Epigenetic modifications

[atanu]

Contribution of epigenetic modifications to evolution - Wikipedia

Jean-Baptiste Lamarck proposed that species experience certain obstacles in their lifetimes which they must overcome. They acquire certain characteristics to deal with these challenges, and such accumulations are then passed to their offspring. In modern terms, this transmission from parent to offspring would be considered a method of epigenetic inheritance. Scientists are now questioning the framework of the modern synthesis, as epigenetics has shown to be in direct contrast with the core of Darwinism while being in agreement with Lamarckism. While some evolutionary biologists have dismissed epigenetics' impact on evolution entirely, others have begun to discover that a fusion of both epigenetic and traditional genetic inheritance may contribute to the variations seen in species today.[13]
.......

Lamarck is making a small comeback. Lamarck essentially proposed that the way species deal with environmental challenges generate characteristics that are inheritable. This understanding, although apparently intuitive and common sense, has been mostly ridiculed.

It seems that the inheritance of acquired characteristics was considered a legitimate explanation of evolutionary change. Darwin also proposed his version of how organisms might inherit acquired characteristics. But with the advent of materialism and "modern synthesis" of Darwin's theories, the role of will of species towards evolution of form was thrown out.

Neo Darwinists hold that in each generation, genes undergo random mutations, making offspring subtly different from their parents; those mutations that enhance an organism's abilities to thrive and reproduce in its own particular environment will tend to spread through populations, while those that make successful breeding less likely will vanish. This concept discounts role of will/intelligence of organism.

• Why was Lamarck considered wrong?
• How may the findings of epigenetic that tend to support Lamarck-ian thinking modify the understanding of theory of evolution?

 

[sun rise]

This is a great example of how science works. Epigenetics, Darwin, and Lamarck to me is a great overview of current understanding. A couple of quotes I found relevant:

So first, epigenetics depends on having the right genetics—the right enzymes, so in that sense it is part of genetics and inheritance. For example, without the ability to methylate cytosine, or to modify histones (in eukaryotes), epigenetics as we know it would not be possible. In a recent publication
...
Second, and despite some popular thought, there is no real evidence that Lamarck himself considered that the inheritance at acquired characters was original to himself (Burkhardt 1977)—it appeared to be “general knowledge/assumptions” of the time. And there are other aspects of Lamarck’s understanding of evolution that we would not accept—including the separate nature of plants and animals is one, and the possibility of many separate origins of life is another, and the resistance to accept species extinction is still another.

 

[bobhikes]

Interesting I'm not sure how will is involved but I have seen theories about environment modifying gene sequences.

Here's an article talking about epigenetics, Lucky find.

Big Question: Can your environment change your DNA? | Duke magazine

 

[atanu]

Interesting I'm not sure how will is involved but I have seen theories about environment modifying gene sequences.

Here's an article talking about epigenetics, Lucky find.

Big Question: Can your environment change your DNA? | Duke magazine

Not will directly but how the species tackles the environmental challenges.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

For those who are interested, here is a quick framework for the counter-point again epigenetic inheritance being relevant to mammalian evolution. End the Hype over Epigenetics & Lamarckian Evolution | RealClearScience in summary, epigenetic inheritance is mostly theoretical in mammals, at best happening in only very specific circumstances and would still be removed from the will or intelligence of the animal. And there is constraints to the ability to pass down epigenetic gene tags. Greatly limiting the effect.

 

[sayak83]

Contribution of epigenetic modifications to evolution - Wikipedia

Jean-Baptiste Lamarck proposed that species experience certain obstacles in their lifetimes which they must overcome. They acquire certain characteristics to deal with these challenges, and such accumulations are then passed to their offspring. In modern terms, this transmission from parent to offspring would be considered a method of epigenetic inheritance. Scientists are now questioning the framework of the modern synthesis, as epigenetics has shown to be in direct contrast with the core of Darwinism while being in agreement with Lamarckism. While some evolutionary biologists have dismissed epigenetics' impact on evolution entirely, others have begun to discover that a fusion of both epigenetic and traditional genetic inheritance may contribute to the variations seen in species today.[13]
.......

