From NASA:
The Twin Study propelled NASA into the genomics era of space travel. It was a ground-breaking study comparing what happened to astronaut Scott Kelly, in space, to his identical twin brother, Mark, who remained on Earth. The perfect nature versus nurture study was born.
The Twins Study brought ten research teams from around the country together to accomplish one goal: discover what happens to the human body after spending one year in space. NASA has a grasp on what happens to the body after the standard-duration six-month missions aboard the International Space Station, but Scott Kelly’s one-year mission is a stepping stone to a three-year mission to Mars. More.
So what did they find? Among other things,
After returning to Earth, Scott started the process of readapting to Earth’s gravity. Most of the biological changes he experienced in space quickly returned to nearly his preflight status. Some changes returned to baseline within hours or days of landing, while a few persisted after six months.
Scott’s telomeres (endcaps of chromosomes that shorten as one ages) actually became significantly longer in space. While this finding was presented in 2017, the team verified this unexpected change with multiple assays and genomics testing. Additionally, a new finding is that the majority of those telomeres shortened within two days of Scott’s return to Earth.
Another interesting finding concerned what some call the “space gene”, which was alluded to in 2017. Researchers now know that 93% of Scott’s genes returned to normal after landing. However, the remaining 7% point to possible longer term changes in genes related to his immune system, DNA repair, bone formation networks, hypoxia, and hypercapnia.
Philip Cunningham, who forwarded this information, reports an interesting discussion on Facebook. From a commenter:
“I’m sure the attacks on his DNA from the prolong exposure to Space with the lack of protection of the many forms of radiation would result in a great deal of Mutations. Genetic Entropy would be accelerated for anyone under such an experience. This would result in some DNA change.”
To which he responded:
“I’m sure you are right to a certain degree, yet this following statement is the one of most interest to me… “Most of Scott’s genes did indeed return to normal after a brief time back here on Earth, but not all of them.” … It is that finding in particular that directly falsifies the “central dogma” of Darwinian evolution since its shows the organism controlling its DNA, not the DNA controlling the organism as is presupposed by Darwinists.”
Actually, there is no falsifying Darwinism now, mainly because it is now beyond the reach of evidence. Possibly, the best way to discard it is to quietly ignore it in actual research while supporting the efforts to pry it loose from the school systems.
Obviously, the genome is much more plastic than centuries of hereditarians have led us to believe. It will eventually be very difficult to explain Darwinism to students. Somewhat like explaining phrenology maybe…
See also: Identical twins show epigenetic similarity as well. Then what about the famous “twin studies”?
and
Identical twins are not really identical (on Earth) and tend to diverge as they go through life. See also: There’s a gene for that… or is there?
Interesting study. But I don’t think that increased exposure to radiation is a factor here as this would not affect all cells. This appears to be more a case of a different environment causing different gene expression, something that has been observed for over half a century. But regardless, a well designed experiment.
News as to:
Not only now but throughout its entire history Darwinian evolution, as it is held by its ‘believers’, has been beyond the reach of experimental falsification. And since it is held to be beyond all experimental falsification by its ‘believers’, then Darwinian evolution is more realistically classified as a unfalsifiable pseudoscience rather than a testable science (Popper).
The primary reason why Darwinian evolution is more properly classified as a pseudoscience instead of a testable science is that Darwinian evolution has no mathematical model to test against. As Dr Robert Marks states ““there exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. According to our current understanding, there never will be.,,,”
The primary reason why nobody has ever been able to build a realistic mathematical model for Darwinian evolution is simply because there is no ‘law of evolution’ within the known physical universe for mathematicians and physicists to build a realistic mathematical model upon:
As Ernst Mayr himself conceded, “In biology, as several other people have shown, and I totally agree with them, there are no natural laws in biology corresponding to the natural laws of the physical sciences.”
In the following article, Roger Highfield makes much the same observation as Ernst Mayr and states, ,,, Whatever the case, those universal truths—’laws’—that physicists and chemists all rely upon appear relatively absent from biology.
Professor Murray Eden of MIT, in a paper entitled “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory” stated that “the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.”
