epigenetics, what is it?

[Loudmouth]

i don't worry about creationism, and i'm not a creationist, but yet i'm accused of it and referred to it constantly on this board.
it's a safe bet that anyone that question aspects of evolution is referred to as a creationist, no matter who they are.

I don't call Koonin a creationist.

We call you a creationist because you use creationist sources, and you get your quote mines from creationist sources.

when respected people such as koonin says what's in my signature then it's a safe bet that these lists are legit.

Which of these lists is Koonin on? Any of them?

How do you explain the fact that 99+% of well educated and credentialled biologists accept the theory of evolution?

You are the one who keeps going on and on about what scientists do and don't accept, so don't blame me for asking this question again. If you think that scientists challenging the theory is evidence against it, why shouldn't a vast majority of biologists accepting the theory be evidence for it?

yes it is, and one that has not been empirically proven.
science has been unable to prove any aspect of it in the lab.
only on paper does it fly.
yes, mutations and all have been demonstrated.
this, in itself, does not prove this stuff.

What parts haven't been empirically supported?

in my opinion "evolution" is NOT well defined.

If you don't know what evolution is, then how can you say that it hasn't been empirically proven? You need a well defined theory in order to determine if evidence has proven or disproven it.

correct, but HGT throws into question what we thought we knew about common descent.

Not for euakaryotes, it doesn't. It does produce a new picture of how we define common ancestors for bacteria, but vertical inheritance is by far the dominant form of inheritance in complex eukaryotes. That you can't understand this says a lot. You simply don't want evolution to be true, so you throw mud at it hoping it will stick. This is why you are labelled a creationist. When someone starts using science they don't understand to attack a theory they don't understand, 99 times out of 100 they are a creationist.

another thing, HGT had to have been known for YEARS.

We have known for years that HGT is very rare in complex eukaryotes like humans and earthworms. We have known for years that VGT is the dominant form of inheritance in eukaryotes which is why we are able to produce tree-like evolutionary histories for eukaryotes.

"The comparative infrequency of HGT in the eukaryote part of the biological world means, however, that in this case the conceptual implications for the TOL might not be as drastic: the evolutionary histories of many eukaryotes appear to produce tree-like patterns (e.g., [27]). "--Maureen A O'Malley and Eugene V Koonin, "How stands the Tree of Life a century and a half after The Origin?"

 

[Loudmouth]

fascinating indeed.
research into genetic mutations can be done solely for the purpose of modern biology, GM crops for example.
this has squat all to do with evolution but it can be used to explain some evolutionary processes.

If the observed mechanisms of mutation can be used to explain evolutionary processes, then mutations do have something to do with the theory of evolution.

Besides, Koonin sees very little room for eukaryotic epigenetic mechanisms in long term evolutionary pathways.

"Still, the limitation remains that, at least at face value, this highly efficient Lamarckian adaptation strategy does not lead to long-term evolutionary change."--Eugene Koonin
Calorie Restriction à Lamarck

 

[Willtor]

i don't worry about creationism, and i'm not a creationist, but yet i'm accused of it and referred to it constantly on this board.
it's a safe bet that anyone that question aspects of evolution is referred to as a creationist, no matter who they are.
if they can't pin "creationist" on them, then they are accused of being incompetent.
this sort of thing is absurd willtor

I'm sorry for that, but when you and I are talking it's premature to bring it into the conversation. I haven't accused you of this.

i'm not "competent" either , but i know what a rat smells like.
when respected people such as koonin says what's in my signature then it's a safe bet that these lists are legit.

I don't think Koonin disagrees with common descent. From what you've cited, it sounds like he thinks "epigenetics plays a significant role but is being ignored in evolution" by biologists. Right or wrong, he's one person. If there's a rat, in all likelihood it's him... unless there's a document with 1000 biologists' signatures attesting to this.

yes it is, and one that has not been empirically proven.
science has been unable to prove any aspect of it in the lab.
only on paper does it fly.
yes, mutations and all have been demonstrated.
this, in itself, does not prove this stuff.
i will agree, yes, evolution makes all the logical sense in the world, almost to the point of certainty, but still, there is no empirical proof of it.
even you must admit that.

