoven?] to even try any traditional explanation in terms of RV + NS. That is the simple situation. Science is a great and wonderful process, especially if it is humble, and tries to understand things instead of simply declaring that it can explain what it does not understand. 5. “Is it not utterly mysterious that an existing epigenome can cope with genomes modified by Venter?” Yes, it is. I am amazed each time I think of it. As it is amazing that the epigenome in the oocyte can cope with a differentiated nucleus in cloning experiments based on somatic cell nuclear transfer. The epigenome seems to be a very powerful entity, indeed. “Do you agree that DNA is not a conceivable candidate for controlling and/or coordinating the epigenome?” The only thing that I can say is that something controls and guides the G+E entity (the whole biological being), and that at present we really don’t know what it is and where the information that must be necessary for the process is written. We know too little. I usually sum it up with the old question: where and how are the procedures written? 6. I really think that the “master controller” of differentiation still eludes us. We know rather well a lot of epigenetic landscapes which correspond to differentiation procedures, and the role of many agents in those procedures. But still, it’s the “control” which eludes our understanding. IOWs, what decides the specific landscape which will be implemented in a specific moment, and what controls the correct implementation, through the correct resources? And how are the different scenarios implemented? The role of DNA is certainly important, but we still have to understand a lot about how DNA performs such a role. At present, we must assume that the sum of genome and epigenome at each moment has the information to achieve the correct destiny of the cell, and the tools to read and implement that information into specific epigenetic pathways. 7. I agree with you, and I am perfectly aware of how much has been discovered. Indeed, if you read my post #22, I state: “We know rather well a lot of epigenetic landscapes which correspond to differentiation procedures, and the role of many agents in those procedures. But still, it’s the “control” which eludes our understanding. IOWs, what decides the specific landscape which will be implemented in a specific moment, and what controls the correct implementation, through the correct resources?” The problem, as I see it, is that we are acquiring a lot of details about the pathways which are activated in various forms of differentiation, but we still cannot understand the control of those choices. In a software you can have many different functions, or objects, and then you have higher level procedures which use them according to some well-designed plan, which requires a lot of information. Both the information in the functions and objects and the information in the higher level procedures are needed. My point is simply that in biological differentiation we still don’t understand where the information about higher level procedures is, and how it works. There are some interesting concepts which are being proposed. For example, I am very intrigued by suggestions about how decisions about staminality and differentiation are made in cell pools, and how stem cells could work as a partially stochastic system to implement decisions. However, I still find that we understand very little about informational organization of cell differentiation, although I daily try to read new papers about that topic, hoping to find new hints. 8. Isn’t the signaling the control? No. The control is deciding when and how and how much [and where?] a signal must be implemented. The gene for BMP4 is always there, in the genome. All signals are potentially there. All transcription factors, and everything which can be potentially transcribed. The problem is: each epigenetic landscape is characterized by multiple and complex choices of signals. How can the cell “decide” and know which sequence of signals will be implemented at each time? How is the correct transcription of the BMP4 gene, and its translation, correctly implemented at the right time? What we know is essentially that some transcription factors or other molecule are necessary for some transition, and that they are expressed at the right moment, at the right place, and in the right quantity when that transition has to happen. But how is that achieved? That is a different question. The genome is a book which can be read in hundreds of different ways. There is purpose and information in the control of the ways it is read at each moment. There are hundreds or thousands of different signals, and only the right mix of them can work. Moreover, there must be flexibility, error correction, response to environmental stimuli, and so on. [robustness?] Do you really believe that only because we understand how some signals are involved in some processes we know how those processes are decided and controlled? Do you really believe that “The signaling is the control”? You, with all your understanding of informational problems? A signal is a control only when correctly used by a controller.
Dionisio_{April 24, 2016
April
04
Apr
24
24
2016
11:44 AM
11
11
44
AM
PST}

Zachriel: "You seem to be drawing a distinction without a difference. The signaling is the control." No. The control is deciding when and how and how much a signal must be implemented. The gene for BMP4 is always there, in the genome. All signals are potentially there. All transcription factors, and everything which can be potentially transcribed. The problem is: each epigenetic landscape is characterized by multiple and complex choices of signals. How can the cell "decide" and know which sequqence of signals will be implemented at each time? How is the correct transciprion of the BMP4 gene, and its translation, correctly implemented at the right time? What we know is essentially that some trascription factors or other molecule are necessary for some trnasition, and that they are expressed at the right moment, at the right place, and in the right quantity when that transition has to happen. But how is that achieved? That is a different question. The genome is a book which can be read in hundreds of different ways. There is purpose and information in the control of the ways it is read at each moment. There are hundreds or thousands of different signals, and only the right mix of them can work. Moreover, there must be flexibility, error correction, response to environmental stimuli, and so on. Do you really believe that only because we understand how some signals are involved in some processes we know how those processes are decided and controlled? Do you really believe that "The signaling is the control"? You, with all your understanding of informational problems? A signal is a control only when correctly used by a controller.gpuccio_{April 24, 2016
April
04
Apr
24
24
2016
10:15 AM
10
10
15
AM
PST}

