epigenetics, what is it?

[whois]

i've run across a new term recently, epigenetics.
as if transposons weren't enough.

a brief excerpt:
epigenetics refers to heritable changes in gene expression (active versus inactive genes) that does not involve changes to the underlying DNA sequence; a change in phenotype without a change in genotype. Epigenetic change is a regular and natural occurrence but can also be influenced by several factors including age, the environment/lifestyle, and disease state.
Epigenetics: Fundamentals | What is Epigenetics?

what exactly does this mean for evolution?

 

[Subduction Zone]

It complicates matters but in no way harms the theory. It tells us that some acquired traits can be passed on to descendants on at least a temporary basis. In other words Lamarck was not totally wrong.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

 

[whois]

It complicates matters but in no way harms the theory. It tells us that some acquired traits can be passed on to descendants on at least a temporary basis.

noble, in one of the sources i provided said some of these inheritences are robust, IOW not temporary.

 

[Subduction Zone]

noble, in one of the sources i provided said some of these inheritences are robust, IOW not temporary.

Robust does not mean permanent. They can last for generations, that would be "robust". If they were permanent they would say permanent.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here is a video that I saw on epigenetics just a couple of days ago:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DAcJSAM_BA

Also epigentic changes can be "robust" because they may last a lifetime. That is why how one was raised may make someone an alcoholic or an abuser of other drugs.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I do thank whois for bringing up a very interesting topic. Right now we have only scratched the surface of epigenetics. It also has serious possible medical and even behavioral corrections for people. This give s hope for a cure to some that can't seem to avoid drugs. If the person has an epigenetic attraction for drug abuse and that can be reversed it would make huge changes in the "war on drugs". Instead of attacking the source we may be able to cure people of uncontrollable desires.

 

[whois]

Robust does not mean permanent. They can last for generations, that would be "robust". If they were permanent they would say permanent.

why are they inherited at all if they aren't genetic?
furthermore, why would they persist?

noble says darwinism doesn't need a touching up here and there, he says it needs a full blown make over.
epigenetics was one of the reasons he cited.

 

[whois]

the placebo effect is probably connected to this somehow.

 

[Subduction Zone]

why are they inherited at all if they aren't genetic?
furthermore, why would they persist?

noble says darwinism doesn't need a touching up here and there, he says it needs a full blown make over.
epigenetics was one of the reasons he cited.

They are genetic. But they are only genetic in the sense that epigenetics is usually the shutting down of expression of certain genes. Here is what is important to remember. The genome does not change in epigenetics. Only whether a gene is expressed or not. This shutting down of genes is what can be passed on for generations.

 

[Subduction Zone]

the placebo effect is probably connected to this somehow.

Why do you believe this?

 

[Willtor]

The fundamental dogma of biology is:

---

DNA

gets transcribed into

RNA

gets translated into

Proteins

---

With this, one might be tempted to think it's a simple matter of identifying genes in the DNA, and the rest falls into place. Not so! The transcription process is incredibly complex, and not everything that gets transcribed is even a gene. Some of the RNA that is generated actually serves other purposes -- including regulation of transcription! Further, your DNA wraps around little balls called histones that will make certain regions easier or more difficult to transcribe. Beyond that, even the layout of your DNA inside the cell nucleus can regulate transcription.

This leads to a complex web of gene expression.

And you can't see _any_ of it by simply sequencing your DNA. Some of these things are influenced by the environment, and some of them are even heritable.

---

What does epigenetics mean for evolution?

It explains some things that are hard to explain otherwise, like why cells are different, even if they have the same DNA. It also explains why certain heritable traits are hard to quantify when looking at your DNA "code."

Bigger picture, it means inheritance is more complex than traditional genetics. Evolutionists typically look for changes in DNA to explain differences between organisms, but that won't do. AFAIK, epigenetics is mostly used to talk about distinctions between organisms within a species, but there may come a time when it is cited as the cause for suppression of a gene in a whole species. For example, it is used to explain how viruses (that reverse-transcribe themselves into your DNA) get suppressed.

So it may be that some amount of evolution happens "during" a generation, and doesn't all happen between generations, as has traditionally been thought.

 

[whois]

Why do you believe this?

epigenetics apparently says if you are "sickly" so will your children.
the placebo effect is connected with "sickness" in that you can "believe yourself well".
can this also be inherited?
can such concepts as the will, and love, and others be actually inherited?

 

[Subduction Zone]

epigenetics apparently says if you are "sickly" so will your children.
the placebo effect is connected with "sickness" in that you can "believe yourself well".
can this also be inherited?
can such concepts as the will, and love, and others be actually inherited?

Actually it says that if you are "sickly" that trait may be passed on to your children. The placebo effect seems to be all mental and not genetic at all. Once again it is the shutting down of certain genes that is passed on. The placebo effect has nothing to do with genetics as far as I can see.

 

[whois]

okay, this is more than "dormant and/or recessive genes".
it has to be, or it would have been included in mendelian law and incorporated with darwin.

 

[whois]

another valid question is:
if epigenetics is a valid concept (which it appears to be) then why are researchers finding it difficult to get published in western journals?

edit:
another thing is, epigenetics says your environment can affect your children, and your childrens children.
what does this mean for intelligence?
does this mean if we surround ourselves with "intelligence", our children will be more intelligent?

plus, lamark has been mentioned in association with this.
lamark lived almost 200 years ago.
i also find it hard to believe that mendel wouldn't have known about epigenetics, or at least its effects.
i'm not sure about lamark, but mendel was certainly mainstream science.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

 

[whois]

It complicates matters but in no way harms the theory.

Scientific articles and papers in the last few years have claimed evidence for the inheritance of acquired characteristics. This evidence is certainly incompatible with the neo-Darwinism synthesis which denied acquired characteristics could be inherited. This is interesting because before the neo-Darwinian synthesis Charles Darwin and many Darwinists such as Herbert Spencer and Ernst Haeckel were also Lamarckists
-quoted from a paper on my HDD
(doesn't paste properly, but here it is if you want it):
file:///F:/evolution/What%20is%20the%20scientific%20position%20on%20the%20inheritance%20of%20acquired%20characteristics%20%28Lamarckism%29.htm

 

[whois]

A second commentator, Torbjörn Larsson, argued that horizontal DNA transfer posed no challenge to the neo-Darwinian theory: "In other words the generic gradualism of Darwin mentioned in the article isn't rejected by the observed degree of horizontal gene transfer."
But Torbjörn's claim does not make sense scientifically. Horizontal transfer is not the gradual Darwinian accumulation of changes. Horizontal transfer episodes rapidly incorporate complex evolved DNA structures into new genomes by coordinated molecular events.
There is no way we can reasonably apply the term "random mutation" to a DNA transfer process that utilizes dedicated surface structures for bringing two cells together, assembles a multi-protein DNA transport pore connecting the cells, and initiates DNA transfer replication at a specific site on plasmid DNA.
The well-established molecular details of horizontal transfer in the evolution of bacterial antibiotic resistance are difficult to reconcile with neo-Darwinism.


-file:///F:/evolution/Inconvenient%20Truths%20%20Why%20Are%20Self-Styled%20Defenders%20of%20Evolution%20so%20Resistant%20to%20Lessons%20From%20Molecular%20Genetics%20%C2%A0_%C2%A0James%20A.%20Shapiro.htm

 

[whois]

the edit function isn't working.
the above post is essentially confirming that the gaps in the fossil record are real.
they aren't the result of an incomplete record.