Darwinism Epigenetics Genetics Intelligent Design

Paper: Sperm cells take up genetic material from outside themselves

Spread the love

Crossing the so-called Weismann barrier:

The active uptake of exogenous nucleic acids by spermatozoa of virtually all animal species is a well-established phenomenon whose significance has long been underappreciated. A growing body of published data demonstrates that extracellular vesicles released from mammalian somatic tissues pass an RNA-based flow of information to epididymal spermatozoa, thereby crossing the Weismann barrier. That information is delivered to oocytes at fertilization and affects the fate of the developing progeny. We propose that this essential process of epigenetic transmission depends upon the documented ability of epididymal spermatozoa to bind and internalize foreign nucleic acids in their nuclei. In other words, spermatozoa are not passive vectors of exogenous molecules but rather active participants in essential somatic communication across generations. (open access)

Ilaria Sciamanna, Annalucia Serafino, James A. Shapiro, and Corrado Spadafora, “The active role of spermatozoa in transgenerational inheritance” at Proceedings of the Royal Society B

If the Weismann barrier is broken, that’s barbarians at the gates of textbook Darwinism, no? It turns out, all sorts of sources can contribute to inheritance.

See also: Epigenetic Learning Appears Confirmed In Nematodes; Weismann Barrier Broken

and

Epigenetic change: Lamarck, wake up, you’re wanted in the conference room!

Follow UD News at Twitter!

12 Replies to “Paper: Sperm cells take up genetic material from outside themselves

  1. 1
    Brother Brian says:

    If the Weismann barrier is broken, that’s barbarians at the gates of textbook Darwinism, no? It turns out, all sorts of sources can contribute to inheritance.

    1) Darwinism, at its fundamental basis, requires a source of heritable variation and differential reproduction.

    2) ID keeps arguing that mutation rates and selection within a population are not sufficient to account for the evolution we see.

    3) News keeps pointing out sources of heritable variation that don’t depend on mutations within the population.

    Is News a sleeper Darwinist agent? 🙂

  2. 2
    ET says:

    Brother Brian:

    1) Darwinism, at its fundamental basis, requires a source of heritable variation and differential reproduction.

    Not quite. Fundamental to Darwinism is that the change has to be happenstance in nature.

    2) ID keeps arguing that mutation rates and selection within a population are not sufficient to account for the evolution we see.

    No, I doesn’t make any such claim. You are making stuff up again.

    3) News keeps pointing out sources of heritable variation that don’t depend on mutations within the population.

    And no materialistic concept of evolution expected it.

    Is News a sleeper Darwinist agent?

    Perhaps to people who can’t get their facts straight, anyway. 😛

  3. 3
    Brother Brian says:

    Does anyone who isn’t pathologically obsessed with everything I post, and who has progressed beyond the “I know you are but what am I am” form of debate, willing to respond to my comment?

  4. 4
    johnnyb says:

    BB –

    I think you are confused about ID. It is not anti-evolution, it is anti-Darwinism. Showing that evolution is teleonomic in nature is pro-ID.

  5. 5
    Brother Brian says:

    Johnnyb, I agree. But how is News’ OP anti Darwin? Ignoring the fact that we went far beyond Darwin in 1930.

  6. 6
    EDTA says:

    Wouldn’t the uptake of outside molecules be environmental and not inherited influence?

  7. 7
    ET says:

    Darwin’s main idea- that of the appearance of design without the need for a designer- what Dawkins calls “the blind watchmaker thesis”, is still front and center of current evolutionary biology. So we have more knowledge about biology and especially genetics, than Darwin did. But all of what has been uncovered is still placed in the blind watchmaker bin.

    So although biology has advanced since Darwin the over-riding premise has remained the same-> evolution proceeds via blind, mindless and purposeless processes. That is why people still call it Darwinism. It is homage to the man. And no one else has really improved on it. Just more is known.

    Funny thing is if Darwin had known what we now know he most likely would have never made the claims he did.

  8. 8
    ET says:

    The attention deficit disorder:

    Does anyone who isn’t pathologically obsessed with everything I post, and who has progressed beyond the “I know you are but what am I am” form of debate, willing to respond to my comment?

    Again, if Brian wasn’t obsessed with posting easily refuted nonsense, I wouldn’t respond. The points Brian raised were evidence-free and as such didn’t and still don’t deserve more than the dismissals provided.

    If Brian ever advances beyond the question-begging, easily refuted drivel he posts then someone may respond to him accordingly. We await the day…

  9. 9
    Brother Brian says:

    EDTA

    Wouldn’t the uptake of outside molecules be environmental and not inherited influence?

    Can they subsequently be inherited?

  10. 10
    ET says:

    EDTA:

    Wouldn’t the uptake of outside molecules be environmental and not inherited influence?

    They are talking about genetic information from the organism’s somatic tissue (cells). Guess where they came from? But even with that they can change genetically do to environmental affects.

  11. 11
    rhampton7 says:

    ET

    “ Fundamental to Darwinism is that the change has to be happenstance in nature.”

    Not true. Mutations are described as random because we can not predict precisely when or where they will occur. randomness is not a requirement but a reflection of what our observations lead us to scientifically describe.

    Even if you believe in ID theory, you would still need to describe mutations as random in reference to our abilities to predict them.

  12. 12
    ET says:

    rhampton7- According to Ernst Mayr mutations are happenstance events. It has nothing to do with any ability to predict them. Mutations are said to be accidents, errors and mistakes. Period.

Leave a Reply