In fact, not only is there no ‘law of evolution’ within the known physical universe for Darwinists to build a realistic mathematical model upon, the second law of thermodynamics, entropy, a law with great mathematical explanatory power in science, almost directly contradicts the primary Darwinian claim that greater and greater levels of functional complexity can easily be had and/or ‘naturally selected’ for over long periods of time. Indeed, entropy’s main claim is that, over long periods of time, everything in the universe will decay into simpler and simpler states until what is termed thermodynamic equilibrium is finally reached.
And whereas Darwinian evolution has no known law of nature to appeal to so as to establish itself as a proper, testable, science, Intelligent Design does not suffer from such a disconnect from physical reality. In other words, Intelligent Design can appeal directly to ‘the laws of conservation of information’ (Dembski, Marks, etc..) in order to establish itself as a proper, testable, and rigorous science.
And since Intelligent Design is mathematically based on the ‘law of conservation of information’, that makes Intelligent Design very much testable and potentially falsifiable, and thus makes Intelligent Design, unlike Darwinism, a rigorous science instead of a unfalsifiable pseudoscience.
Of supplemental note: although Darwinists have refused to accept falsification for their theory from mathematics and empirical evidence, and even though, as was shown, Darwinian evolution, since there is no ‘law of evolution’ within the universe, can have no rigid mathematical basis to test against, Darwinian evolution, regardless of that monumental failing, has, none-the-less, been thoroughly falsified by both mathematics and experimentation.
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/early-complexity-a-case-study-of-evolutionary-theory/#comment-650322
Of particular interest to the present twin study listed in the OP is this video which goes over the evidence that falsifies the entire reductive materialistic framework that undergirds Darwinian evolution:
It’s perhaps worth clarifying that the “genes returning back to normal” refers to genetic regulation (particularly via methylation), not to changes in the DNA sequence. This is not the same thing as the changes in the telomeres (which is change in the DNA sequence, but not in the sequence of genes).
Bob (and weave), I don’t know if you are really trying to defend Darwinian theory, or just trying to blow smoke as you usually do, but his main point about genetic entropy and my main point about this falsifying the ‘central dogma’ are both correct.
As to genetic entropy,,, from the article,,,
As to falsifying the ‘central dogma’, In my post on facebook, I alluded to the fact that this evidence ‘adds to’ the growing body of evidence falsifying the central dogma,,, i.e. that “it’s the organism controlling the DNA to meet its own needs, not the DNA controlling the organism.”
In regards to further evidence, since it was facebook, I briefly cited just these two references:
,,, but, if I had longer than a facebook post, I could have also cited these following references that falsify the ‘central dogma’,,,
To reiterate, the main point is, contrary to core Darwinian presuppositions, “it’s the organism controlling the DNA to meet its own needs, not the DNA controlling the organism.”
Assuming that these percentages only refer to the 20.000 or so coding genes, 7% still equals 1400 genes. Think about it: 1400 of Scott Kelly’s genes underwent long term changes and he is still going strong! Things have changed in his immune system, DNA repair, bone formation networks, hypoxia, and hypercapnia, but behold it all still works. Truly amazing. Is there an evolutionary explanation for the persistence of homeostasis under such dramatic circumstances?
Origenes – yes. it’s called homeostasis. Gene expression is affected by the environment, and there is plenty of evidence that the effects can last a long time (and even be passed from one generation to the next).
The evolutionary explanation is that the environment is stable enough that an organism will be fitter if it maintains the same gene expression patterns (this might, for example, be the response to a bad year with low food productivity). Obviously we haven’t been into space a lot, so the changes in gene expression haven’t evolved as a response to space, but are presumably responses to a signal that was triggered in space.
At this general level it’s not so amazing, although the details will be fascinating. It would also be nice to see data with a sample size larger than one pair.
So, the evolutionary explanation of the persistence of homeostasis is called ‘h-o-m-e-o-s-t-a-s-i-s’. Thanks Bob, for acquainting me with that very difficult word. Thank you, that’s very informative.
Origenes, errm yes. Read beyond the first 5 words. I explain what I mean.
