Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 55

Thread: Why everything you've been told about evolution is wrong

  1. #11
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    2,213

    Is that the kid from the Nirvana cover?

  2. #12
    Politics.ie Regular Q-Tours's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Anywhere but here
    Posts
    1,216

    Just waiting for the creo-bots. The thread title should bring 'em out like like une chienne en chaleur!

  3. #13
    Politics.ie Regular
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    11,708

    Quote Originally Posted by Catalpa View Post
    Why everything you've been told about evolution is wrong
    What if Darwin's theory of natural selection is inaccurate? What if the way you live now affects the life expectancy of your descendants? Evolutionary thinking is having a revolution . . .

    Why everything you've been told about evolution is wrong | Science | The Guardian

    Well well well....

    Just goes to show - Science is full of surprises...

    Gotta admit I have always found Theory of Evolution to be full of missing links...

    Maybe the latest findings will help fill in some of the gaps.
    Rather than post a link, would you like to explain this issue? And
    you really should resist the temptation to toss in references to "missing links" - that was never an issue except in the feeblest of fundamentalist minds.

  4. #14
    Politics.ie Regular sondagefaux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    7,997

    Interesting stuff. Environment and lifestyle could have a much greater role to play in evolution than thought before. I wonder what biological determinists will make of this?

    The Guardian article has a link to another article from Time.

    The great hope for ongoing epigenetic research is that with the flick of a biochemical switch, we could tell genes that play a role in many diseases — including cancer, schizophrenia, autism, Alzheimer's, diabetes and many others — to lie dormant. We could, at long last, have a trump card to play against Darwin.

    Can epigenetic changes be permanent? Possibly, but it's important to remember that epigenetics isn't evolution. It doesn't change DNA. Epigenetic changes represent a biological response to an environmental stressor. That response can be inherited through many generations via epigenetic marks, but if you remove the environmental pressure, the epigenetic marks will eventually fade, and the DNA code will — over time — begin to revert to its original programming. That's the current thinking, anyway: that only natural selection causes permanent genetic change.

    And yet even if epigenetic inheritance doesn't last forever, it can be hugely powerful. In February 2009, the Journal of Neuroscience published a paper showing that even memory — a wildly complex biological and psychological process — can be improved from one generation to the next via epigenetics. The paper described an experiment with mice led by Larry Feig, a Tufts University biochemist. Feig's team exposed mice with genetic memory problems to an environment rich with toys, exercise and extra attention. These mice showed significant improvement in long-term potentiation (LTP), a form of neural transmission that is key to memory formation. Surprisingly, their offspring also showed LTP improvement, even when the offspring got no extra attention.

    All this explains why the scientific community is so nervously excited about epigenetics. In his forthcoming book The Genius in All of Us: Why Everything You've Been Told About Genetics, Talent and IQ Is Wrong, science writer David Shenk says epigenetics is helping usher in a "new paradigm" that "reveals how bankrupt the phrase 'nature versus nurture' really is." He calls epigenetics "perhaps the most important discovery in the science of heredity since the gene."

    Geneticists are quietly acknowledging that we may have too easily dismissed an early naturalist who anticipated modern epigenetics — and whom Darwinists have long disparaged. Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829) argued that evolution could occur within a generation or two. He posited that animals acquired certain traits during their lifetimes because of their environment and choices. The most famous Lamarckian example: giraffes acquired their long necks because their recent ancestors had stretched to reach high, nutrient-rich leaves.

    In contrast, Darwin argued that evolution works not through the fire of effort but through cold, impartial selection. By Darwinist thinking, giraffes got their long necks over millennia because genes for long necks had, very slowly, gained advantage. Darwin, who was 84 years younger than Lamarck, was the better scientist, and he won the day. Lamarckian evolution came to be seen as a scientific blunder. Yet epigenetics is now forcing scientists to re-evaluate Lamarck's ideas.
    Epigenetics, DNA: How You Can Change Your Genes, Destiny - TIME
    Last edited by sondagefaux; 19th March 2010 at 09:15 PM.

  5. #15
    Politics.ie Regular
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    11,708

    Quote Originally Posted by sondagefaux View Post
    Interesting stuff. Environment and lifestyle could have a much greater role to play in evolution than thought before. I wonder what biological determinists will make of this?

    The Guardian article has a link to another article from Time.



    Epigenetics, DNA: How You Can Change Your Genes, Destiny - TIME
    Yes - but complimentary to traditional evolution - not contrary to it.

  6. #16
    Politics.ie Regular sondagefaux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    7,997

    Quote Originally Posted by Sailor View Post
    Yes - but complimentary to traditional evolution - not contrary to it.
    Absolutely. Creationists won't be able to take any comfort from this. It's the doctrinaire biological determinists who are going to be most put out.

  7. #17
    Politics.ie Regular
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    17,464

    Quote Originally Posted by sondagefaux View Post
    Absolutely. Creationists won't be able to take any comfort from this. It's the doctrinaire biological determinists who are going to be most put out.
    Creationists don't need anything so vulgar as reason or facts for their comforts.

  8. #18
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    2,213

    Bacteria express different genes in response to their environment very quickly. It might figure then that higher organisms can do this too only it takes longer-a couple of generations maybe. I don't think Darwinism is the whole picture-an important part of it surely, but by no means the end of the story. I always found the notion of random mutation just a little bit too,well, eh, random!

  9. #19
    Politics.ie Regular Catalpa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Dublin West
    Posts
    25,546

    Quote Originally Posted by Sailor View Post
    Rather than post a link, would you like to explain this issue? And
    you really should resist the temptation to toss in references to "missing links" - that was never an issue except in the feeblest of fundamentalist minds.
    Its easier just to read the article.

    These latest findings put TOE through the mixer on full power IMO...
    Europa Conventus Delenda Est

  10. #20
    Politics.ie Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    22,407

    Quote Originally Posted by sondagefaux View Post
    Absolutely. Creationists won't be able to take any comfort from this. It's the doctrinaire biological determinists who are going to be most put out.
    The horizontal gene transfers also make rather a mess of the whole 'tree structure' approach to taxonomy. And the likelihood is, according to some recent research, that speciation doesn't happen the way most of us expect either.
    Never let the best be the enemy of the good.

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 56
    Last Post: 9th December 2009, 09:24 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2nd February 2009, 11:30 AM
  3. Future Taoiseach was WRONG WRONG WRONG
    By corelli in forum US Politics
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 5th November 2008, 04:20 AM
  4. UK Admit immigraton figures are wrong. Are we wrong too?
    By zexstream in forum Current Affairs
    Replies: 96
    Last Post: 3rd November 2007, 03:32 PM