It's demonstrated. Genetics makes it clear and unambiguous. It has empirical proof with as high probability of correctness as anything in science. This is something which I, myself, have worked with. I can't unsee what I've seen.

in my opinion "evolution" is NOT well defined.
research into genetic mutations is not research on evolution, it could explain how evolution happens though.
karl popper basically had it right before he allegedly retracted.

Research into genetics frequently _is_ research on evolution. It's frequently how we solidify regions of the phylogenic tree.

correct, but HGT throws into question what we thought we knew about common descent.
another thing, HGT had to have been known for YEARS.
somebody just didn't discover this yesterday then all of a sudden it's perfectly laid out in the tree i posted.
the same goes for epigenetics.

It doesn't throw into question what we knew about common descent. It throws into question popular notions of what constitutes a "species" but it doesn't throw anything off in evolution. Scientists are not surprised by HGT. It was a topic we covered in my comp-bio class. Epigenetics was the professor's bread-and-butter. We even had lectures by a couple of his post-docs on their work.

so would i, but i bet it does.
i guess the major reason i say that is because whenever someone questions evolution they are labeled as a creationist, and invariably so

I see. So, I've read the Bible from cover to cover a couple of times. As far as I can tell, there's no mention (implicit or explicit) of evolution with or without epigenetics; Not even thinly-veiled references or anything that might be construed as dealing with modern biology.

 

[whois]

I'm sorry for that, but when you and I are talking it's premature to bring it into the conversation. I haven't accused you of this.

don't worry about it willtor, i consider you a good man.

I don't think Koonin disagrees with common descent. From what you've cited, it sounds like he thinks "epigenetics plays a significant role but is being ignored in evolution" by biologists.

the quote in my sig was sourced from here:
The Real Evolution Debate: Is It All Just Natural Selection? - Forbes

Right or wrong, he's one person. If there's a rat, in all likelihood it's him... unless there's a document with 1000 biologists' signatures attesting to this.

i'm not in a position to judge one way or another.
i seriously doubt koonin would make such a bonehead statement without serious evidence to back it up.

It's demonstrated. Genetics makes it clear and unambiguous. It has empirical proof with as high probability of correctness as anything in science. This is something which I, myself, have worked with. I can't unsee what I've seen.

given the fact that DNA is common to ALL lifeforms, it's a safe bet you can find all sorts of statistical correlations between them.
in my opinion, transposons and HGT makes any such analysis . . . well, you can make almost anything from it.
all you are doing in the lab is figuring out this process, you aren't proving dogs came from bacteria (or where ever they came from).
when i asked what were canines before they were canines, i got one, and only one, answer:
proto-canines (i never laughed so hard in my life)
yes, a good, solid, we have the fossils answer.

Research into genetics frequently _is_ research on evolution. It's frequently how we solidify regions of the phylogenic tree.

i understand that.
OTOH, GM research is not research on evolution.

It doesn't throw into question what we knew about common descent. It throws into question popular notions of what constitutes a "species" but it doesn't throw anything off in evolution. Scientists are not surprised by HGT. It was a topic we covered in my comp-bio class.

i never heard of HGT until a month or so ago.

Epigenetics was the professor's bread-and-butter. We even had lectures by a couple of his post-docs on their work.

this is another term i've never heard of until recently.

I see. So, I've read the Bible from cover to cover a couple of times.

well, you did a lot better than me.
i couldn't get past the first chapter without muttering something like (insert nonsense here).

As far as I can tell, there's no mention (implicit or explicit) of evolution with or without epigenetics; Not even thinly-veiled references or anything that might be construed as dealing with modern biology.

like i said, i wouldn't know.

