I think that the subject would be amazingly interesting to me if I could follow it
![Not sure :dono:](./images/smilies/dunno.gif)
JimC wrote:Ratz is just beautiful...![]()
Where else could you go from the taste of raw egg to licking marmalade off tits in such a short space of time?
Pensioner wrote:I worked for 50 years and that's long enough for anyone, luckily I worked to live not lived for work.
Lozzer wrote:You ain't Scottish unless you live off Chicken nuggets, White Lightening and speak like an incomprehensible cow.
I'm not sure it's fallacious to say this is a form of Lamarckian evolution. The fact that mutation and other processes are involved doesn't seem to detract from that unless there is a counterbalancing mechansim, which I don't see.MasterBaker wrote:The only issue is that people often see this as "acquired characteristic", or Lamarckism as it is best known, because it is not directly encoded in the DNA. The epigenetic marks themselves are however influenced by the environment, but so is the rate of mutation, so the argument for Lamarckism is fallacious.
In the scientific domain epigenetic modifications classically mean anything inherited outside of DNA. Generally now they tend to be attached to specific chemical modifications that occur on cytosine nucleotides (5meC) as well as additions to the amino acid building blocks of the proteins that make up the majority of chromosomes (interestingly it was originally thought that proteins were the heritable material that Mendel described as factors because there is so much of the bloody stuff in our chromosomes). How these modifications translate to the phenotypic level is not fully understood yet, though there are a few examples in genetic disease that involve disregulation of specific (and consistent) epigenetic modifications, or genomic imprints. These imprints occur between two loci, sometimes the same gene on sister chromatid, sometimes two different genes, whereby they are differentially silenced by epigenetic modification in a parental inheritance-dependent manner. One of the most commonly cited is that of the oppositely imprinted genes IGF2 and H19. One is maternally inherited, the other paternally, though the actual genes are still present, they are selectively silenced by specific chemical modification to regions around the gene (these are called CpG islands), as well as to the associated chromatin histones (the protein that DNA is wrapped around to make chromosomes).FedUpWithFaith wrote:I'm not sure it's fallacious to say this is a form of Lamarckian evolution. The fact that mutation and other processes are involved doesn't seem to detract from that unless there is a counterbalancing mechansim, which I don't see.MasterBaker wrote:The only issue is that people often see this as "acquired characteristic", or Lamarckism as it is best known, because it is not directly encoded in the DNA. The epigenetic marks themselves are however influenced by the environment, but so is the rate of mutation, so the argument for Lamarckism is fallacious.
The fascinating thing about epigenetics is precisely how the environment can induce acquired inherited traits from one generation to the next without relying totally on much slower mutation or recombination pathways. Moreover, that environment isn't just the outside world but the internal world engendered by culture and lifestyle. The way populations choose to live their lives affects the heritable fitness of the next generation.
Not sure you can say that, mate , only epigenetic modification in the Germ Cell line can be heritable...FedUpWithFaith wrote:I'm not sure it's fallacious to say this is a form of Lamarckian evolution. The fact that mutation and other processes are involved doesn't seem to detract from that unless there is a counterbalancing mechansim, which I don't see.MasterBaker wrote:The only issue is that people often see this as "acquired characteristic", or Lamarckism as it is best known, because it is not directly encoded in the DNA. The epigenetic marks themselves are however influenced by the environment, but so is the rate of mutation, so the argument for Lamarckism is fallacious.
The fascinating thing about epigenetics is precisely how the environment can induce acquired inherited traits from one generation to the next without relying totally on much slower mutation or recombination pathways. Moreover, that environment isn't just the outside world but the internal world engendered by culture and lifestyle. The way populations choose to live their lives affects the heritable fitness of the next generation.
Yeah but the vast majority of life is unicellular...GenesForLife wrote:Not sure you can say that, mate , only epigenetic modification in the Germ Cell line can be heritable...FedUpWithFaith wrote:I'm not sure it's fallacious to say this is a form of Lamarckian evolution. The fact that mutation and other processes are involved doesn't seem to detract from that unless there is a counterbalancing mechansim, which I don't see.MasterBaker wrote:The only issue is that people often see this as "acquired characteristic", or Lamarckism as it is best known, because it is not directly encoded in the DNA. The epigenetic marks themselves are however influenced by the environment, but so is the rate of mutation, so the argument for Lamarckism is fallacious.
The fascinating thing about epigenetics is precisely how the environment can induce acquired inherited traits from one generation to the next without relying totally on much slower mutation or recombination pathways. Moreover, that environment isn't just the outside world but the internal world engendered by culture and lifestyle. The way populations choose to live their lives affects the heritable fitness of the next generation.
Unicellular organisms cannot, in theory, develop cancer though, can they?Psi Wavefunction wrote:Yeah but the vast majority of life is unicellular...GenesForLife wrote:Not sure you can say that, mate , only epigenetic modification in the Germ Cell line can be heritable...FedUpWithFaith wrote:I'm not sure it's fallacious to say this is a form of Lamarckian evolution. The fact that mutation and other processes are involved doesn't seem to detract from that unless there is a counterbalancing mechansim, which I don't see.MasterBaker wrote:The only issue is that people often see this as "acquired characteristic", or Lamarckism as it is best known, because it is not directly encoded in the DNA. The epigenetic marks themselves are however influenced by the environment, but so is the rate of mutation, so the argument for Lamarckism is fallacious.
The fascinating thing about epigenetics is precisely how the environment can induce acquired inherited traits from one generation to the next without relying totally on much slower mutation or recombination pathways. Moreover, that environment isn't just the outside world but the internal world engendered by culture and lifestyle. The way populations choose to live their lives affects the heritable fitness of the next generation.![]()
You should check out cytotaxis/cortical inheritance in Paramecium! (Eg. Beisson & Sonneborn 1965 PNAS) Fascinating stuff...
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest