epigenetics

[dale]

near twenty years on this group and have never heard this discussed

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

wouldn't this imply different factors involved in natural selection?
learned traits? faster adaption to the environment? less question about
the time frame evolution would have to occur within?

<cynic>

is the silence an attempt to validate a particular cause and effect
hypothesis in which sentience has no role?

</cynic>

while we are on the topic ...

has anyone come up with a material hypothesis of sentience?

--
dale | http://www.dalekelly.org

[Sean Dillon]

On Friday, March 31, 2017 at 8:19:54 PM UTC-5, dale wrote:
> near twenty years on this group and have never heard this discussed
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics

Wish you had stopped by the relevant forums on Beliefnet, before they were frozen. It was definitely a topic there.

> wouldn't this imply different factors involved in natural selection?

Not different factors, just a different balance OF factors.

> learned traits? faster adaption to the environment? less question about
> the time frame evolution would have to occur within?

Potentially yes. It comes down to specifics.

> <cynic>
> is the silence an attempt to validate a particular cause and effect
> hypothesis in which sentience has no role?
> </cynic>

Nope. It is an attempt to keep things as simple as possible for people who don't even get the fundamental concepts. Personally, I would LOVE it if evolution opponents we able to discuss the issue at this level.

> while we are on the topic ...
>
> has anyone come up with a material hypothesis of sentience?

A cohesive one? No. But then, I've never seen a cohesive hypothesis for sentience on ANY basis. Non-material hypotheses tend to depend on vague hand-waving.

[RSNorman]

Perhaps you don't listen. Google Groups lists some 3000 posts over
the past twenty years that deal with epigenetics. There have been a
number of threads with the word, epigenetics, in the title. And why
do you think that epigenetics has any connection whatsoever with
sentience?

[*Hemidactylus*]

dale <da...@dalekelly.org> wrote:
> near twenty years on this group and have never heard this discussed
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics
>

Pretty sure I was babbling about it in the late 90s. Jablonka and Lamb
write a couple books about it.

>
> wouldn't this imply different factors involved in natural selection?
>

How so? Other things propose where selection merely disposes. However you
are defining epigenetics would merely be a source of creativity. Selection
judges the artwork. Isn't epigenetics mostly about methylation states, if
they can be transmitted to offspring, and if so how many generations the
effects last?
>
> learned traits?
>
People learned to use dairy products and eventually lactase persistence
resulted. James Mark Baldwin thought behavior could lead evolution in a
quasi-Lamarckian manner. Jean Piaget followed in his footsteps. If a lobe
finned fish learned food was plentiful onshore, a new way of living and
something called tetrapods could result. Tool use by means of bipedal
tetrapod forelimbs could shape brain evolution.

>
> faster adaption to the environment?

Phenotypic range and a shifted subset under strained conditions could
eventually be supplanted by genetic changes that set such pliable shifts in
stone.

> less question about
> the time frame evolution would have to occur within?
>
> <cynic>
>
> is the silence an attempt to validate a particular cause and effect
> hypothesis in which sentience has no role?
>
> </cynic>
>
> while we are on the topic ...
>
> has anyone come up with a material hypothesis of sentience?
>

Bulbous cortex with complex enough subdivision of labor in components to
subserve greater environmental awareness? Eyes see, nose smells, and ears
hear. The brain collates this information and organisms learn what to do in
varying situations. Social organisms learn to deal with each other and some
achieve self awareness. Sadly elephants and some crow type birds have more
of this trait than some of our more notorious posters. Self-control in
social situations such as knowing when not to get duped by manipulators is
something folks such as Dan Dennett call free will.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Conscious striving and giraffe necks? A lie repeated often enough becomes
passed through germline and thus instinctive? The collective unconscious
reveres the thematic wise old man? A hundred potato washing monkeys can
bring world peace? We can revert to past lives and channel our inner
worm...or was that after a 3rd bottle of tequila?

[Mr. B1ack]

On Fri, 31 Mar 2017 21:16:53 -0400, dale <da...@dalekelly.org> wrote:

>near twenty years on this group and have never heard this discussed
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics
>
>wouldn't this imply different factors involved in natural selection?
>learned traits? faster adaption to the environment? less question about
>the time frame evolution would have to occur within?

Epi represents a faster "fine-tuning" mechanism - something
more responsive to immediate circumstances than regular
selection forces on DNA itself. Seems a billion+ years of
evolution has created a sort of "DNA library" of "possibilities".
Epi can turn those possibilities on and off.

But it does not help code for "learned" material .. It works at
a lower, more purely functional, level.

