Discovery may lead to a review of the theory of evolution

[ghoti]

Dude, as a scientist in the field I feel like you are just being patronizing. We know about RNA modification. We know there are added layers of complexity. This is why you can share 50% of your genes with a fruit fly but not look anything like a fruit fly. All in all, the points you bringing up enhance our understanding of evolution, rather than resulting in anything revolutionary.

Well done. Nicely said.

[Techne]

No, this is not Lamarckism at all. Lamarckism predicts that the more you use a certain trait, the more it will be enhanced and vice versa for a trait you use less. The common stated example is that of the giraffe whose neck grows from generation to generation through each parent trying to stretch their neck further.

Epigenetics on the other hand can have completely different effects to their causes. First of all, for an epigenetic change to be heritable, it must be contained in the germ line. So say smoking causes a change a modification in germ line cells, Lamarckism would predict that this would make us better smokers or at the very least, influence a trait vaguely related to smoking. What we see in real life though is that many of these changes, should they have any effect at all, will effect a completely unrelated trait.

To be fair, I did not say Lamarckism per se but some form of it. What this means is that the inheritance of acquired characteristics (epigenetic in this case) must somehow be incorporated into evolutionary theory. This is exactly what epigentics suggests. You acquire certain epigenetic changes during your lifetime which may affect gene expression and this can be transmitted to future generations without any change in your actual genetic make-up (as in ACGT). The exact nature of these changes and how they affect the physiology of future generations is of course still being researched.

Dude, as a scientist in the field I feel like you are just being patronizing. We know about RNA modification. We know there are added layers of complexity. This is why you can share 50% of your genes with a fruit fly but not look anything like a fruit fly. All in all, the points you bringing up enhance our understanding of evolution, rather than resulting in anything revolutionary.

I don't know why you think I am being patronizing. I agree with the scientists of the study, it will revolutionize the way we think of mRNA translation. mRNA translation is of course important to evolution and we know almost nothing about the mechanisms of mRNA methylation or how it affects gene expression, physiology, heritable characteristics etc. A whole new field of research (epitranscriptomics if you want) has basically been opened with this kind of research by actual scientists in the field of epigenetics.

[Swa]

One question, does the epigenome get carried over to the next generation?
Sperm is basically nothing more than an information carrier so it will basically not contain much of it. If it does it will mostly be maternally.

[Techne]

One question, does the epigenome get carried over to the next generation?
Sperm is basically nothing more than an information carrier so it will basically not contain much of it. If it does it will mostly be maternally.

Yes, but research is ongoing just exactly how it is done. To give an analogy, consider the following.

1) A book containing written text. The book represents the genome and the text inside the book is analogous to the ACGT/nucleotide sequences of a cell.
2) We know a lot about how all the information in the book is copied, all the machinery involved in repairing mistakes and making copies etc.
3) In the book there are certain spots which dictate which parts should be read more or less than others and this is analogous to how transcription works.

Epigenetics adds an extra layer of control of transcription. It is analogous to bookmarks of a book saying "read here" or "don't read here". You acquire these bookmarks as you proceed through life and some of these bookmarks get passed onto the next generation (we don't exactly know how much is carried over or how much it affects future generations, research is being conducted to figure out these issues).

Part of the problem is trying to understand how the bookmarks (epigenetic marks) are placed in the right spaces after the book is copied. Polycomb proteins, methyltrasnferases, bromodomain proteins etc. all play a role, we just don't know what exactly is going on.

[Geriatrix]

Don't bet on it. Some dogmatic "scientists" will never let go.

[empirex]

@Techne

Didn't you know evolution is a fact, until it changes, as it has over and over, and then that's the way it always has been... until it changes again.

Now some might say that is the characteristic of a good theory, one that is continually changing and adapting.
Yes, to a point. But the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, or Phyletic Gradualism has been added and subtracted to so much it is no longer sustainable in any form, it's a sinking ship developing more holes on a continual basis than can be contained. The deeper we dig into the complexity (an often used term, but so understated) that underpins the building blocks of life, the more it screams design.

How does the story go... "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved." -- Francis Crick. Yes, if you predetermine the outcome, you will always find the answers you seek.

Why do they have to do this?
Phillip E Johnson lays it out quite effectively when he said: "because otherwise the facts which are staring them in the face and trying to get their attention might break through."

[Lycanthrope]

@Techne

Didn't you know evolution is a fact, until it changes, as it has over and over, and then that's the way it always has been... until it changes again.

Now some might say that is the characteristic of a good theory, one that is continually changing and adapting.
Yes, to a point. But the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, or Phyletic Gradualism has been added and subtracted to so much it is no longer sustainable in any form, it's a sinking ship developing more holes on a continual basis than can be contained. The deeper we dig into the complexity (an often used term, but so understated) that underpins the building blocks of life.

How does the story go... "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved." -- Francis Crick. Yes, if you predetermine the outcome, you will always find the answers you seek.

Why do they have to do this?
Phillip E Johnson lays it out quite effectively when he said: "because otherwise the facts which are staring them in the face and trying to get their attention might break through."

Why is this turning into a religious agenda?

A growing understanding of evolution has nothing to do with your beliefs; so why try to push them where they are not wanted or needed?

Also, the irony of what you wrote at the end of your post is clearly lost on you.

[empirex]

Why is this turning into a religious agenda?

A growing understanding of evolution has nothing to do with your beliefs; so why try to push them where they are not wanted or needed?

Also, the irony of what you wrote at the end of your post is clearly lost on you.

Are you drunk? I never mentioned religion I was talking about predetermination.

[Lycanthrope]

Are you drunk? I never mentioned religion

How does the story go... "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved." -- Francis Crick. Yes, if you predetermine the outcome, you will always find the answers you seek.

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't mean religion, I meant intelligent design.

Or how was that quote and your insistence that "alternate possibilities" be considered meant to be interpreted?

I'm afraid I'm terrible when it comes to interpreting ambiguity and discerning the intentions of a poster arguing to discredit the merits of a scientific field based on their personal prejudice towards that field.

[buyeye]

I think the point empirex is making is that just because something is accepted by the scientific community and people make money from it does not make it fact.

I'll give you an example medicine which is a science up until the 20century used methods like bleeding diagnosed hysteria and homosexuality as disorders.Even though this was well accepted and people made money from it .It is undeniable that they were absolutely wrong.

I did not say that theism had all the answers but I will be willing to listen until I hear something that make more sense.

[empirex]

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't mean religion, I meant intelligent design.

Or how was that quote and your insistence that "alternate possibilities" be considered meant to be interpreted?

I'm afraid I'm terrible when it comes to interpreting ambiguity and discerning the intentions of a poster arguing to discredit the merits of a scientific field based on their personal prejudice towards that field.

You know that the person I quoted was Francis Crick, an evolutionary biologist right? I brought the quote of one of the discoverers of the structure of DNA to the party, you found it necessary to bring religion into the debate.

Of course I am suggesting alternate possibilities; in fact I think evolution is a crock, the biggest hoax in the history of science, a cultural ideology that has grown in popular culture, yet continually failed in the realm of science. I don't need religion to see that.

But anyway, probably off-topic.

[Lycanthrope]

I think the point empirex is making is that just because something is accepted by the scientific community and people make money from it does not make it fact.

I'll give you an example medicine which is a science up until the 20century used methods like bleeding diagnosed hysteria and homosexuality as disorders.Even though this was well accepted and people made money from it .It is undeniable that they were absolutely wrong.

I did not say that theism had all the answers but I will be willing to listen until I hear something that make more sense.

Everyone is, of course, entitled to their opinions.

To me, religion is primitive science: the way people were best able to understand and come to terms with the world and phenomena around them. So when you mention blood-letting and misdiagnosis, I see a priest/tribal shaman/whatever explaining the world to the best of his knowledge and experience to his congregation.

Progress is achieved through understanding what can be observed and not stamping a big "Entity X did it!" label on it and forgetting about it. That's not understanding something, that's dismissing it.

So yes, science proceeds through "blowing holes" in itself and patching them back up--this is how we learn.

I think that certain people are afraid that at the end of science's journey of discovery, "God" will be disproven. And, of course, then what will they believe in? I think the apprehension they have toward the scientific method is a sort of primitive fear.

But hey, that's just my opinion.

Regardless, this is Natural Sciences, not PD, so I'm out of here.

You know that the person I quoted was Francis Crick, an evolutionary biologist right? I brought the quote of one of the discoverers of the structure of DNA to the party, you found it necessary to bring religion into the debate.

Of course I am suggesting alternate possibilities; in fact I think evolution is a crock, the biggest hoax in the history of science, a cultural ideology that has grown in popular culture, yet continually failed in the realm of science. I don't need religion to see that.

But anyway, probably off-topic.

Then I interpreted your post correctly and responded to it correctly.

[Techne]

@Techne

Didn't you know evolution is a fact, until it changes, as it has over and over, and then that's the way it always has been... until it changes again.

Now some might say that is the characteristic of a good theory, one that is continually changing and adapting.
Yes, to a point. But the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, or Phyletic Gradualism has been added and subtracted to so much it is no longer sustainable in any form, it's a sinking ship developing more holes on a continual basis than can be contained. The deeper we dig into the complexity (an often used term, but so understated) that underpins the building blocks of life, the more it screams design.

How does the story go... "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved." -- Francis Crick. Yes, if you predetermine the outcome, you will always find the answers you seek.

Why do they have to do this?
Phillip E Johnson lays it out quite effectively when he said: "because otherwise the facts which are staring them in the face and trying to get their attention might break through."

I am curious. Let's for argument sake consider the following scenario.
1) The Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, or Phyletic Gradualism has been debunked.
2) Irreducible complexity or Complex Specified Information has been demonstrated to be true for some biological structures.
3) Therefore, Intelligent Design is true for some biological structures.

Now what? What further can you conclude from this? Where do you see this kind of result end up?

[Techne]

I think that certain people are afraid that at the end of science's journey of discovery, "God" will be disproven. And, of course, then what will they believe in? I think the apprehension they have toward the scientific method is a sort of primitive fear.

Well, those people would have an irrational fear. Empirical science cannot determine whether God does or does not exist. To think it can is actually quite ignorant.

[buyeye]

This very off the topic but it's in response to lycans post.

It's funny you should mention limited understanding of early century man as I previously mentioned in the PD section about the bible was written by people of limited knowlegde .

I mean even 18 century man did not even contamplate the subatomic world .Now this general knowlegde taught to children but there is still distinct similarities that answer some very important questiona be it in outdated language .

But like you said this is not the PD section