3 ms·

This is nonsense. Epigenetics did nothing to contradict Darwinian evolution, so no 'revision' is necessary. The references to Lamarck are utterly bizarre; gir

This is nonsense. Epigenetics did nothing to contradict Darwinian evolution, so no 'revision' is necessary. The references to Lamarck are utterly bizarre; giraffes are not lengthening their necks via epigentics, and the 'will' of organisms remains irrelevant to evolution. It is descriptive only insofar as it's somehow 'outside' Darwinian evolution, but that is not true. Epigenetics did a few things: * It showed that some multi-generational effects can be made from environmental influence. This is very interesting, with many fascinating effects, but this ultimately is controlled by the primary nucleotide sequence. Epigenetic regulation cannot occur without the proper target sequences, and no epigenetic modification can be maintained indefinitely. * It can do some 'tricks' (e.g. paramutation) that actually confound Mendelian inheritance, thus requiring revision in that sense. * It showed that gene regulation, viral defense, and defense from self-replicating genetic elements are all related in a wonderfully fascinating way. None of this overturns Darwinian ideas; they fit squarely on top of them. It is a further elaboration of the primary genetic sequence in much the same way that protein translation is. Evolutionary novelty still comes from changes to nucleotide sequence, and those sequences prosper according to chance and natural selection.

somestag 10y ago
In my reading of the article, I never detected a suggestion that Darwinian evolution was flawed or incorrect. In fact, as far as I can tell, the article says exactly what you're saying: that a complete understanding of evolution involves understanding that both evolutionary and epigenetic forces are at play. In other words, the template changes, but so does the expression of that template. In fact, the summary paragraph in the article says we need to add epigenetics to Darwinian evolution, just as you say these newer ideas "fit squarely on top" of Darwin's.

somestag 10y ago

In my reading of the article, I never detected a suggestion that Darwinian evolution was flawed or incorrect. In fact, as far as I can tell, the article says exactly what you're saying: that a complete understanding of evolution involves understanding that both evolutionary and epigenetic forces are at play. In other words, the template changes, but so does the expression of that template. In fact, the summary paragraph in the article says we need to add epigenetics to Darwinian evolution, just as you say these newer ideas "fit squarely on top" of Darwin's.