epigenetics, what is it?

[PsychoSarah]

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.

And you know what I can do? I can look up the names on the list myself, and see what the occupations of those people are, even on their own personal blogs and projects. Guess what? I find exactly what the people exposing those lists as nonsense do: these people are not qualified as experts in the field in question.

And you know, if you consider it misinformation, show evidence to back up the accusation, actually search the names yourself. Google is your best friend.

 

[whois]

And you know what I can do? I can look up the names on the list myself, and see what the occupations of those people are, even on their own personal blogs and projects. Guess what? I find exactly what the people exposing those lists as nonsense do: these people are not qualified as experts in the field in question.

what would you consider as an "expert" when it comes to evolution?

 

[PsychoSarah]

what would you consider as an "expert" when it comes to evolution?

Biology fields, with an emphasis on genetics, paleontology, and/or evolution directly. An evolutionary biologist would be one of the best expert occupations, along with other qualifications.

However, it is also very important that these experts be active in their field, or very recently retired. Sorry, but Mr. John Doe's opinion is not relevant if his last contribution to the subject in question was in 1955.

The lists have to be relatively recent too.

 

[Willtor]

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

Oh, I see, now. It wasn't written by Koonin. I didn't see the author's name. Yeah, then it's the author who's being dishonest. PZ Myers and Larry Moran don't think that epigenetics is a signficant factor in evolution.

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.

This is a different statement from "statistics are inherently misleading." The scientists who work in their fields know what the statistics mean. They aren't being misled by them.

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.

Wait... this is a success story for peer review! How is it not "all that"?

Sure, there is sometimes a lag time. Less so than there was 100 years ago because of better communication methods. I'm not sure I see where this fits in, though.

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 many do you want? A quick Google search brought up an evolutionary history of dogs including a few specifics.

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

It isn't hard to identify genes that have moved. All of that stuff gets measured.

yes.

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.

It helps to explain how the bird came from the reptile. If evolutionists ignored it, they would have a gaping hole in their theory.

 

[Willtor]

Biology fields, with an emphasis on genetics, paleontology, and/or evolution directly. An evolutionary biologist would be one of the best expert occupations, along with other qualifications.

However, it is also very important that these experts be active in their field, or very recently retired. Sorry, but Mr. John Doe's opinion is not relevant if his last contribution to the subject in question was in 1955.

The lists have to be relatively recent too.

I want to add to this: It's important that the statement to which people sign their names is not something ambiguous like, "We think people should question the theory of evolution." Basically any scientist would put his or her name to that regarding his or her own field. It should be clear, like, "The theory of evolution has significant weaknesses," or, "Evidence has arisen that undermines some core principle within the theory of evolution."

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

Those lists cast doubt on the sincerity of the people who use them. When we point out that more than 99% of biologists accept evolution, you don't seem to care. And yet, you find less than 1% of scientists who say they have a problem with the theory, and you claim this is evidence that the theory is wrong.

 

[Loudmouth]

what would you consider as an "expert" when it comes to evolution?

Experts in scientific fields are usually judged by their publications, with primary publications taking precedent. If you want to find those experts, go to Pubmed and do a search for a specific field in evolution, such as "human evolution". Look for authors that have multiple papers. Google Scholar is another solid search engine.

Just to make things clear, Koonin's papers on epigenetics are not primary papers. They are review papers. Primary papers contain original research that has never been published before, and they are written by the scientists who did the work. Primary papers should be the first place you go for references, not Forbes.

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

Statistics were used in all of the epigenetics studies that you referenced. It seems that you only reject statistics when they lead to a conclusion you don't like.

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.

Can you name a better way of publishing papers? To borrow from Churchill, "Peer review is the worst way to publish papers, except for all the others."

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.

Genetics proves beyond any reasonable doubt that cats and dogs share a common ancestor.

it depends on whether the DNA is rewritten by transposons instead of being transcribed.

I don't think you understand how transposons move around in the a genome, or what RNA transcription is.

HGT could play a role in this too.

HGT is so rare in eukaryotes that it can be ignored for the most part.

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.

Evolutionary biology should be about how life evolved, and that certainly requires an understanding of how DNA mutates.

 

[crjmurray]

Experts in scientific fields are usually judged by their publications, with primary publications taking precedent. If you want to find those experts, go to Pubmed and do a search for a specific field in evolution, such as "human evolution". Look for authors that have multiple papers. Google Scholar is another solid search engine.

Just to make things clear, Koonin's papers on epigenetics are not primary papers. They are review papers. Primary papers contain original research that has never been published before, and they are written by the scientists who did the work. Primary papers should be the first place you go for references, not Forbes.

But....but Forbes agrees with her. What do you expect people to do? Actually work to find real scientific research that might disagree with their preconceived notions?!?! Preposterous I say!!!!!

 

[Blue Wren]

you mean . . . it isn't?
it's old hat?
it's been known for a long time?

hmmm . . .
i wonder, what could have kept it out of the news for so long.

Is it not taught, to high school students, in the US? It wouldn't have been, when you were young, no. Modern students, they learn, about this, yes? The Överkalixstudien is quite old.