gpuccio: The problem, as I see it, is that we are acquiring a lot of details about the pathways which are activated in various forms of differentiation, but we still cannot understand the control of those choices. You seem to be drawing a distinction without a difference. The signaling is the control.Zachriel_{April 24, 2016
April
04
Apr
24
24
2016
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PST}

Zachriel: I agree with you, and I am perfectly aware of how much has been discovered. Indeed, if you read my post #22, I state: "We know rather well a lot of epigenetic landscapes which correspond to differentiation procedures, and the role of many agents in those procedures. But still, it’s the “control” which eludes our understanding. IOWs, what decides the specific landnscape which will be implemented in a specific moment, and what controls the correct implementation, through the correct resources?" The problem, as I see it, is that we are acquiring a lot of details about the pathways which are activated in various forms of differentiation, but we still cannot understand the control of those choices. In a software you can have many different functions, or objects, and then you have higher level procedures which use them according to some well designed plan, which requires a lot of information. Both the information in the functions and objects and the information in the higher level procedures are needed. My point is simply that in biological differentiation we still don't understand where the informatio about hogher level procedures is, and how it works. There are some interesting concepts which are being proposed. For example, I am very intrigued by suggestions about how decisions about staminality and differentiation are made in cell pools, and how stem cells could work as a partially stochastic system to implement decisions. However, I still find that we understand very little about informational organization of cell differentiation, although I daily try to read new papers about that topic, hoping to find new hints.gpuccio_{April 24, 2016
April
04
Apr
24
24
2016
08:35 AM
8
08
35
AM
PST}

gpuccio: a) For the greatest part, we have no idea of where the information is, and it’s really difficult to explain what we don’t know and understand. While we don't know everything about embryonic development, the mapping of many of the basic signalings involved have been worked out, e.g. BMP4 involvement in dorsal-ventral asymmetry.Zachriel_{April 24, 2016
April
04
Apr
24
24
2016
06:08 AM
6
06
08
AM
PST}

Gpuccio, your answers are again much appreciated.
GPuccio: But still, it’s the “control” which eludes our understanding. IOWs, what decides the specific landscape which will be implemented in a specific moment, and what controls the correct implementation, through the correct resources? And how are the different scenarios implemented?
And then there is the small matter of how, during all these changes, homeostasis is maintained. Does the organism-wide coherence we see not scream of higher overall control? What else can make sense of this display of unity? Instead of “decontextualizing” life by trying to identify how a ‘horizontal causality’ — one thing causing another — explains the organism, should we not start pondering on the existence of something that has the hierarchical power to contextualize the goings on in the cell?Origenes_{April 24, 2016
April
04
Apr
24
24
2016
04:28 AM
4
04
28
AM
PST}

Origenes: I really think that the "master controller" of differentiation still eludes us. We know rather well a lot of epigenetic landscapes which correspond to differentiation procedures, and the role of many agents in those procedures. But still, it's the "control" which eludes our understanding. IOWs, what decides the specific landnscape which will be implemented in a specific moment, and what controls the correct implementation, through the correct resources? And how are the different scenarios implemented? The role of DNA is certainly important, but we still have to understand a lot about how DNA performs such a role. At present, we must assume that the sum of genome and epigenome at each moment has the information to achieve the correct destiny of the cell, and the tools to read and implement that information into specific epigenetic pathways.gpuccio_{April 24, 2016
April
04
Apr
24
24
2016
01:50 AM
1
01
50
AM
PST}

Gpuccio, thank you. I'm reading up on the cloning by somatic cell nuclear transfer. Quick follow-up question: I rule out DNA as a master-controller for the following simple reason: if DNA is in control, and assuming that almost every cell in the human body has the same DNA sequence, why is a heart cell different from a brain cell? — Doesn't that suffice?Origenes_{April 23, 2016
April
04
Apr
23
23
2016
03:12 PM
3
03
12
PM
PST}