🙂 🙂 🙂
Origenes, yes that right, for a Darwinist, no more proof for the evolution of homeostasis is needed than the fact that homeostasis exists. All countervailing evidence that Darwinian explanations are grossly inadequate to account for homeostasis (and everything else in life) counts for naught.
Welcome to the fantasy land of Darwinian ‘science’.
🙂
In the following article, Jonathan Wells distilled the template for writing supposed scientific articles that deal with evolution:
i.e. In his mind (if he had a mind), a Darwinist never allows the core of the theory to be challenged. As such, it is, as mentioned previously, a unfalsifiable pseudoscience rather than a testable science. (Popper)
Bob, you did in no way respond to the problem which I identified. Why is Scott Kelly’s homeostasis still functioning when it is disturbed by 1400 genes which underwent sudden long term changes due to space travel?
Well, that’s the problem, isn’t it? It cannot be the case that, over time, natural selection has filtered out humans whose homeostasis can cope with gene changes due to space travel. So, what can be the evolutionary explanation for the fact that Scott Kelly’s homeostasis holds?
Now let’s see
And I wrote (emphasis added)
Bob (and weave),,
Still not buying your ‘just so story’. Could you add a few more adjectives and adverbs to make your imaginary scenario for how homeostasis might have evolved more believable so as to make it more convincing for those who are gullible enough to think Darwinists are being remotely scientific in their story telling???
Of related interest, one of the most successful fiction writers in America, Dean Koontz himself, does not buy into Darwinian story telling:
Okay. Yes. Obviously. So?
The changes in Scott Kelly’s genes are “presumably responses to a signal that was triggered in space.”
Okay … a signal in space … I suppose that is a possible explanation, but how is that an answer to my question? Are you suggesting that ‘signals from space’ have reached us earth-dwellers for eons and that therefore evolution could have equipped us with a homeostasis ready for space travel?
Origenes – No. What I mans was that the environment one finds oneself in triggers a signal in the cell(s) that causes gene expression to change. Sorry, I could have been clearer about that.
Origenes,
I think what Bob is saying is that it is the physiological affects of weightlessness that are causing the epigenetic affects (please correct me if I am wrong). Things like muscle atrophy, osteopenia, slowed cardiovascular function, decreased red blood cell production, balance and eyesight problems, fluid retention and excess flatulence (which must make the space station rather pungent). All of these symptoms also occur to people on earth, just not typical at the same time. What would be interesting is to see if earthbound people who experience some of these symptoms also have similar epigenetic changes.
Okay. But that leaves the question “what can be the evolutionary explanation for the fact that Scott Kelly’s homeostasis holds?” unanswered, right?
For clarity, it seems to me that a sudden change in 1400 genes poses a challenge for Kelly’s homeostasis. Maybe I did not make that clear.
I would also like to know how many genes undergo short term changes. Unfortunately the article doesn’t say. A lot of change would trigger the question: why do astronauts not fall apart in space?
If you are correct, if all space-gene-changes also occur on earth, then the evolutionary narrative lives another day. However, this is not what the article suggests.
For instance:
suggests some unknown (extraterrestrial?) gene change.
Otigenes – given that we’ve not been into space before, I don’t see why there would be an evolutionary explanation. There should, of course, be a physiological explanation, and that might lead to an explanation for why there would be a response to an environment similar to space. But without knowing much more, I’m not sure we could say a great deal.
BTW, telomeres aren’t genes. They are stretches of repetitive DNA at the ends of chromosomes, which act as caps. Sort-of (vaguely) like the plastic/metal things on the ends of boot laces that stop them from fraying.
Origenes, I agree that the lengthening of the telomeres, and then rapid shortening of them after landing, is the most interesting aspect. It would be interesting to see if the inverse is also seen; do the telomeres shorten when exposed to higher gravity and lengthen again to normal length when returned to normal gravity? I imagine that this could be tested by use of a specially designed centrifuge.
But the big question is, what does this even mean? I certainly don’t.
