Epigenetic Inheritance: Can Evolution Adapt?
| June 10, 2009 | Posted by Cornelius Hunter under Intelligent Design |
Given how routinely evolution fails to explain biology, it is remarkable that scientists still believe in the nineteenth century idea. One of the many problems areas is adaptation. Evolution holds that populations adapt to environmental pressures via the natural selection of blind variations. If more fur is needed, and some individuals accidentally are endowed with mutations that confer a thicker coat of fur, then those individuals will have greater survival and reproduction rates. The thicker fur mutation will then become common in the population.
This is the evolutionary notion of change. It is not what we find in biology. Under the hood, biology reveals far more complex and intelligent mechanisms for change, collectively referred to as epigenetic inheritance. You can read more about the challenge that this form of inheritance poses for evolution here. The take home message is that adaptation is routinely found to be not blind, but rather responsive to environmental pressures. The fur becomes thicker not by accident, but via cellular mechanisms responding to a need.
There is still much to learn about this phenomenal built-in adaptation capability, but it now is clear, and has been for many years, that epigenetic inheritance is a dramatic departure from evolutionary expectations. Indeed, this sort of adaptation is closer to the ideas of the long disgraced French naturalist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829). Lamarck’s idea was that offspring inherit traits or characteristics that were acquired by the parents. Although epigenetic inheritance is far more complex than anything Lamarck imagined, he was remarkably close to what is now being discovered. You can see a recent review of what has been learned here. Only a few years ago positive references to Lamarck drew heated response. Such ideas were not tolerated. Now his name appears regularly in the epigenetics literature.
This leaves evolutionists in an awkward position, to say the least.
Continue reading here.
298 Responses to Epigenetic Inheritance: Can Evolution Adapt?
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
ScottAndrews:
Very well, we’ll call it iconofid’s Law: Intelligence cannot beget intelligence.
Why make up a law in my name when it’s not what I said? Better would be “you cannot explain something complex by evoking even greater complexity”.
iconofid @273:
Ok, then we can’t explain radios by evoking humans, because humans are more complex than radios.
Can we name that one after you?
ScottAndrews:
iconofid @273:
Ok, then we can’t explain radios by evoking humans, because humans are more complex than radios.
Can we name that one after you?
Right you are, and that law was wrong. I hadn’t thought of making up a law until you attributed another false one to me. Still, I’ll give it a proper go.
You cannot explain “CSI” by evoking something that has “CSI” as a prerequisite.
What I think is wrong with your incredulity at chemical evolution causing an original life form and your credulity at the idea of intelligent designers being involved is that intelligent designers are far more complex than chemical autocatalysis, and therefore require much more explanation.
iconofid @275:
Believe me, the problem of infinite regression is not lost on me. But it doesn’t take away the problem immediately in front of us.
The rule, as stipulated, still eliminates the possibility that a creator can create another creator. Why not?
It implies that in the natural order of things, the simple must precede the complex. I don’t know of any observation that backs that up.
ScottAndrews:
It implies that in the natural order of things, the simple must precede the complex. I don’t know of any observation that backs that up.
We are talking about life, so check out the fossil record, and see what your observations are.
iconofid:
If one were to create an ecology, the little things would have to come first.
Sometimes the simple does precede the complex.
If we ever synthesize life, I’m sure we’ll start with bacteria or viruses and eventually move on to pets. The complex (us) would precede the simple.
ScottAndrews:
If one were to create an ecology, the little things would have to come first.
Sometimes the simple does precede the complex.
If we ever synthesize life, I’m sure we’ll start with bacteria or viruses and eventually move on to pets. The complex (us) would precede the simple.
Certainly, complex creatures can make simple things. Also, in evolution, complex creatures could loose features and become simpler in circumstances where it’s to their advantage to do so.
But that’s not my point. It is that complexity of the kind you see in intelligent life forms like ourselves requires simplicity to precede it, so far as our observations go, whereas simplicity does not require complexity to precede it. So, when we look at OOL, it doesn’t really make sense to express incredulity at ideas based on simplicity evolving into complexity, and then be credulous about instant complexity making simplicity ideas.
Think about it. Wouldn’t you be surprised if the flow of lava from a volcano shaped itself into an instant intelligent troll capable of designing a microorganism? Doesn’t step by step chemical evolution make more sense just as an idea, even without the growing (especially in the last few years) research that supports it?
iconofid:
My arguments say that the designer at best can be classified as pre-natural.
And REALITY says that even your position relies on something beyond nature.
Ya see, as I have told you, natural processes only exist in nature and therefor cannot account for its origin.
And in the end if you don’t like the design inference you can refute it just by actually supporting YOUR position as opposed to continually arguing from ignorance.
“pre-natural,” like “the creation theory of evolution,” is a Josephism.
David Kellogg:
“Pre-natural” just happens to be the correct choice. “Pre” meaning before.
And the creation model of biological evolution is called baraminology.
The father of baraminology is none other than Linneaus who was searching for the Created Kind when he came up with the classification system we still use today (binomial nomenclature).
But I wouldn’t expect Kellogg to understand any of that.
iconofid:
Too bad there isn’t any research that supports it.
The latest research pretty much demonstrates that reductionism is a loser’s cause.
Joseph says:
My arguments say that the designer at best can be classified as pre-natural.
Really? I thought I.D. didn’t tell us anything about the designer(s), so how do you know this? And “pre-natural” would mean “pre-time”, a concept with a built in contradiction.
And REALITY says that even your position relies on something beyond nature.
Ya see, as I have told you, natural processes only exist in nature and therefor cannot account for its origin.
What makes you think nature has an origin? Where time = 0, nature could be eternal or aternal. So far as we know, nature is everything. There’s no evidence for anything else.
And in the end if you don’t like the design inference you can refute it just by actually supporting YOUR position as opposed to continually arguing from ignorance.
My position is that everything in the universe is a part of it, and a product of its history. Why should I “support” what appears to be obvious? If someone wants to suggest otherwise, the burden of proof is on them.
No research that supports it, Joseph? have you seen this (a nice summary of recent development in OOL research)? I suppose it doesn’t hold a candle to the research you’re doing in your basement, but still . . .
iconofid:
Science. Science has demonstrated this universe, ie nature, had a beginning, meaning an origin.
And that sez absolutely nutyhin’.
Ya see it’s that history we are concerned with.
Stonehenge has a history also.
Because it doesn’t support your position.
Saying it is a product of its history could mean it was a product of a designer.
That you didn’t realize that just demonstrates how clueless you are,
David Kellogg,
The New York Times is NOT a peer-reviewed reference and what it says is meaningless.
The experiment by Sutherland required intelligent intervention all along the way.
Did you read the peer-reviewed paper?
It dopesn’t help you at all and as a matter of fact it pretty much demonstrated that reductionism is dead.
That the liberal NYT chooses instead to ignore those facts and instead push on just demonstrates they have an agenda.
My arguments say that the designer at best can be classified as pre-natural.
Really, really.
I didn’t need ID for that it is just a logical deduction.
Perhaps that is why you don’t understand it.
Which is also why you don’t understand the fact that YOUR position requires something beyond nature to get it started.
iconofid:
That’s not a valid argument because you’re making it up. Which kind of complexity requires simplicity? Which kind requires complexity? The kind that requires complexity, does that complexity require simplicity or complexity?
You’re making it up.
Joseph
To clarify, are you saying that without peer review a publication is worthless?
ScottAndrews:
That’s not a valid argument because you’re making it up. Which kind of complexity requires simplicity? Which kind requires complexity? The kind that requires complexity, does that complexity require simplicity or complexity?
You’re making it up.