Origenes: "Is it not utterly mysterious that an existing epigenome can cope with genomes modified by Ventor?" Yes. it is. I am amazed each time I think of it. As it is amazing that the epigenome in the oocyte can cope with a differentiated nucleus in cloning experiments based on somatic cell nuclear transfer. The epigenome seems to be a very powerful entity, indeed. "Do you agree that DNA is not a conceivable candidate for controlling and/or coordinating the epigenome?" The only thing that I can say is that something controls and guides the G+E entity (the whole biological being), and that at present we really don't know what it is and where the information that must be necessary for the process is written. We know too little. I usually sum it up with the old question: where and how are the procedures written?gpuccio_{April 23, 2016
April
04
Apr
23
23
2016
02:45 PM
2
02
45
PM
PST}

Indiana Effigy: I certainly share your enthusiasm for the progress of science, but not for evolutionary "explanations". I would like to mention here that epigenetics has at least two rather different aspects. One is the way that biological beings can interact with the outer environment, and then pass some information derived from that environment to further generations, through persistent epigenetic adaptations. This is what we could call the "Lamarckian" aspect of epigenetics. It is an aspect which is now well proven and partly understood, and it is certainly interesting. But, IMO, the truly revolutionary aspect of epigenetics is the complex network of regulations that allow different expressions of the same genome under different biological conditions, especially cell differentiation. That aspect has practically nothing to do with environment, either outer or inner, if we intend environment as something which is independent of the biological being, and which can modify its responses according to unpredictable, random influences. Indeed, this second aspect of epigenetics is all about information, and the management of information. IOWs, it's the biological being itself which in some way guides and controls its own development. Now, you seem to believe that any form of such control must necessarily originate from the genome, because we have thought for a long time that the genome was the only depository of transmissible information. But today we know that the simple sequence of nucleotides in the genome is not enough. I will try to be more clear. In Metazoa, we have hundreds, maybe thousands, of different genomic expressions from the same genome. In the same being. How is that possible? DNA is a rather static form of information, in a sense: it is just a sequence of nucleotides. That sequence can be of extreme importance, but in itself it has no power. For example, even a protein coding gene is of no use if it is not "used" by the complex transcription / translation machinery. So, let's say that we have a zygote. Let's call its genetica information G1. G1 is not the basic DNA sequence which is the genome, but the specific DNA in the zygote condition, with all the modifications which make it partly expressed and partly inhibited, in different ways and grades. So, it is not "the genome", but "one of the possible forms of the genome". At the same time, the zygote has an active epigenome, in the cytoplasm and the nucleus, in the form of proteins (especially transcription factors), RNAs, and so on. IOWs, we have a specific transcriptome and proteome of the zygote, which we can call E1. So, we have: Zygote = G1 + E1 Now, the important point is that even in the "stable" condition of that zygote (IOWs, before any further differentiation happens) the flux of information goes both ways: from G1 to E1, and vice versa. The existing epigenome can and does modify the state of the existing genome, and vice versa. IOWs: G1 -> <- E1 Now, let's say that the zygote divides, and becomes two cells which are no more a zygote. IOWs, we have a division with some differentiation. Now, in each of the two daughter cells (in the simpler case of a symmetric division) there is a new dynamic state: G2 E2 Both the genomic state and the epigenomic state have changed, and that's exactly what makes the daughter cell "different": IOWs, cell differentiation. Now, the points I would like to stress are the following: 1) Any known and existing state of a living cell or being is always the sum of some G + some E. There is no example of any isolated G or E capable of generating a living being. 2) We really don't know what guides the transition from any G1 + E1 state to the differentiated G2 + E2 state. We know much of what is involved in the transition, of what is necessary, and of how many events take place. But the really elusive question is: what kind of information initiates the specific transition, and chooses what kind of transition will happen, and regulates the process? Is it part of G1? Is it part of E1? Or, more likely, some specific combination of both? IOWs, I would suggest to consider as biological information not only the sequence of nucleotides in the basic genome, but also all the complex forms that G and E take in specific and controlled sequences. At any state, th information present is always the sum total of a specific G and a specific E, and never simply the basic genome G. Now, wahever you may think, or hope, the same evolutionary science that you invoke, and that has never been able to explain the origin of a single complex functional protein (but at least has tried), has really nothing to say about those epigenetic regulatory networks, for two very simple reasons: a) For the greatest part, we have no idea of where the information is, and it's really difficult to explain what we don't know and understand. b) The part that we know and understand (and it's now a rather huge part) is simply to complex and connected to even try any traditional explanation in terms of RV + NS. That is the simple situation. Science is a great and wonderful process, especially if it is humble, and tries to understand things instead of simply declaring that it can explain what it does not understand.gpuccio_{April 23, 2016
April
04
Apr
23
23
2016
02:37 PM
2
02
37
PM
PST}

Gpuccio, thank you for your insightful comments.
Gpuccio: Epigenetics is a constant interaction between a static form of information (…) For example, the zygote which originates multicellular beings has its own distinctive epigenetic state: the DNA is expressed in the zygote in different ways than it will be expressed in different states of the embryo, or in different specific tissue cells, both stem cells and differentiated cells. (…) Remember, life is a dynamic, far from equilibrium condition, not a static storage of information.

Gpuccio: When Venter builds his “artificial” genomes, copying and modifying natural genomes, he has to put them into a living cell. IOWs, he is introducing a modified genetic component into a specific existing epigenetic condition.
Is it not utterly mysterious that an existing epigenome can cope with genomes modified by Ventor?
Gpuccio: Whatever controls and coordinates the whole system of epigenetic regulations, moreover, is still a true mystery, be it in DNA or elsewhere.
Do you agree that DNA is not a conceivable candidate for controlling and/or coordinating the epigenome?Origenes_{April 23, 2016
April
04
Apr
23
23
2016
11:44 AM
11
11
44
AM
PST}

GP, that is essentially what I said. We have known for decades that the environment (internal and external) can affect how the phenotype is expressed. How this happens, the examples you are providing above, is what has been discovered more recently. For example, we have known for a very long time that the sex of a turtle is dependent on the temperature it is incubated at. Clownfish are all born male and only the largest in a group will become female. Both of these are examples of how the exact same DNA will express different phenotypes dependent on environmental cues. The knowledge that this occurs is not new. The knowledge of how it works is. This is an excellent example of how effective and productive the evolutionary science community is. They were observing phenomenon that appeared to be counter to evolutionary understanding at the time. But rather than ignore it, they hypothesized, they, investigated, they experimented, and they came up with some of the answers. And they modified their understanding of evolution accordingly. Science at its best. I would like to thank News for posting this OP. But I suspect that she did not know that it was an excellent example of evolutionary science in action.Indiana Effigy_{April 23, 2016
April
04
Apr
23
23
2016
10:16 AM
10
10
16
AM
PST}

Indiana Effigy: "But evolutionists have known this for decades." Not exactly. The huge complexity of epigenetic networks, the whole complex and parallel levels which contribute to them (DNA methylation, histone code, topologically associated domains and dynamic 3d DNA structures, the various influences of different regulatory RNAs, the incredibly combinatorial complexity of transcription factors, the role of master regulators in differentiation, are all topics which have been "discovered" recently enough, and all of them are still really poorly understood. Whatever controls and coordinates the whole system of epigenetic regulations, moreover, is still a true mystery, be it in DNA or elsewhere.gpuccio_{April 23, 2016
April
04
Apr
23
23
2016
09:45 AM
9
09
45
AM
PST}

Indiana Effigy: "But if I am reading you correctly, the actual “information” still relies on the DNA." Not all of it, certainly. The cytoplasm, as I said, bears information too. And so does the state in which DNA is when it is transmitted in cell division. There is never a moment where DNA is in some "absolute" state. It is always in some epigenetic state. And the cytoplasm, or the nucleus itself as a whole, have specific information content at each state. The sum total of proteins and RNAs expressed, for example. As "life always comes from life", life is always a continuous dynamic expression of genetic and epigenetic information. When Venter builds his "artificial" genomes, copying and modifying natural genomes, he has to put them into a living cell. IOWs, he is introducing a modified genetic component into a specific existing epigenetic condition. Remember, life is a dynamic, far from equilibrium condition, not a static storage of information.gpuccio_{April 23, 2016
April
04
Apr
23
23
2016
09:28 AM
9
09
28
AM
PST}

GP: "It’s not that simple." Things sediment are. But if I am reading you correctly, the actual "information" still relies on the DNA. And that its expression is affected by the environment (internal and external to the cell). But evolutionists have known this for decades. In some ways it is part of the nature vs nurture debate. What is being discovered is how this actually happens.Indiana Effigy_{April 23, 2016
April
04
Apr
23
23
2016
09:18 AM
9
09
18
AM
PST}