 

[crjmurray]

don't worry about it willtor, i consider you a good man.
the quote in my sig was sourced from here:
The Real Evolution Debate: Is It All Just Natural Selection? - Forbes
i'm not in a position to judge one way or another.
i seriously doubt koonin would make such a bonehead statement without serious evidence to back it up.
given the fact that DNA is common to ALL lifeforms, it's a safe bet you can find all sorts of statistical correlations between them.
in my opinion, transposons and HGT makes any such analysis . . . well, you can make almost anything from it.
all you are doing in the lab is figuring out this process, you aren't proving dogs came from bacteria (or where ever they came from).
when i asked what were canines before they were canines, i got one, and only one, answer:
proto-canines (i never laughed so hard in my life)
yes, a good, solid, we have the fossils answer.
i understand that.
OTOH, GM research is not research on evolution.
i never heard of HGT until a month or so ago.
this is another term i've never heard of until recently.
well, you did a lot better than me.
i couldn't get past the first chapter without muttering something like (insert nonsense here).
like i said, i wouldn't know.

So you don't understand how science works, you continue to quotemine people, you think scientific subjects that you just read about a month ago will overturn an entire field, you misrepresent people who have actually done work in this field and your comments are supposed to be taken seriously? I'm just catching up here.

 

[Willtor]

don't worry about it willtor, i consider you a good man.
the quote in my sig was sourced from here:
The Real Evolution Debate: Is It All Just Natural Selection? - Forbes
i'm not in a position to judge one way or another.
i seriously doubt koonin would make such a bonehead statement without serious evidence to back it up.

This is an embarrassingly bad article. This Koonin guy definitely made a bonehead statement without serious evidence to back it up. Nevertheless, he still didn't argue against common descent in any part of it.

given the fact that DNA is common to ALL lifeforms, it's a safe bet you can find all sorts of statistical correlations between them.
in my opinion, transposons and HGT makes any such analysis . . . well, you can make almost anything from it.

Part of the analysis is computing the probability of the hypothesis. You definitely can't make it say whatever you want -- common descent is pretty clear.

all you are doing in the lab is figuring out this process, you aren't proving dogs came from bacteria (or where ever they came from).
when i asked what were canines before they were canines, i got one, and only one, answer:
proto-canines (i never laughed so hard in my life)
yes, a good, solid, we have the fossils answer.

Were you looking for a picture of the phylogenetic tree? The direct answer to your question was, indeed, proto-canines. If you were looking for a clade diagram that included canines, that's different.

i understand that.
OTOH, GM research is not research on evolution.

GM, AFAIK, is "Genetically Modified." I don't think anybody uses GM to refer to genetic mutations. But if you're arguing that mutations are not a part of evolution, they are. There are people who research mutations for reasons other than explicitly studying evolution, but the papers they publish probably still tend to mention the evolutionary context.

i never heard of HGT until a month or so ago.
this is another term i've never heard of until recently.

This is all old stuff. Epigenetics has become hot in the last decade or so (because of recent breakthroughs in sequencing technology), but this isn't new to biologists. Same with HGT, except I don't think it's especially in the spotlight.

well, you did a lot better than me.
i couldn't get past the first chapter without muttering something like (insert nonsense here).
like i said, i wouldn't know.

So, I have gut feelings about things, too. Sometimes our feelings are spot on, sometimes they're way off. If you have access to data, make use of it to confirm or refute. The Bible is free. Take a look. Lectures on Intro to Biology and Intro to Genetics are online, free. Take a look.

 

[whois]

This is an embarrassingly bad article. This Koonin guy definitely made a bonehead statement without serious evidence to back it up.

koonin isn't the only person mentioned in this article, and none of them are creationists.
he also has some pretty impressive credentials.
why would this man risk the ire (hate) of his peers, maybe even his career to make such a comment? his credentials suggests he does indeed have the evidence and the insights to make such a comment.
as do others mentioned in the article.

Nevertheless, he still didn't argue against common descent in any part of it.

what i get from the article is that koonin is arguing against a linear type of TOL, i may be wrong though.

Part of the analysis is computing the probability of the hypothesis. You definitely can't make it say whatever you want -- common descent is pretty clear.

the fact still remains that a large part of this is statistical.
who was it that said: there are 3 types of lies, little white lies, really big lies, and statistics.
combine that with the fact that science sometimes use invalid tests, and that some scientists are willing to cook data and you wind up with . . . what exactly?
the fact that scientists "rig" data doesn't say much about their faith in the peer review process.