If you real science journals, there's been quite a lot, written about it, I think.

 

[Blue Wren]

But....but Forbes agrees with her. What do you expect people to do? Actually work to find real scientific research that might disagree with their preconceived notions?!?! Preposterous I say!!!!!

LOL. Must you even have credentials, in science, to write an article for Forbes?

 

[Willtor]

Is it not taught, to high school students, in the US? It wouldn't have been, when you were young, no. Modern students, they learn, about this, yes? The Överkalixstudien is quite old.

If you real science journals, there's been quite a lot, written about it, I think.

Blue Wren: something you might not realize is that all textbooks in the U.S. have to be approved by the Texas State School Board. Publishers bring their textbooks to them, and the board recommends changes. If the publishers don't appease them, sufficiently, the board will reject the textbook and continue to use the old one.

Unfortunately, there is a heavy anti-evolution/science bias within the board. So a lot of things that are well known in the rest of the world don't appear in American textbooks. It should not be surprising that whois has never heard of these things before because we don't get them, here, until college-level biology.

I'm afraid this gives a bad impression of the U.S. We're actually very nice people. Just... there's a bit of an anti-intellectual strain in parts of the culture.

 

[Blue Wren]

Blue Wren: something you might not realize is that all textbooks in the U.S. have to be approved by the Texas State School Board. Publishers bring their textbooks to them, and the board recommends changes. If the publishers don't appease them, sufficiently, the board will reject the textbook and continue to use the old one.

Unfortunately, there is a heavy anti-evolution/science bias within the board. So a lot of things that are well known in the rest of the world don't appear in American textbooks. It should not be surprising that whois has never heard of these things before because we don't get them, here, until college-level biology.

I'm afraid this gives a bad impression of the U.S. We're actually very nice people. Just... there's a bit of an anti-intellectual strain in parts of the culture.

I do think, you make some good points, yes. I remember, a thread, about a documentary about the Texas school board, choosing textbooks. I do not remember, the name of the documentary, to search for that thread. There were some good posts on it. I will try to remember, and post the link, for you.

Not every science class, in the US public schools, are the same, surely? Even, if the same textbooks, are commonly used, there must still be some variation? I had asked a thread, in the Physical Science area, about science education, in schools. There were differences, between what was taught, in different places. Some, went to independent schools, so I think that made a difference.

I know there are many Americans, who are very nice people, yes! I've been living, in the US, since last summer. I've had, such a great time. I am sad, as I leave, in a week. You do not know, how much, I wish I could stay longer. The US is so nice. I'm here, on a science research scholar programme, so many of the Americans I've worked with, they have advanced science degrees. I don't know, as much, about what is taught, in public schools. I didn't have, so many posts, to that thread. I have never, met anybody, who believes in creationism, in my time in the US. I've asked, so many. They have been surprised, that I asked, as it's foreign, to them, also. I've only lived in urban cities, with universities. I haven't been, to rural country areas. In the south, I have only been to Atlanta, for a conference.

 

[Willtor]

I do think, you make some good points, yes. I remember, a thread, about a documentary about the Texas school board, choosing textbooks. I do not remember, the name of the documentary, to search for that thread. There were some good posts on it. I will try to remember, and post the link, for you.

Not every science class, in the US public schools, are the same, surely? Even, if the same textbooks, are commonly used, there must still be some variation? I had asked a thread, in the Physical Science area, about science education, in schools. There were differences, between what was taught, in different places. Some, went to independent schools, so I think that made a difference.

I know there are many Americans, who are very nice people, yes! I've been living, in the US, since last summer. I've had, such a great time. I am sad, as I leave, in a week. You do not know, how much, I wish I could stay longer. The US is so nice. I'm here, on a science research scholar programme, so many of the Americans I've worked with, they have advanced science degrees. I don't know, as much, about what is taught, in public schools. I didn't have, so many posts, to that thread. I have never, met anybody, who believes in creationism, in my time in the US. I've asked, so many. They have been surprised, that I asked, as it's foreign, to them, also. I've only lived in urban cities, with universities. I haven't been, to rural country areas. In the south, I have only been to Atlanta, for a conference.

There is certainly variation in the quality of the education. But if the textbook simply never mentions, e.g., epigenetics, in all likelihood it will not be taught in any classroom.

I was raised in Massachusetts, so I tend to think my science education was pretty good by U.S. standards. But there was a lot missing (I now realize), so a lot of gaps had to be filled. I, myself, was a creationist at one time.

I'm certainly glad you liked your time, here.

 

[Ada Lovelace]

Is it not taught, to high school students, in the US? It wouldn't have been, when you were young, no. Modern students, they learn, about this, yes? The Överkalixstudien is quite old.

If you real science journals, there's been quite a lot, written about it, I think.

It's been taught relatively comprehensively in two of the classes I've taken, but I don't know how expansively it is taught - or if it is taught at all - in typical high school science classes. In the post I wrote for you a while ago explaining how a virtual school works there was a link to a video of a class sample, and the discussion in it was actually on epigenetics. I take classes both online with a school operated by a university and with a private school in LA that has a special mentoring program for science and medicine that has included research with UCLA's cancer epigenetics program, so my experience is probably atypical.