Indiana Effigy: It's not that simple. Epigenetics is a constant interaction between a static form of information (the nucleotide sequence stored in DNA, both protein coding and non coding) and its dynamic expression as transcriptomes and proteomes in each different cell state. In that sense, there is no condition in the cell life which is not at the same time genetic and epigenetic. For example, the zygote which originates multicellular beings hai its own distinctive epigenetic state: the DNA is expressed in the zygote in different ways than it will be expressed in different states of the embryo, or in different specific tissue cells, both stem cells and differentiated cells. The epigenetic state of the zygote, in turn, is derived mainly from the cytoplasm of the oocyte, but also from epigenetic messages in the sperm cell. So, at each moment of the life of a cell, or even more of a multicellular being, the total information which is being expressed is a sum of genetic and epigenetic information. And, whatever you may think, any theory about the origin of biological information must explain how the total information content which is expressed during the life span of some biological being came into existence.gpuccio_{April 23, 2016
April
04
Apr
23
23
2016
09:06 AM
9
09
06
AM
PST}

"Excuse, but I thought that ‘epigentics’ is an open ended kind of term for postulated for a mechanism of information residing in structures yet to be identified, and not including DNA." Yes, I believe that is its definition. But if you want to go by that strict definition then there are no real examples of epigenetics. All examples, to the best of my knowledge, require the expression of information stored in the DNA. Under one condition the DNA is expressed in one way, under a different condition (eg. Methylation) the DNA is expressed in a different way. Please correct me if I am wrong. I have only recently started to read up about this subject.Indiana Effigy_{April 23, 2016
April
04
Apr
23
23
2016
08:51 AM
8
08
51
AM
PST}

effigy: Epigenetics is just the ability for the same stretch of DNA to be expressed in two different ways depending on the environment. Both phenotypic expressions can be acted on by selection pressures When you say "just" the ability does this mean your definition is the only one? Excuse, but I thought that 'epigentics' is an open ended kind of term for postulated for a mechanism of information residing in structures yet to be identified, and not including DNA. You know I always enjoy these terms invented by evolutionists, like "selection pressure" for quantities that can't be seen or measured or even visualized, yet the field is as well established as gravity which certainly can be measured. So it is said.groovamos_{April 23, 2016
April
04
Apr
23
23
2016
07:54 AM
7
07
54
AM
PST}

Quote - "Just a small correction. This was posted by Louis Savain (aka Mapou). It is interesting that both he and Joe, who are banned here, have resurfaced on Cornelius’ blog." Here is the problem I have with this subject even being brought up over here at the very beginning in this post in this forum. Why ? No real discussing on the fascinating mechanism of epigenetics is being done here. I agree that this JoeG and Louis S who ever they are shouldn't be producing the behavior they are in the discussion of any kind, but your side's debaters with the ever changing avatar sock-puppets over there aren't any better than the JoeGs or Mapous are. To take one example, I actually did some homework on one of the main hidden characters over there from your side, Mr Ghostrider, who apparently has used other cloaks in the past and present. "Thorton" and from what others have said "Occam's Aftershave" on another forum. The putrid behavior of this indiidual is on equal par with any JoeG or Mapou you cite as examples of improper etiquette, but you avoid any mention of your side's dirt and instead insert it into this discussion in this forum which stifles intelligent discussion. You want to play hometown Referee, but you need to call it both ways here Ref. But as I said, this was about deflection more than anything of inport on the subject posted. Epigenetics is an incredible subject on actual mechanisms for change which I guarantee you is going to replace your religious icon of random mutation and natural selection in the near future. Science will not be able to move ahead and innovate if they stay stuck in an obsolete Victorian Era religious doctrine.earthsinterface_{April 22, 2016
April
04
Apr
22
22
2016
01:15 AM
1
01
15
AM
PST}

Groovamos: "Now there is a real information-laden post for you. " I didn't think that any more information was needed. The inference is very obvious. Epigenetics is just the ability for the same stretch of DNA to be expressed in two different ways depending on the environment. Both phenotypic expressions can be acted on by selection pressures.Indiana Effigy_{April 21, 2016
April
04
Apr
21
21
2016
02:57 PM
2
02
57
PM
PST}

Groovamos: "Joe G via Effigy “Two Christophobic, dirt-worshipping, closet gay atheists having a pussy-cat fight on a Christian blog. LOL!..." Just a small correction. This was posted by Louis Savain (aka Mapou). It is interesting that both he and Joe, who are banned here, have resurfaced on Cornelius' blog.Indiana Effigy_{April 21, 2016
April
04
Apr
21
21
2016
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PST}

