Home » Epigenetics, News » Epigenetics: Swedish researchers say Darwinism is NOT the cause of wide variation in domestic chicken types

Epigenetics: Swedish researchers say Darwinism is NOT the cause of wide variation in domestic chicken types

Polish frizzle chicken/msibley, fotolia

From “Inherited Epigenetics Produced Record Fast Evolution” (ScienceDaily, Feb. 29, 2012), we learn,

Humans kept Red Junglefowl as livestock about 8000 years ago. Evolutionarily speaking, the sudden emergence of an enormous variety of domestic fowl of different colours, shapes and sizes has occurred in record time. The traditional Darwinian explanation is that over thousands of years, people have bred properties that have arisen through random, spontaneous mutations in the chickens’ genes.

Linköping zoologists, with Daniel Nätt and Per Jensen at the forefront, demonstrate in their study that so-called epigenetic factors play a greater role than previously thought. The study was published in the journal BMC Genomics.

The most interesting aspect of this story is “traditional Darwinian explanation” – referenced by someone who actually disagrees with it:

The results suggest that domestication has led to epigenetic changes. For more than 70 % of the genes, domesticated chickens retained a higher degree of methylation. Since methylation is a much faster process than random mutations, and may occur as a result of stress and other experiences, this may explain how variation within a species can increase so dramatically in just a short time.

Nätt and Jensen’s research may lead to a review of the important foundations for the theory of evolution.

Hmmm. They don’t sound like people who are afraid for their jobs, do they ….

Epigenetics is a problem for Darwinism. Here’s why: If our researchers here are right, it can create many oddities, including the frizzle chicken, illustrated. Natural selection does not subsequently add any information.

In a natural ecology, non-starters simply get weeded out (see frizzle chicken, illustrated), and we call that natural selection. But so far as we know, all the information is still potentially available. Only some of it can be expressed in a given ecology. What then is the true source of all that information? About that, we are back to square one.

Whatever this is, it is not our local Darwin pressure group’s court-ordered, taxpayer funded evolution class.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

2 Responses to Epigenetics: Swedish researchers say Darwinism is NOT the cause of wide variation in domestic chicken types

  1. Rapid evolution to new environments being shown to be a result of ‘preprogrammed’ epigentics is very antagonistic to Darwinian thought, and clearly suggests foreknowledge that is inherent in ‘top down’ design, rather than reflecting ‘bottom up’ Darwinian accident which ‘just so happened’ to be in place before the environment appeared;

    Related Notes:

    Biological Variation – Cornelius Hunter
    Excerpt: One hint that biology would not cooperate with Darwin’s theory came from the many examples of rapidly adapting populations. What evolutionists thought would require thousands or millions of years has been observed in laboratories and in the field, in an evolutionary blink of an eye.
    http://www.darwinspredictions......_variation

    one of my favorite examples of rapidly adapting populations, which defy Darwinian expectations, is the Cichlid fish;

    These following studies and video, on Cichlid fishes, are clear evidence of the ‘limited and rapid variation’ from a ‘top down’ perspective predicted by the Genetic Entropy model:

    African cichlid fish: a model system in adaptive radiation research:
    “The African cichlid fish radiations are the most diverse extant animal radiations and provide a unique system to test predictions of speciation and adaptive radiation theory(of evolution).—-surprising implication of the study?—- the propensity to radiate was significantly higher in lineages whose precursors emerged from more ancient adaptive radiations than in other lineages”
    http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.g.....d=16846905

    Multiple Genes Permit Closely Related Fish Species To Mix And Match Their Color Vision – Oct. 2005
    Excerpt: In the new work, the researchers performed physiological and molecular genetic analyses of color vision in cichlid fish from Lake Malawi and demonstrated that differences in color vision between closely related species arise from individual species’ using different subsets of distinct visual pigments.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....072648.htm

    Cichlid Fish – Evolution or Variation Within Kind? – Dr. Arthur Jones – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4036852

    This finding also fits very well with this recent paper;

    Evolution of adaptive phenotypic traits without positive Darwinian selection – A L Hughes – November 2011
    Recent evidence suggests the frequent occurrence of a simple non-Darwinian (but non-Lamarckian) model for the evolution of adaptive phenotypic traits, here entitled the plasticity–relaxation–mutation (PRM) mechanism. This mechanism involves ancestral phenotypic plasticity followed by specialization in one alternative environment and thus the permanent expression of one alternative phenotype. Once this specialization occurs, purifying selection on the molecular basis of other phenotypes is relaxed. Finally, mutations that permanently eliminate the pathways leading to alternative phenotypes can be fixed by genetic drift. Although the generality of the PRM mechanism is at present unknown, I discuss evidence for its widespread occurrence, including the prevalence of exaptations in evolution, evidence that phenotypic plasticity has preceded adaptation in a number of taxa and evidence that adaptive traits have resulted from loss of alternative developmental pathways. The PRM mechanism can easily explain cases of explosive adaptive radiation,
    http://www.nature.com/hdy/jour.....1197a.html

  2. Here’s the link to the article:

    http://www.biomedcentral.com/c.....-13-59.pdf

Leave a Reply