Lamarck is making a small comeback. Lamarck essentially proposed that the way species deal with environmental challenges generate characteristics that are inheritable. This understanding, although apparently intuitive and common sense, has been mostly ridiculed.

It seems that the inheritance of acquired characteristics was considered a legitimate explanation of evolutionary change. Darwin also proposed his version of how organisms might inherit acquired characteristics. But with the advent of materialism and "modern synthesis" of Darwin's theories, the role of will of species towards evolution of form was thrown out.

Neo Darwinists hold that in each generation, genes undergo random mutations, making offspring subtly different from their parents; those mutations that enhance an organism's abilities to thrive and reproduce in its own particular environment will tend to spread through populations, while those that make successful breeding less likely will vanish. This concept discounts role of will/intelligence of organism.

• Why was Lamarck considered wrong?
• How may the findings of epigenetic that tend to support Lamarck-ian thinking modify the understanding of theory of evolution?

There is nothing non-material about epigenetic inheritance.

 

[bobhikes]

For those who are interested, here is a quick framework for the con argument again epigenetic inheritance being relevant to mammalian evolution. End the Hype over Epigenetics & Lamarckian Evolution | RealClearScience in summary, epigenetic inheritance is mostly theoretical in mammals, at best happening and only very specific circumstances and would still be removed from the will or intelligence of the animal. And there is constraints to the ability to pass down epigenetic gene tags. Greatly limiting the effect.

Thanks but its not exactly a con argument, its a be skeptical argument.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Thanks but its not exactly a con argument, its a be skeptical argument.

You're right, con is probably not the right word. More like a counter-point to the idea that epigenetic inheritance played a significant role, or plays a significant role, in human and nonhuman mammal evolution.

 

[bobhikes]

You're right, con is probably not the right word. More like a counter-point to the idea that epigenetic inheritance played a significant role, or plays a significant role, in human and nonhuman mammal evolution.

Interestingly, We were watching Friends yesterday where Phoebe was carrying her brothers baby, My wife and Kids asked if the baby would have any of Phoebe's genetic's, I didn't know but reading this, it is a possibility that surrogates through epigenetic inheritance effect the baby.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Contribution of epigenetic modifications to evolution - Wikipedia

Jean-Baptiste Lamarck proposed that species experience certain obstacles in their lifetimes which they must overcome. They acquire certain characteristics to deal with these challenges, and such accumulations are then passed to their offspring. In modern terms, this transmission from parent to offspring would be considered a method of epigenetic inheritance. Scientists are now questioning the framework of the modern synthesis, as epigenetics has shown to be in direct contrast with the core of Darwinism while being in agreement with Lamarckism. While some evolutionary biologists have dismissed epigenetics' impact on evolution entirely, others have begun to discover that a fusion of both epigenetic and traditional genetic inheritance may contribute to the variations seen in species today.[13]
.......

Lamarck is making a small comeback. Lamarck essentially proposed that the way species deal with environmental challenges generate characteristics that are inheritable. This understanding, although apparently intuitive and common sense, has been mostly ridiculed.

It seems that the inheritance of acquired characteristics was considered a legitimate explanation of evolutionary change. Darwin also proposed his version of how organisms might inherit acquired characteristics. But with the advent of materialism and "modern synthesis" of Darwin's theories, the role of will of species towards evolution of form was thrown out.

Neo Darwinists hold that in each generation, genes undergo random mutations, making offspring subtly different from their parents; those mutations that enhance an organism's abilities to thrive and reproduce in its own particular environment will tend to spread through populations, while those that make successful breeding less likely will vanish. This concept discounts role of will/intelligence of organism.

• Why was Lamarck considered wrong?
• How may the findings of epigenetic that tend to support Lamarck-ian thinking modify the understanding of theory of evolution?

It's becoming ever more clear that Darwinism does not adequately account for the development of life. It's tricky enough to account for the simplest kindergarten examples like a Giraffe's neck getting longer,

but when you start to look at more sophisticated problems, like the inheritance of innate mental responses.. the difficulties are far greater- a fear of snakes, a love of music, enjoying the smell of frying bacon... all just random mutations in the brain that caught on?!

There have been some interesting experiments with mice, inheriting a response to otherwise unfamiliar smells in a single generation


Parental olfactory experience influences behavior and neural structure in subsequent generations | Nature Neuroscience

 

[WalterTrull]

Anecdotally: 'The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge.'

 

[corynski]

Contribution of epigenetic modifications to evolution - Wikipedia

Jean-Baptiste Lamarck proposed that species experience certain obstacles in their lifetimes which they must overcome. They acquire certain characteristics to deal with these challenges, and such accumulations are then passed to their offspring. In modern terms, this transmission from parent to offspring would be considered a method of epigenetic inheritance. Scientists are now questioning the framework of the modern synthesis, as epigenetics has shown to be in direct contrast with the core of Darwinism while being in agreement with Lamarckism. While some evolutionary biologists have dismissed epigenetics' impact on evolution entirely, others have begun to discover that a fusion of both epigenetic and traditional genetic inheritance may contribute to the variations seen in species today.[13]
.......

Lamarck is making a small comeback. Lamarck essentially proposed that the way species deal with environmental challenges generate characteristics that are inheritable. This understanding, although apparently intuitive and common sense, has been mostly ridiculed.

It seems that the inheritance of acquired characteristics was considered a legitimate explanation of evolutionary change. Darwin also proposed his version of how organisms might inherit acquired characteristics. But with the advent of materialism and "modern synthesis" of Darwin's theories, the role of will of species towards evolution of form was thrown out.

Neo Darwinists hold that in each generation, genes undergo random mutations, making offspring subtly different from their parents; those mutations that enhance an organism's abilities to thrive and reproduce in its own particular environment will tend to spread through populations, while those that make successful breeding less likely will vanish. This concept discounts role of will/intelligence of organism.

• Why was Lamarck considered wrong?
• How may the findings of epigenetic that tend to support Lamarck-ian thinking modify the understanding of theory of evolution?

Atanu....... Can you tell me how an learned trait could, and would, affect the genes of a person? If every learned trait would affect the genes in a similar manner, the original genotype would be modified beyond recognition. Isn't that why Lamarck was wrong, there is no mechanism to make this happen?

 

[atanu]

There is nothing non-material about epigenetic inheritance.

There may be. When an organism interacts with environment, will and intelligence may be involved at many levels. But of course, this is only true if we accept that organisms posses will and intelligence.

 

[atanu]

Atanu....... Can you tell me how an learned trait could, and would, affect the genes of a person? If every learned trait would affect the genes in a similar manner, the original genotype would be modified beyond recognition. Isn't that why Lamarck was wrong, there is no mechanism to make this happen?

Genes that we know are sensual representations of information codes that control organisms. But, in my paradigm, organism has power of wisdom to reprogram or altogether discard the code.

To make the point clear, I take an extreme example of Buddha. As per bodily Buddha that lived, anything you can point as 'this is me or mine' is not the self. The body with its brain and its gene pool is not the self for the Buddha. So, the whole genetic code is irrelevant for the Buddha -- the unborn.

 

[sayak83]

There may be. When an organism interacts with environment, will and intelligence may be involved at many levels. But of course, this is only true if we accept that organisms posses will and intelligence.

If you look at the specific epigenetic mechanisms (see the wiki) you will that all of it is conventional biochemistry. Epigenetic simply means biological mechanisms that lead to (usually short term) heritable changes that are not caused by any changes in the DNA 4-code sequence proper. Lots of vanilla biochemical processes are seen to be behind such changes. I have read entire books on this since I was interested in knowing how pollutant particulate matter may increase disease burdens over generations (smoking, smog etc.). I have seen nothing there that requires philosophical considerations.

 

[atanu]

If you look at the specific epigenetic mechanisms (see the wiki) you will that all of it is conventional biochemistry. Epigenetic simply means biological mechanisms that lead to (usually short term) heritable changes that are not caused by any changes in the DNA 4-code sequence proper. Lots of vanilla biochemical processes are seen to be behind such changes. I have read entire books on this since I was interested in knowing how pollutant particulate matter may increase disease burdens over generations (smoking, smog etc.). I have seen nothing there that requires philosophical considerations.

Philosophically it is easy to explain away consciousness and life properties, the way Dennet et al do.

Why should inert matter develop epigenetic changes? It can only happen during interactions where we have scope for adaptations. And does that happen without awareness and will?

 

[sayak83]

Philosophically it is easy to explain away consciousness and life properties, the way Dennet et al do.

Why should inert matter develop epigenetic changes? It can only happen during interactions where we have scope for adaptations. And does that happen without awareness and will?

Why won't it? What is so special about epigenetic changes vis-a-vis genetic changes? Just different forms of biochemistry operating here, one describing changes in DNA molecules and the other describing changes inother cellular machinery (methylation, RNA transcription etc.) Both are hydrocarbon chemical reactions occurring through enzymes in the aqueous medium inside cells. Somewhat complex, but quite vanilla chemistry. You are barking up the wrong tree here.

 

[Profound Realization]

Contribution of epigenetic modifications to evolution - Wikipedia

Jean-Baptiste Lamarck proposed that species experience certain obstacles in their lifetimes which they must overcome. They acquire certain characteristics to deal with these challenges, and such accumulations are then passed to their offspring. In modern terms, this transmission from parent to offspring would be considered a method of epigenetic inheritance. Scientists are now questioning the framework of the modern synthesis, as epigenetics has shown to be in direct contrast with the core of Darwinism while being in agreement with Lamarckism. While some evolutionary biologists have dismissed epigenetics' impact on evolution entirely, others have begun to discover that a fusion of both epigenetic and traditional genetic inheritance may contribute to the variations seen in species today.[13]
.......

Lamarck is making a small comeback. Lamarck essentially proposed that the way species deal with environmental challenges generate characteristics that are inheritable. This understanding, although apparently intuitive and common sense, has been mostly ridiculed.

It seems that the inheritance of acquired characteristics was considered a legitimate explanation of evolutionary change. Darwin also proposed his version of how organisms might inherit acquired characteristics. But with the advent of materialism and "modern synthesis" of Darwin's theories, the role of will of species towards evolution of form was thrown out.

Neo Darwinists hold that in each generation, genes undergo random mutations, making offspring subtly different from their parents; those mutations that enhance an organism's abilities to thrive and reproduce in its own particular environment will tend to spread through populations, while those that make successful breeding less likely will vanish. This concept discounts role of will/intelligence of organism.

• Why was Lamarck considered wrong?
• How may the findings of epigenetic that tend to support Lamarck-ian thinking modify the understanding of theory of evolution?

Lamarck was probably considered wrong and still is, because some human beings like to try and explain away the common sense, intuition, will, and intelligence of other human beings. If it’s done to other human beings, it is done to all organisms. Voices being given to all organisms. One way is by just saying that organisms go off of an entire fixed, mechanical, and robotical “instinct.”

The findings have opposed and will continue to oppose many credible reputations, and some know how stubborn and what lengths reputations will go to, to preserve reputations. I don’t foresee any decent modifications to the status quo in the near future, particularly because there is already a high measure for lack of understanding as is.

 

[Profound Realization]

Why won't it? What is so special about epigenetic changes vis-a-vis genetic changes? Just different forms of biochemistry operating here, one describing changes in DNA molecules and the other describing changes inother cellular machinery (methylation, RNA transcription etc.) Both are hydrocarbon chemical reactions occurring through enzymes in the aqueous medium inside cells. Somewhat complex, but quite vanilla chemistry. You are barking up the wrong tree here.

Do you think that a self organism has absolutely no influence on its genetic constitution?

 

[sayak83]

Do you think that a self organism has absolutely no influence on its genetic constitution?

Self organization is important in lots of places including things like cloud formation, tornado or crystal growth. But scientists are not talking about any metaphysical self by the term. It's simply the internal material parts of a system spontaneously interacting with each other to move from one stable state to another stable state. The more accurate terminology is organization occurring through internal interactions rather than external forcing.