Joe G via Effigy “Two Christophobic, dirt-worshipping, closet gay atheists having a pussy-cat fight on a Christian blog. LOL! Why don’t you two daffodils scurry on back to that gay atheist site, antievolution.org, where you belong. LOL Oops! Never mind. For a minute there, I plum forgot that your homosexual obsession is with Christian heterosexual males.” This is one contributor over there who I think needs a serious talking to and a probationary period before a possible ban. In fairness though his worst posts are opposing someone worse, the notorious thorton, aka ghostrider, who calls people fart smellers and worse and got banned before coming back with a new alias. I assume thorton's worst posts were pretty bad because they got deleted before I could read them, preceding and up to his ban. And BTW thorton/ghostrider is a researcher in the life sciences; Joe G. is apparently not an academic like many here are. Now understand that Joe G calling someone gay cannot be construed as pejorative nowadays, nor accusing them of homosexual obsession rather than any sexual obsession. And I can say this because I typically obliterate leftists on Facebook and of course they call me names, and in this vituperative spirit a couple of times I've been called 'gay' by these PC geniuses. In fact I have discovered recently that if I feel 'gay' I can be 'gay', as the current cultural overseers have declared, in general terms, such that the law must now recognize. And so I am about to embark on a gay journey. And will let you know how the leftist FB coterie take it.groovamos_{April 21, 2016
April
04
Apr
21
21
2016
02:40 PM
2
02
40
PM
PST}

Effigy: Epigenetics is still genetics. They don’t exist without DNA, which is subject to random mutation and affected by natural selection. Now there is a real information-laden post for you. 'Genetics' with a modifier prefix is still genetics - wow who would ever know that if it weren't for Darwinists. And "they [genetics] don't exist without DNA" is profound too, OMG. Since without DNA the planet would be a desert. Hey all geniuses hand clapping for Effigy - epigenetics is commonly meant to refer to the generation of form and function by via information residing outside the genome, with genome understood as being DNA stored information. Without DNA it wouldn't exist of course, duh.groovamos_{April 21, 2016
April
04
Apr
21
21
2016
02:15 PM
2
02
15
PM
PST}

Effigy Do you feel offended? Do you need a safe space?Eugen_{April 21, 2016
April
04
Apr
21
21
2016
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PST}

Epigenetics is still genetics. They don't exist without DNA, which is subject to random mutation and affected by natural selection.Indiana Effigy_{April 20, 2016
April
04
Apr
20
20
2016
04:13 PM
4
04
13
PM
PST}

"It is often said that all truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. And so it is with epigenetics which evolutionists opposed and blackballed for a century before finally appropriating it as just another mode of evolutionary change." Why even pursue a deep intelligent discussion of Epigenetic mechanisms when you have Science Journals providing daycare fables on how blind undirected forces in a pointless universe work https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/04/160419083243.htmearthsinterface_{April 20, 2016
April
04
Apr
20
20
2016
01:21 AM
1
01
21
AM
PST}

"Maybe UD should think about allowing such insightful and informative comments to be posted here." It cuts both ways over there, but I noticed you conventiently left that out and avoided the subject of epigenetics altogether. The opposing side over there has a longer history of deflecting from the subject and instead prefers throwing mockery, personal insults and foul language since almost the beginning of his blog. But again you conveniently left that out. As far as "Epigenetics", if one goes back through articles and posted comments throughout the internet several years back, evolutionists were rabid opponents on the subject of such mechanisms which made their precious "Random Mutation & Natural Slection" religious icons out as false dieties. The comments were mostly vicious. But suddenly now it's all well lookie here, WWe new about Epigenetics all along and it's an amazing part of evolutionary change." Except not really. Believing it goes beyond what is observed is once again a matter of blind faith.earthsinterface_{April 19, 2016
April
04
Apr
19
19
2016
11:11 PM
11
11
11
PM
PST}

Dr. Hunter posts concurrent OPs here and on his own site. I just thought that people would like to see the types of comments that Dr. Hunter encourages and supports on his site. "Two Christophobic, dirt-worshipping, closet gay atheists having a pussy-cat fight on a Christian blog. LOL! Why don't you two daffodils scurry on back to that gay atheist site, antievolution.org, where you belong. LOL Oops! Never mind. For a minute there, I plum forgot that your homosexual obsession is with Christian heterosexual males." Maybe UD should think about allowing such insightful and informative comments to be posted here. Just a suggestion.Indiana Effigy_{April 19, 2016
April
04
Apr
19
19
2016
10:02 PM
10
10
02
PM
PST}

Prev 1 2 3 4

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply