Home » Intelligent Design » What Evolutionists Have Vigorously Denied For Decades Is Now “An Exploding Field”

What Evolutionists Have Vigorously Denied For Decades Is Now “An Exploding Field”

A new study has added yet more evidence to the claim that organisms respond to environmental challenges with non DNA, epigenetic, changes that are heritable. That may sound like detailed scientific jargon that has little importance outside of the dry, technical journal papers, but nothing could be further from the truth. Evolutionary theory has traditionally viewed heritable changes as being strictly channeled through DNA. For it is the DNA that can be altered by those chance mutations. The idea is that these chance mutations sometimes just luckily happen to improve the organism, and so it is selected. Thus all change that ever occurs to a species is, ultimately, from a source that is random. Non random change that might be directed, that is that might address the environmental challenge at hand, is not allowed. No teleology, no final causes, no design. Those are the metaphysical ground rules and the new study, far from merely addressing detailed scientific issues, has significant philosophical implications regarding evolutionary dogma. As one science writer put it:  Read more

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

14 Responses to What Evolutionists Have Vigorously Denied For Decades Is Now “An Exploding Field”

  1. Given the change of epigenetics is directed by the “environmental challenges” (quoting Cornelius) this is no more of a concern than natural selection through an environmental change.

    Epigenetics is compatible to the Theory of Evolution. The central dogma of the information flow (Crick) is that information does not flow from protein to protein or to residue.

    Cornelius’ article title should have said “What Evolutionists Have Vigorously Defined Over The Decades Is Now “An Exploding Field” after all it is these Evolutionists who are doing this work and they see no need to discard the vast evidence supporting evolution and common descent simply because the environment has even more say in the development of an organism. Quite the contrary as it cements living things to this natural world even more than some hypothetical teleology, final cause or design.

  2. => Lincoln

    Epigenetics is compatible to the Theory of Evolution.

    Jean Lamarck cried hoarse about epigentics.Darwin and his cronies rejected Lamarck’s theories, and now you claim that is what Darwin’s evolution predicted all along? Every time a new discovery disproves evolution, Darwinist say that’s exactly what Darwin predicted!

  3. Lincoln,

    How do you suppose a complicated system like epigenetics came about, through slow step by step small heritable mutations from one generation to the next? The whole organism switching on and off different regions of its DNA, do you have some kind of explanation for how this could have arisen by Darwinian mechanisms?

  4. Lincoln Phipps:

    Epigenetics is compatible to the Theory of Evolution.

    Please link to this theory of evolution so we can see if you are correct or not. (hint- you can’t link to it because it doesn’t exist)

  5. coldcoffee,

    nope Darwin supported Lamarck in Darwin’s Pangenesis hypothesis. Remember that Darwin did not know about genomes.

    phoodoo,
    I’m amazed about how much you seem to know about epigenetics to be able to make claims about how complicated it is. Lack of knowledge about a subject does that you know ?

    Joe,

    google is your friend.

  6. Lincoln Phipps-

    If you can’t link to the alleged theory of evolution, just say so. If one uses google one may get many hits but not one that leads to the alleged theory- who were the authors? what journal was it published in?

  7. Joe,

    start with the Wikipedia page,

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

    …and follow the references.

  8. Lincoln,
    You are, of course, right that Darwin’s theory of inheritence was quite like trans-generational epigenetics.

    I just wanted to add it the associating with the inheritence of acquired traits with Lamark is a bit weird. The idea didn’t start with him, indeed it was folk-knowledge since antiquity and commonly held by naturalists in Lamark and Darwin’s time. Lamarcks’ own evolutionary theory with “inner striving” rather than “use and disuse” as the driver is quite different than Darwin’s, or for that matter modern day tansgenerational epigenetics.

  9. So google doesn’t go straight to this alleged theory of evolution?

    YOU can’t tell who the authors were?

  10. Lincoln Phipps-

    ID is NOT anti-evolution. And not one of the wiki references unguided evolution. Where is the theory of unguided evolution? What does unguided evolution predict?

  11. the vast evidence supporting evolution and common descent

    I suggest anyone using these two phrases, “evolution” and “common descent”, should define each before discussing them.

    From Wikipedia

    Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.

    This is uncontroversial. What is controversial is that some of of the characteristics found in certain organisms could have never appeared through any know process of inheritance. No known theory can account for many of these novel characteristics. The more complicated the gene sequence and control mechanisms affecting the trait, the less likely a process of inheritance could lead to it.

    In evolutionary biology, a group of organisms share common descent if they have a common ancestor. There is strong evidence that all living organisms on Earth are descended from a common ancestor, called the last universal ancestor or LUA (or last universal common ancestor, LUCA).

    The first part of this definition is also uncontroversial because it is kept within the species level or gene pool. Every human has many ancestors. My cousins and myself all share a common set of grandparents.

    This controversy comes when discussing different species, i.e. finding a common ancestor for two different species. None have ever been found though many are speculated on as a common ancestor.

    The second part of the definition referring to a LUA or LUCA is at best speculative and far from proved.

    An aside. The Darwin finches supposedly represent 14 or more species but in reality these are all one species since they represent the same gene pool. So in this case if one wants to use a loose definition of species, we could hypothesize that these species might have a common ancestor. The morphological differences between the so called various species may be due to epigenetic factors which cause different genes to be expressed without actually affecting the gene pool.

    The epigenetics can be an incredibly complicated mechanism within species and it is not yet understood very well. It controls the careful expression of different cell types during gestation. For a human this control mechanism leads to the creation of over 200+ cell types with exquisite precision and will continue on during the development of the individual.

  12. Jerry,

    when you said,

    No known theory can account for many of these novel characteristics. The more complicated the gene sequence and control mechanisms affecting the trait, the less likely a process of inheritance could lead to it.

    …then that simply means that some unknown process is at work and humanity has not yet discovered what this is within the happenstance of nature.

    Whilst you present the “200+ cell types with exquisite precision” of a human you have skipped over that those 200+ cell types are not sufficient to keep a human alive. Along with all our cells there is over 360 times as much genetic information from the many trillions of bacteria that co-habit our bodies. At over 10 times as many cells as we have in our own body, the bacteria outnumber us and make us a minority.

    It is uncontroversial to say that we have co-evolved with other life forms and it is uncontroversial to say that life extends back a few billion years and uncontroversial to say that most life survives by consuming other living things.

    The naturalistic view is that this was through a large number of spontaneous chemical processes that have developed over time and it goes without saying that humanity does not know what all these processes are.

    Key to answering all of this is filling in the gaps in knowledge. There are gaps in understanding what are the chemical abundances of the pre-biotic Earth and the timeline for geology. Humanity doesn’t know the precise abundances nor the location. Just as important is understanding how organic chemicals physically work. They work spontaneously i.e. proteins fold spontaneously but we don’t yet have a complete understanding of the natural chemical and nuclear forces that make this so.

    When humans get this knowledge and more then that’ll answer some of your questions.

  13. Lincoln Phipps- evolutionism depends on our ignorance.

    And proteins do not fold spontaneously.

  14. then that simply means that some unknown process is at work and humanity has not yet discovered what this is within the happenstance of nature.

    I do not disagree with that and then I assume you share with me that such a statement should be in every biology textbook in the world and that any reference to Darwinian processes as responsible for this should be removed.

    you have skipped over that those 200+ cell types are not sufficient to keep a human alive. Along with all our cells there is over 360 times as much genetic information from the many trillions of bacteria that co-habit our bodies. At over 10 times as many cells as we have in our own body, the bacteria outnumber us and make us a minority.

    I am not sure what this has to do with anything we have been talking about. No one is denying that the bacteria in our gut have complicated interactions with our functioning both good and bad. I will not quibble with this but it not the issue here.

    The total genetic information is not as great as you say since each bacteria generally has a much smaller genome than a human cell.

    It is uncontroversial to say that we have co-evolved with other life forms and it is uncontroversial to say that life extends back a few billion years

    The first part is speculation at best. So to say it is uncontroversial is nonsense. Again the word evolved is use. One has to define it before using it.

    That life has been around for a few billion years is not an issue with ID. The YEC’s will not agree but not all of us believe in a young earth. I certainly do not.

    uncontroversial to say that most life survives by consuming other living things.

    I will agree that this is uncontroversial. But what it has to do with anything being discussed here is beyond me.

    The naturalistic view is that this was through a large number of spontaneous chemical processes that have developed over time and it goes without saying that humanity does not know what all these processes are.

    Again you should share my objective that such a statement should be in all biology textbooks.

    When humans get this knowledge and more then that’ll answer some of your questions.

    Again this should be in the textbooks. Essentially we do not know anything about how new information is formed.

Leave a Reply