AP Biology is a class that is taught at many public high schools across the country, though, and it culminates with everyone taking the same exam on the same day. My current class is actually in Biological Research but I did extensively study the AP study prep book for the exam and used Quizlet flashcards and other online resources made by Bozeman and other public schools teachers. Schools are permitted to choose their own textbooks for the course, so some might have far more about epigenetics than others, but all students are to receive adequate preparation for the exam. One of the free response questions (which is a significant part of the scoring) for the 2012 exam was on epigenetics, so I would imagine most for this particular class would cover it sufficiently enough to successfully answer it on exams since it was such a crucial part.

 

[Split Rock]

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.

Mendel was ahead of his time, so I am not sure if I would call him "mainstream." His application of statistics to botany was ahead of its time, for example. To answer your question, he did not note any epigenetic effects in his hybrid crosses with pea plants... or if he did, he didn't report on them. Also keep in mind, he worked with well-established true breeding lines in his crosses... these retained the same traits generation after generation, and were therefore genetic in origin.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Is it not taught to high school students in the US? It wouldn't have been when you were young, no. Modern students learn about this, yes? The Överkalixstudien is quite old.

If you [read] real science journals, there's been quite a lot written about it, I think.

Yes, I learned a bit about epigenetics in high school, though not much, and a bit more so far in college.

Also, as a general comment about your English, your sentences are generally great for it not being your first language, but one does not need a comma every two words

I have changed this quoted paragraph to reflect what it should look like, since the commas cause readers to pause and make for a rough reading experience.

 

[Ada Lovelace]

There is certainly variation in the quality of the education. But if the textbook simply never mentions, e.g., epigenetics, in all likelihood it will not be taught in any classroom.

I was raised in Massachusetts, so I tend to think my science education was pretty good by U.S. standards. But there was a lot missing (I now realize), so a lot of gaps had to be filled. I, myself, was a creationist at one time.

I'm certainly glad you liked your time, here.

Out of curiosity how old were you when you discontinued being a creationist? Was it a gradual process? Sorry for being nosy.

As I wrote in a previous post here, I've been taught about epigenetics in my high school science classes relatively extensively. One of my massive papers was actually on cancer epigenetics. I think it is taught in more advanced biology classes at most schools now. It might not be as extensively covered in textbooks yet, but there are other resources for learning. There are some TEDx videos about epigenetics are actually really helpful and straightforward.

 

[Blue Wren]

Yes, I learned a bit about epigenetics in high school, though not much, and a bit more so far in college.

Also, as a general comment about your English, your sentences are generally great for it not being your first language, but one does not need a comma every two words

I have changed this quoted paragraph to reflect what it should look like, since the commas cause readers to pause and make for a rough reading experience.

Thank-you, Sarah! I am working on the commas. I've been taking Italian and Japanese classes, because I am spending the summer in Japan doing research, & my boyfriend, he is Italian. I think studying 2 foreign languages, whilst being in the US speaking English, it has done my head in on grammar, lol. People complain about my commas. I will try to improve! I am glad that you studied epigenetics also.

 

[Willtor]

Out of curiosity how old were you when you discontinued being a creationist? Was it a gradual process? Sorry for being nosy.

No apologies needed -- nosy is just fine.

I didn't give it a lot of thought until college. Up until then, I would say I was a nominal creationist. My Mom is a Christian but never expressed strong views on evolution one way or another. My Dad is an atheist and expressed (at least, to my perception) the idea that Christians were creationists (I think the churches we attended thought that the Earth was young). I actually think that _that_ was what made me a nominal creationist, on account of I was a Christian. But, again, it wasn't something to which I paid a lot of attention.

In college, I attended a pretty fundie church and creation/evolution was a big thing, there. I read a lot of creationist literature and concluded that evolution was based on hoaxes and other dishonesty. On the other side, a close friend/mentor encouraged me to read theology. As I started to read early Church fathers, it became pretty clear that creationism bore little resemblance to how anybody had taken Genesis in the past and it occurred to me that the dishonesty was more likely on the part of the creationist organizations. Continued investigation confirmed this, both for theology and for science.

By the time I graduated, I was no longer a creationist.

So, there were a few specific events I can point to, books/letters/encyclicals that I read that marked important turning points. But the whole "discontinuation" process probably took about a year.

As I wrote in a previous post here, I've been taught about epigenetics in my high school science classes relatively extensively. One of my massive papers was actually on cancer epigenetics. I think it is taught in more advanced biology classes at most schools now. It might not be as extensively covered in textbooks yet, but there are other resources for learning. There are some TEDx videos about epigenetics are actually really helpful and straightforward.

I didn't take any advanced bio courses in High School. I took the normal, non-honors bio course. It occurs to me: that year I was in Singapore, not Massachusetts. But I attended an American school, so I think we were still using the same textbooks.

This was in the mid-1990's, as you might infer from my age.