Were you looking for a picture of the phylogenetic tree? The direct answer to your question was, indeed, proto-canines. If you were looking for a clade diagram that included canines, that's different.

this is absurd willtor.
science has laid out the TOL, they "know" what lifeforms came from where.
they can't say what canines were before they were canines?
proto canines is a phrase for "we don't know"
concerning the size of mutations, the pace of morphological change and the apparent discontinuous origins of taxa in the fossil record, are far from resolved. Indeed, they are being debated more strongly than ever, because of the growing conviction amongst many biologists that observations from developmental biology and palaeontology are inconsistent with the Neodarwinian hypothesis championed by Simpson. The origin of the animal phyla has been a key case study in the tempo and mode of evolution.

GM, AFAIK, is "Genetically Modified." I don't think anybody uses GM to refer to genetic mutations.

yes, GMO, genetically modified organism.
research into mutations that has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution

But if you're arguing that mutations are not a part of evolution, they are.

i'm not saying that all.
i'm pointing out the fact that this research IS NOT related to evolution but can be applied to it.

There are people who research mutations for reasons other than explicitly studying evolution, but the papers they publish probably still tend to mention the evolutionary context.

GMO research probably doesn't mention evolution, but the above is exactly my point, and i was laughed at and ridiculed for making it.

 

[Willtor]

koonin isn't the only person mentioned in this article, and none of them are creationists.
he also has some pretty impressive credentials.
why would this man risk the ire (hate) of his peers, maybe even his career to make such a comment? his credentials suggests he does indeed have the evidence and the insights to make such a comment.
as do others mentioned in the article.
what i get from the article is that koonin is arguing against a linear type of TOL, i may be wrong though.

Have you watched the series, Ancient Aliens, on the History channel? There are a number of episodes where they take reputable people and insert comments by them to make it seem like they support what the makers of the series support. In fact, they don't support those things. Koonin is doing this, here, with other people. It's dishonest, and I now see why other people in the thread are so angry with him.

the fact still remains that a large part of this is statistical.
who was it that said: there are 3 types of lies, little white lies, really big lies, and statistics.

They say this because it's easy to mislead uneducated people using statistics -- not because statistics are inherently misleading. People who understand statistics don't say this except insofar as it relates to politicians and news outlets.

Most of science is done with probabilities. The people in the field and educated lay-people know the difference between honest use of statistics and dishonest.

combine that with the fact that science sometimes use invalid tests, and that some scientists are willing to cook data and you wind up with . . . what exactly?
the fact that scientists "rig" data doesn't say much about their faith in the peer review process.

What are the invalid tests and rigged data? These things get caught by peer review. That's what it's for.

this is absurd willtor.
science has laid out the TOL, they "know" what lifeforms came from where.
they can't say what canines were before they were canines?
proto canines is a phrase for "we don't know"
concerning the size of mutations, the pace of morphological change and the apparent discontinuous origins of taxa in the fossil record, are far from resolved. Indeed, they are being debated more strongly than ever, because of the growing conviction amongst many biologists that observations from developmental biology and palaeontology are inconsistent with the Neodarwinian hypothesis championed by Simpson. The origin of the animal phyla has been a key case study in the tempo and mode of evolution.

It isn't short for "we don't know." You can read about the evolution and some of the fossil evidence.

Again, I don't know anything about neodarwinism. I can only speak to the theory of evolution.

yes, GMO, genetically modified organism.
research into mutations that has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution
i'm not saying that all.
i'm pointing out the fact that this research IS NOT related to evolution but can be applied to it.

Okay. So it's applied to evolution. Is there a problem with the study of genetic mutations?

GMO research probably doesn't mention evolution, but the above is exactly my point, and i was laughed at and ridiculed for making it.

Evolution is really useful in biology. It explains a lot, and it tends to get mentioned everywhere. I'm not ridiculing you.

 

[SkyWriting]

I wasn't present at your biology sermons, so I can't speak to that. At any rate, the theory of evolution will... evolve... as the evidence leads. If it turns out that epigenetics plays a factor, then it will be incorporated. If not, then it won't.

Too late. You used the word "epigenetics" which is a word
that describes factors that have been already been identified.

 

[SkyWriting]

Have you watched the series, Ancient Aliens, on the History channel?

Many people do believe such shows.
But many believe aliens walk among us too.

 

[Willtor]

Too late. You used the word "epigenetics" which is a word
that describes factors that have been already been identified.

In evolution? Citation needed.

 

[Willtor]

Many people do believe such shows.
But many believe aliens walk among us too.

Not the point.

 

[whois]

Have you watched the series, Ancient Aliens, on the History channel? There are a number of episodes where they take reputable people and insert comments by them to make it seem like they support what the makers of the series support. In fact, they don't support those things. Koonin is doing this, here, with other people. It's dishonest, and I now see why other people in the thread are so angry with him.

i respect your comment, but i don't agree with it.
koonin is not taking 2 or 3 comments and inserting them anywhere.

They say this because it's easy to mislead uneducated people using statistics -- not because statistics are inherently misleading. People who understand statistics don't say this except insofar as it relates to politicians and news outlets.

statistics is indeed inherently misleading.
it is all too easy to have 3 independent and unrelated processes to show a causal relation between all 3.
if these processes aren't well understood, as in the mechanisms of evolution, then false conclusions can easily be drawn from them.

Most of science is done with probabilities. The people in the field and educated lay-people know the difference between honest use of statistics and dishonest.

only if you have an understanding of the underlying processes involved and have access to the raw data.
even access to the raw data may not be enough if the process being plotted isn't well understood.

What are the invalid tests and rigged data? These things get caught by peer review. That's what it's for.

yes, sometimes 40 or 50 years later.
piltdown is the first to come to mind.

It isn't short for "we don't know." You can read about the evolution and some of the fossil evidence.

"proto canine" is not a scientific name.

Again, I don't know anything about neodarwinism. I can only speak to the theory of evolution.

neodarwinism AKA the modern synthesis.

Okay. So it's applied to evolution. Is there a problem with the study of genetic mutations?

in my opinion, transposons can give correlation between 2 independent DNA structures

Evolution is really useful in biology. It explains a lot, and it tends to get mentioned everywhere. I'm not ridiculing you.

in my opinion, evolution should be relegated entirely to the TOL.
the study of mutations should be its own discipline.
abiogenesis should be a third field of study.
it's easy to see how they are related, but they should be treated separately.

 

[Willtor]

i respect your comment, but i don't agree with it.
koonin is not taking 2 or 3 comments and inserting them anywhere.

Are you saying that you think that the people he quotes approve of the way he uses their quotes? I don't think they meant what he's taken them to mean.

statistics is indeed inherently misleading.
it is all too easy to have 3 independent and unrelated processes to show a causal relation between all 3.
if these processes aren't well understood, as in the mechanisms of evolution, then false conclusions can easily be drawn from them.

only if you have an understanding of the underlying processes involved and have access to the raw data.
even access to the raw data may not be enough if the process being plotted isn't well understood.

Statistics aren't inherently misleading at all. This throws out the bulk of science and math.

yes, sometimes 40 or 50 years later.
piltdown is the first to come to mind.

Piltdown man began to be viewed as a likely hoax not long after its alleged discovery. It wasn't confirmed as a hoax for a long time, but in the mean time it wasn't impeding scientific progress.

"proto canine" is not a scientific name.

It's descriptive, though. It's something after the split between dogs and cats, but before any modern dogs. Is the name really the problem?

neodarwinism AKA the modern synthesis.

Yeah, I don't know anything about that. I mostly stick to evolution.

in my opinion, transposons can give correlation between 2 independent DNA structures

How would they do that?

in my opinion, evolution should be relegated entirely to the TOL.
the study of mutations should be its own discipline.
abiogenesis should be a third field of study.
it's easy to see how they are related, but they should be treated separately.

Is TOL = Tree of Life?

