Epigenetics Intelligent Design

(Reformed) New Scientist 4: There is more to inheritance than just genes

Spread the love

Readers may recall that New Scientist published an article some days ago on 13 ways we need to “rethink the theory of nature.”

Their Number 4 rethink is … epigenetics:

Most of the article is paywalled but here’s the gist of #4:

IF GENES form the words in the book of life, then epigenetic marks are the punctuation. These chemical tags affect which genes are turned on and off in an organism. They are created in response to changes in conditions within cells or the external environment, such as temperature, stress or diet …

Subsequent studies in plants and animals suggest that epigenetic inheritance is more common than anyone had expected. Whatʼs more, compared with genetic inheritance, it has some big advantages. Environments can change rapidly and dramatically, but genetic mutations are random, so often require generations to take hold. Epigenetic marks, by contrast, are created in minutes or hours. And because they result from environmental change, they are often adaptive, boosting the survival of subsequent generations. – Carrie Arnold

Michael Le Page , Colin Barras , Richard Webb , Kate Douglas and Carrie Arnold, “Evolution is evolving: 13 ways we must rethink the theory of nature” at New Scientist (September 23. 2020)

Wow. Remember the gene for this and gene for that…? At one time, there was even an infidelity gene and a bad driving gene. Just think, within a few years, genetics might start to make some sense.

You’ve got to hand it to the New Scientist gang; when they rethink, they really do.

Epigenetics?: Lamarck, wake up, you’re wanted in the conference room!

See also: Reformed) New Scientist 3: The selfish gene is no longer cool. At New Scientist: “Some researchers think the solution lies in an idea called cultural group selection. Forget shared genes, they argue: selection can favour cooperative groups if the people within them share enough culture. ” Darwin has left the building and returned to his estate.

(Reformed) New Scientist 2: Evolution shows intelligence. At New Scientist: “‘Maybe, evolution is less about out competing others and more to do with co-creating knowledge,’ says Watson.” That really is a radical idea. Radical yes, but it really is a good idea. We find it hard to improve on. The only thing we can think of is, keep the “intelligent” part in your description of nature and add “design.”

(Reformed) New Scientist 1 on the genome: Not destiny. Sure but then what about the famous twin studies that were supposed to prove so much about human nature? No? Then it’s probably best for the New Scientists to just get out of the “gene for that” hell while they can.


At New Scientist: We must rethink the (Darwinian) theory of nature. If by “our greatest theory of nature,” the writers mean textbook Darwinism, well the new concepts they list are destroying it. What becomes of “natural selection acting on random mutation” if a variety of means of evolution are “natural,” mutations are not necessarily random, genes aren’t selfish and don’t come only from parents, and the fittest don’t necessarily survive? Just for a start…

5 Replies to “(Reformed) New Scientist 4: There is more to inheritance than just genes

  1. 1
    BobRyan says:

    From the article:

    “but genetic mutations are random, so often require generations to take hold.”

    If mutations are random, why would the same mutations occur in more than one generation? Why would strong have any bearing on weak? Why would random mutations not be random? Why has a positive mutation never been witnessed?

  2. 2
    martin_r says:

    BobRyan @1

    today, it is more than obvious, that most of the mutations are not random, especially the adaptive ones, that arose quick …

    there are tons of Darwinian articles on this topic, here are some examples (from my blog at http://www.stuffhappens.info)

    “11 Mitochondrial Genes in Deep-Sea Fishes changed the same way independently”



    “The same mutation occurred 20 times independently in fishes’ light-sensitive eye-protein.”


    PS: unfortunately, there are lots of mutations causing various diseases, these mutations are examples of devolution/degradation of the genome, also know as genetic entropy,…

    The problem with Darwinians is, they assume, that all types of mutations are the same nature (random) … obviously not … Darwinians misinterpret all the evidence, as we have seen many time in the history of science …

  3. 3
    martin_r says:

    BobRyan @1

    “Why has a positive mutation never been witnessed?”

    i think it was, but this is extremely rare, and, another example that this mutation is not random, arose in various humans independently … (also from my blog):

    “Lactose tolerance arose independently in Africans and Europeans”


    PS: however, it is questionable, if this is a good example of a positive mutation (lactose tolerance). Really not sure, but perhaps yes, perhaps lactose tolerance is a good thing when you are older and still drink milk …

  4. 4
    Truthfreedom says:

    2 Martin_r

    today, it is more than obvious, that most of the mutations are not random, especially the adaptive ones, that arose quick …

    Darwinian Naturalism is Pseudo-Science

    “The biological evolution of Neo-Darwinism can be simply expressed as the process of natural selection acting on random genetic mutation for a long time. In fact, except for point-mutations, all other genetic mutations are non-random. In mathematics, randomness refers to the uncertainty of process results. In order to insist that genetic mutations are random, Neo-Darwinists define the mutation randomness as that mutations occur randomly with respect to whether their effects are useful, this is, they define randomness as the uncertainty of process effects, not the uncertainty of process results. This definition artificially converts all non-random mutations into random mutations.

    This is an academic fraud, as bad as faking data.”

  5. 5
    polistra says:

    More than ANYONE expected? I guess Lamarck and Lysenko aren’t anyone. Unpersons.

Leave a Reply