Bob@
“Why there would be … “?? Are we talking past each other? If evolution is true, if it can potentially explain what happens to ppl in space, then there should be a conceivable evolutionary explanation for why astronauts do not fall apart in space. Right?
Explanation for why Scott’s homeostasis is up to the task of handling a lot of weird gene change?
We are indeed talking past each other…. At no point did I ask why there would be a response to space. That is not my question Bob. It never was.
Err, why? We haven’t evolved in space. So I can’t see an evolutionary explanation beyond “humans have evolved not to fall apart on earth”. Of course, it’s possible that humans don’t fall apart in space because of intelligent design. i.e. humans have designed the space station to maintain human life.
Who said it’s weird? See Allan Keith’s comment @ 15.
Well ,except for where you wrote “For clarity, it seems to me that a sudden change in 1400 genes poses a challenge for Kelly’s homeostasis.”
Bob, it seems that I cannot get my point across. I am not a native English speaker, so this miscommunication may very well be due to my limited ability to express myself.
Another possible avenue for research is to look at genetic changes caused by high pressures such as experienced by divers. We obviously did not evolve specifically to thrive under multiple atmospheres of pressure. But we know that we can survive for extended periods under such conditions.
Do we experience changes in gene expression under high pressure? How quickly do they revert to “normal” when we are brought back to the surface.
As to:
Seeing as Darwinian explanations don’t even get out of the gate as to providing anything resembling a coherent explanation, (much less a testable one), that would be one avenue. But alas, Physiology, much like all of biology, is not a friend of Darwinian evolution:
Noble may hope for a “new theory of evolution” that will explain the evidence, but alas, since it is a unfalsifiable pseudoscience, Darwinian evolution will still go on in spite of the evidence. Just as it has always done since its inception.
Nobel’s mistake is that he thinks he is dealing with a science instead of a religion.
A few things that might clear things up a little…
There are not 1400 genes that remain differentially expressed in twins. Rather, 7% of those genes that were differentially expressed remain so. There are only a few hundred genes with apparently continued differential expression.
We know these expression changes are statistically significant, but not how large they are. Gene expression can be quite sloppy, so minor changes in transcript abundance may have little physiological effect.
It’s a bit weird to ask how homeostasis can handle changes in gene expression. It’s quite possible that the changes in gene expression are homeostasis. Physiological cues brought about by strange food, lack of weight-bearing exercise etc giving rise to changes in gene expression. Hard to see the challenge to evolutionary biology there.
I agree with others the telomere result is the most interesting. But I can’t see why this result is qualitatively different than the gene expression one. To lengthen telomeres, you just need to express more telomerase (as happens in cancer cells on earth).
Um.. And where does most of the knowledge of how to modulate DNA in a cell come from? Other knowledge, which takes the form of, you guessed it, knowledge laden genes.
So CR, do you really, really, really, believe that “knowledge laden genes” run the whole show in biology???
Perhaps it would help you to realize just how ‘puppet-like’ genes actually are in an organism. i.e. Despite the ‘selfish gene’ metaphor of Dawkins, genes are now known to not even be masters of their own fate much less the masters of everything else in biological organisms.
Or perhaps a larger dose of medicine is necessary for you CR:
So CR, if you took the time to read the preceding, do you still really, really, really, believe that Dawkins selfish gene metaphor is correct? and that genes are running the show in biology? And if you are sane enough to not believe that anymore, are you honest enough to admit that you were wrong in your ‘selfish gene’ presupposition? If not, why not? What has the selfish gene metaphor ever done for you except lead you down a primrose path of thinking yourself wise in molecular biology when in fact you were grossly ignorant of the astonishing complexity of molecular biology?
Also of interest from the preceding paper, on page 22, is a simplified list of the ‘epigenetic’ information flow in the cell that directly contradicts what was expected from the central dogma (Genetic Reductionism/modern synthesis model) of neo-Darwinism.
And 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:
So again CR, are you honest enough to follow the evidence where it leads?
Why is everyone fixated on DNA?
DNA is not essence of life: http://nonlin.org/dna-not-essence-of-life/
How was this n=1 in both arms study controlled? In my opinion it is just bugger all.
cornu@
“Only” a few hundred, you say. And during space flight “only” a few thousand, I suppose.