Abiogenesis is already its own field.

Mutations are a critical mechanism in the theory of evolution. I don't see why evolutionists shouldn't study mutations.

 

[whois]

Are you saying that you think that the people he quotes approve of the way he uses their quotes? I don't think they meant what he's taken them to mean.

koonin doesn't quote anyone.
the editorial itself presents several different views, and koonins view is one of them.

Statistics aren't inherently misleading at all. This throws out the bulk of science and math.

well, we must agree to disagree then because statistics can, and does, lead to false conclusions.
what makes it worse is that statistics "proves" it with valid math.
this does not mean statistics as a discipline is invalid, it simply means the results can be misinterpreted and easily misused.

Piltdown man began to be viewed as a likely hoax not long after its alleged discovery. It wasn't confirmed as a hoax for a long time, but in the mean time it wasn't impeding scientific progress.

the fact still remains that the peer review process isn't "all that".
OTOH, this process does need a certain amount of lag time, a process isn't discovered today and immediately accepted tomorrow.

It's descriptive, though. It's something after the split between dogs and cats, but before any modern dogs. Is the name really the problem?

yes, the scientific name is important.
this would prove beyond any doubt that science has the fossils.
the word proto can be inserted in front of ANYTHING to signify a predecessor.

How would they do that?

it depends on whether the DNA is rewritten by transposons instead of being transcribed.
HGT could play a role in this too.

Is TOL = Tree of Life?

yes.

Mutations are a critical mechanism in the theory of evolution. I don't see why evolutionists shouldn't study mutations.

evolution is something that has already happened, as in the TOL.
mutations deserve its own discipline.
in other words molecular biology should be about how DNA does its thing, not about whether a bird came from a reptile.
it should not be at all concerned about such things.

 

[PsychoSarah]

there has to be a reason for such things as "1000 scientists" type of lists.
some of these signors have respectable credentials.
regards of what you say, these respected people are signing this for a reason.
i honestly feel that reason is because the evidence is simply not there.
honestly willtor, what else can explain these types of lists?
the only other answer is because they know how shady the discipline of evolution is, and how little evidence we actually have.

Some of them? Ma'am, I have seen it where those lists consist of not a single scientist in the field they are relating to, and the boundaries of scientist stretched to include people such as park rangers. Those lists are nonsense when you actually investigate them.

 

[crjmurray]

Some of them? Ma'am, I have seen it where those lists consist of not a single scientist in the field they are relating to, and the boundaries of scientist stretched to include people such as park rangers. Those lists are nonsense when you actually investigate them.

Or, now bear with me here, we can accept whois' alternative scenario. That these lists have been signed by a small number of individuals who are exposing a vast overarching conspiracy that stretches back almost two centuries. A conspiracy that has committed fraud and regularly lies to the public. A conspiracy that is apparently so intricate that anyone who tries to independently verify the results of evolutionary studies is immediately swept up into the conspiracy since their results match all the other scientists. A conspiracy with who knows how many people involved. And it's all for.... What? What the freakin crap would be the goal of such a ridiculous, fantastic, and moronic conspiracy theory?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Or, now bear with me here, we can accept whois' alternative scenario. That these lists have been signed by a small number of individuals who are exposing a vast overarching conspiracy that stretches back almost two centuries. A conspiracy that has committed fraud and regularly lies to the public. A conspiracy that is apparently so intricate that anyone who tries to independently verify the results of evolutionary studies is immediately swept up into the conspiracy since their results match all the other scientists. A conspiracy with who knows how many people involved. And it's all for.... What? What the freakin crap would be the goal of such a ridiculous, fantastic, and moronic conspiracy theory?

 

[crjmurray]

That's probably a pretty accurate depiction of what some creationists think scientists are like.

 

[whois]

Some of them? Ma'am, I have seen it where those lists consist of not a single scientist in the field they are relating to, and the boundaries of scientist stretched to include people such as park rangers. Those lists are nonsense when you actually investigate them.

i'm sure you have seen such lists.
this is the disinformation i have mentioned before.
the sole purpose of which is to cast doubt on such lists.