As I said, Scott, you can look at the fossil record. Aren’t we talking about biology? And you can observe, in real time, how things work. Do we get Scott first, followed by a zygote, or the zygote increasing complexity into Scott?
Don’t you agree with my point that it would be surprising to see a fully formed, highly complex being emerge from rock and start designing bacteria? Would that fit our observations of how things work?
Joseph:
Science. Science has demonstrated this universe, ie nature, had a beginning, meaning an origin.
Would you care to show us the calculations?
And when you say science, do you mean methodological naturalism, or methodological supernaturalism? Or, perhaps, methodological pre-naturalism?
“And that sez absolutely nutyhin’.
Ya see it’s that history we are concerned with.
Stonehenge has a history also.”
Well done! And it’s certainly a natural part of the universe, as were its designers. Are your intelligent designers part of the universe? You say that they are “pre-natural”, but fail to respond to my pointing out the obvious; that “pre” means nothing where there’s no time.
“Saying it is a product of its history could mean it was a product of a designer.”
Obviously. My computer is a natural part of the universe, and the product of natural designers who are part of the natural universe.
“That you didn’t realize that just demonstrates how clueless you are,”
Except, of course, I did. We all know there are natural designers and designs, Joseph. As I’ve pointed out, the supernatural comes into the discussion because of the nature of some of the I.D. arguments, which attempt to rule out natural causes for some natural phenomena, like life.
Tell me, are you “cluefull”, in your opinion?
Actually, don’t tell me on this thread, as it’s disappeared off the front page, and we may as well all continue these fascinating discussions on more recent threads, as we’re not particularly on this one’s topic.
iconofid, everybody knows that Stonehenge was designed by thousands of tiny Celtic fairies.
Echinda.Levy:
A newspaper publication is always worthless.
And without peer-review science doesn’t care about it.
Science. Science has demonstrated this universe, ie nature, had a beginning, meaning an origin.
You can do your own research.
Start with “the big bang”.
None of the above.
The 2004 Encyclopedia Britannica says science is “any system of knowledge that is concerned with the physical world and its phenomena and that entails unbiased observations and systematic experimentation. In general, a science involves a pursuit of knowledge covering general truths or the operations of fundamental laws.”
“A healthy science is a science that seeks the truth.” Paul Nelson, Ph. D., philosophy of biology.
Linus Pauling, winner of 2 Nobel prizes wrote, “Science is the search for the truth.”
“But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding.” Albert Einstein
The truth need not be an absolute truth. Truth in the sense that Drs. Pauling, Einstein & Nelson are speaking is the reality in which we find ourselves. We exist. Science is to help us understand that existence and how it came to be.
As I like to say- science is our search for the truth, i.e. the reality, to our existence via our never-ending quest for knowledge.
Stonehenge has a history also.”
That is irrelevant.
Very well could be.
We don’t know when time began.
Does time require nature?
Provide the calculatiuon for that.
Also if nature has a beginning then there was a period before.
That is obvious.
And speaking about obvious it is obvious that natural processes cannot account for the origin of nature as they only exist in nature.
That you keep ignoring that fact speaks volumes about your agenda.
The supernatural comes in because people like you are too stupid to think of anything else.
ID does NOT require the supernatural.
iconofid:
It’s “natural vs artificial”, not “natural vs supernatural”.
Stonehenge is natural in that it exists in nature.
But nature, operating freely did not produce it. It is an artifact.
IOW icon you think your ignorance is some sort of refutation. And I find that very funny.
Iconofid:
First, you are including the assumption of natural progression (evolution) into your argument for it. If the zygote and Scott were designed, the very same order of appearance can mean something altogether different. Such a progression does not support one theory exclusively.
Second, such a progression still does not warrant your fabricated rule. You have argued that intelligence cannot beget intelligence because complexity cannot beget complexity. This has been your only argument to circumvent the design inference, but it is pulled from thin air. You can’t explain away evidence by inventing new laws.