“Quite sloppy”, you say. Details do not matter much?
Hmm … to me it seems quite likely that Scott was familiar with ‘space food’ before he took off. “Lack of weight-bearing exercise etc”, you say. Did you come up with that as an ‘earthly equivalent’ for the effects of weightlessness? 🙂
Well, let’s wait and see if your “lack of weight-bearing exercise” can bring about a similar homeostatic (?) response.
Ah. So, harmless and no problem for homeostasis.
I guess you are going to have to try and express yourself more clearly Origenes. Can you clearly state what you think is the challenge to mainstream biology in this?
At the moment you have said “homeostasis” a lot, but not made an argument at all.
Some say this is a non-story:
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/03/scott-kellys-medical-monitoring-has-spawned-some-horrific-press-coverage/
This may be interesting research but it isn’t exactly earth shattering, paradigm shifting news.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/identical-twins-exhibit-d/
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/identical-twins-genes-are-not-identical/
https://arstechnica.com/science/2014/12/finding-gene-activity-differences-in-identical-twins/
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-superhuman-mind/201211/identical-twins-are-not-genetically-identical
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3063335/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC436052/
And that was only the first few of a Google search for “do identical twins have different gene expressions” that had 794,000 hits.
Well Allen Keith, seeing as Darwinian evolution is, at least how Darwinists treat it, a unfalsifiable pseudoscience,,,
,,,then there is basically no experimental finding that will ever be ‘paradigm shifting’ for Darwinists. Darwinian evolution, since its inception, has been basically impervious to experimental falsification (again, at least how Darwinists treat their theory).
BA77, don’t mistake unfalsifiable with modifiable. Since Darwin’s day his theory has been expanded on as new evidence and mechanisms were discovered. The fact that natural selection acting on variation still remains fundamental to the theory is a testament to the rigour of his original theory.
AK:
HA HA HA 🙂
Too funny. The only thing that anyone ever witnesses truly ‘evolving’ in the real world is the theory of Darwinian evolution itself. Darwin’s pseudo-theory is forever plastic and is able to explain completely contradictory results with equal ease.
As William James Murray quipped, “Who would have thought that it would be biologists that came up with the first Theory of Everything?”
Imre Lakatos, although he tipped toed around the failure of Darwinism to have a rigid demarcation criteria in science,,,
,,, although Lakatos tipped toed around the failure of Darwinism to have a rigid demarcation criteria in science, Lakatos was brave enough to state that a good scientific theory will make successful predictions in science whereas “In degenerating programmes, however, (epicycle) theories are fabricated only in order to accommodate known facts”
Thus the fact that the theory of Darwinian evolution is, in your words, ‘modifiable’, is actually, contrary to what you believe true for a scientific theory, more solid evidence that we are in fact dealing with a pseudoscience rather than a real science.
BA77,
If you think that the flexibility of a theory is the sign of a weak theory then you don’t understand how science works.
ID proponents throw out things like HGT and epigenesis as if they are newly discovered showstoppers. Yet HGT has been known about for over half a century, and the fact that gene expression is affected by environment has been known even longer. Neither of these are incompatible with natural selection acting on variation.
Whatever AK, I’ve laid my case out in post 2 and 36 for why Darwinian theory is more properly classified as a pseudoscience rather than a real science, and will let readers decide for themselves who is being ‘scientific’ and who is blowing smoke.
AK @ 37:
As HGT and epigenetics explain more and more of the mechanics of life’s variety with precision that Darwin couldn’t conceive of, Darwin will be occupying smaller and smaller gaps.
LocalM,
It seems to me that these only strengthen Darwin’s theory. Remember that his theory is remarkably simple. Natural selection acting on the variability in s population to result in differential survival of traits. This required a source of this variability, which he knew nothing about, and the heritability of these traits, which again he knew nothing about. If either of these were found not to occur, his theory would be falsified. We know that “random” mutations are s source of variation. We later discovered other sources of variation, things like inversions, translocations, meiosis, HGT (including viruses), epegenetics, and others. All strengthen his theory.
And with the discovery of DNA, we now know the means of inheritance.
I fail to see how any of these discoveries weaken his theory.
You say this, as if problems are automatically solved when they are known for a long time. Unfortunately, that’s not the case.
Back in 1904, Hugo de Vries wrote:
“It creates nothing, as is so often assumed …”, wrote De Vries, and he is right, even of today’s conception. Still many Darwinians hold that the going out of existence of X, explains the existence of Y. However elimination (a.k.a. “natural selection”) explains only why some things are not, not why some things are.
If natural selection is a process of elimination, then existent organisms are the ones that got away. Instead of being created by ‘natural elimination’, exactly the opposite is true: they are “untouched” by ‘natural elimination’. Existent organisms are those organisms on which natural selection has precisely no bearing whatsoever. They are the undiluted products of chance.
Moreover, natural selection slows evolution down.
Natural selection (NS) culls variety — eliminates organisms with certain traits from the population. In effect, NS enhances chances for the remaining variation. IOWs it intensifies a particular search and thereby enhances the probability of its success.
Assuming that functional islands are not necessarily connected, the overall chance of finding evolutionary novelty remains the same, with or without NS, — the intensified search compensates for the loss of variety.
However, the waiting time for the selected variation to restore the original population size is slowing down evolution.
If some disease kills off all human race, except for the Japanese, then the probability of finding evolutionary novelties is restored at the moment that the Japanese have a population size of 7 billion. My point? The waiting time needs to be factored in.
AK @ 40:
HGT and epigenetic mechanisms aren’t sources of variations, they’re means of storing, communicating, and expressing variations. Moreover, they potentially remove the need for immediate variation generation, making RM+NS (and other errors held separately to confuse the issue) completely unnecessary to observed variation; beyond the coincidentally fortunate breaking of things.
Likewise, they are themselves sophisticated functions that ultimately must be accounted for by RM+NS while operating several degrees beyond immediate selection, which is all that NS can pick from; they are far more of a challenge for mindless evolution than the features they accommodate.
Not only that, but they require more tuning from the features that they accommodate, as those features must be sufficiently modular/communicable/formatted to work with them.
Darwin was proposing what is essentially in the crudest class of genetic algorithm, and forcing it to work against a large and variable set of axes to produce results that it would be ludicrous to expect for far better genetic algorithms that are properly constrained to ever yield. The field of evolutionary simulation being strewn with the wreckage of cheats and lies is sufficient testament to this.
Of course, without being able to even lay claim to observed variation, and without possessing any demonstrable, even simulable forward model, Darwin’s theory isn’t much of a theory. A hypothesis it remains, at best.
as to:
News flash AK, Horizontal Gene Transfer and epigenetics, like the rest of the astonishingly intricate and elaborate processes being found in molecular biology, are certainly not friends of Darwinian evolution, i.e. of accidentally kludging things together.
Also of interest from the preceding paper, on page 22, is a simplified list of the ‘epigenetic’ information flow in the cell that directly contradicts what was expected from the central dogma (Genetic Reductionism/modern synthesis model) of neo-Darwinism.
In other words, Alan Keith’s failure to see Horizontal Gene Transfer and epigenetics as a insurmountable problem for Darwinian theory, and indeed for him to claim that they “only strengthen Darwin’s theory” is yet more evidence of the pseudo-scientific nature of Darwinian theory in that no finding, at least in the minds of Darwinists, is ever allowed to falsify Darwinian theory.
i.e. Darwinism is a religion, not a testable science.
BA77 @ 43: “Darwinism is a religion, not a testable science.”
Well said.
Thanks TWSYF, but I should always preface statements like that with,,, “in the minds of Darwinists” Darwinism is a religion, not a testable science.
Since, whether they accept it or not, Darwinism has been, none-the-less, falsified by experimentation and mathematics.
For instance:
i.e. Although Darwinian evolution is constantly contradicted by observational evidences like this, “in the minds of Darwinists” that evidence is never allowed to falsify the theory.,,, hence, “in the minds of Darwinists” Darwinism is a religion, not a testable science.