[RonO]

On 3/31/2017 8:16 PM, dale wrote:
> near twenty years on this group and have never heard this discussed

This has been discussed many times on this newsgroup. It doesn't make
much difference because it has always been accounted for in evolutionary
theory as part of the environmental effect. We just have a better
understanding of how the environment is affecting things.

>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics
>
> wouldn't this imply different factors involved in natural selection?
> learned traits? faster adaption to the environment? less question about
> the time frame evolution would have to occur within?

So far faster adaptation etc. hasn't emerged as verifiable. The
epigenetic effects due to the environment seem to be pretty much
arbitrary and there is no clear indication that it helps the organism
adapt any faster. It seems to be mostly noise and causes more
variation. If you read the Wiki you will find that there are ways that
genes are regulated that have been known for decades. The cited paper
on the definition is from 1985 and we knew about methylation and gene
regulation before that.

It turns out that the environment can alter things like methylation
patterns and so alter gene regulation. Some of these alterations can
last for a while, but they aren't genetic. There is a genetic basis for
the original methylation pattern and there is a reversion back to it.

Some people thought that this might be a means to add to the plasticity
of the phenotype, but it seems to be hit or miss and arbitrary changes
may be beneficial, but there seems to be no direction to aid adaptation
except to sometimes help alter the phenotype some in the direction that
could benefit the organism, but the epigenetic changes are arbitrary and
can hinder as often as help.

The classic example is famine survivors and how their progeny are
affected. The progeny aren't more famine resistant, but the altered
gene regulation generally messes up something and they were identified
by common mess ups and not so good medical conditions.

So, so far, epigenetics has a lot to do with things like medical
conditions like cancer and metabolism issues, but in terms of biological
evolution it is just noise.

>
> <cynic>
>
> is the silence an attempt to validate a particular cause and effect
> hypothesis in which sentience has no role?
>
> </cynic>

Give a reason to discuss it? It doesn't matter very much or you would
hear about it more. If it had panned out as something that could aid
biological evolution the creationists wouldn't be the ones to make a big
deal about it, and it would just be one more strike against what you
support, so why be a cynic?

>
> while we are on the topic ...
>
> has anyone come up with a material hypothesis of sentience?
>

You might not have any under some definitions. Will you ever be able to
learn from experience?

Ron Okimoto

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 31 Mar 2017 21:16:53 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by dale <da...@dalekelly.org>:

>near twenty years on this group and have never heard this discussed
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics

Then you haven't been paying attention; there were several
threads her just a few months ago about epigenetics.

And no, I'm not going to provide you with specific
references; if you want to find them it's time you learned
how.

HAND

>wouldn't this imply different factors involved in natural selection?
>learned traits? faster adaption to the environment? less question about
>the time frame evolution would have to occur within?
>
><cynic>
>
>is the silence an attempt to validate a particular cause and effect
>hypothesis in which sentience has no role?
>
></cynic>
>
>while we are on the topic ...
>
>has anyone come up with a material hypothesis of sentience?
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Eric]

On Friday, March 31, 2017 at 7:19:54 PM UTC-6, dale wrote:
>
> wouldn't this imply different factors involved in natural selection?
> learned traits? faster adaption to the environment? less question about
> the time frame evolution would have to occur within?

No. Epigenetics still comes down to functions based on specific DNA sequences. If you change DNA sequence you change which DNA gets methylated in response to environmental stimuli, and you also change the phenotype when that DNA is methylated.

[Eric]

On Friday, March 31, 2017 at 9:29:54 PM UTC-6, *Hemidactylus* wrote:

> How so? Other things propose where selection merely disposes. However you
> are defining epigenetics would merely be a source of creativity. Selection
> judges the artwork. Isn't epigenetics mostly about methylation states, if
> they can be transmitted to offspring, and if so how many generations the
> effects last?

Methylation states only last 1 or 2 generations for very select areas of the genome. Most methyl groups are removed from the genomes of gametes, so very little methylation passes from one generation to the next. More importantly, the differences between humans and chimps is not due to different methylation patterns, but is due to differences in DNA sequence. Epigenetics can't explain the differences between species.

[Eric]

On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 12:09:54 AM UTC-6, Mr. B1ack wrote:
>
> Epi represents a faster "fine-tuning" mechanism - something
> more responsive to immediate circumstances than regular
> selection forces on DNA itself. Seems a billion+ years of
> evolution has created a sort of "DNA library" of "possibilities".
> Epi can turn those possibilities on and off.
>
> But it does not help code for "learned" material .. It works at
> a lower, more purely functional, level.

Which possibilities are these?

[dale]

I think what you are saying is that epigenetic DNA is not different and
all the epigenetic happenings are futile, this kinda negates the whole
definition of epigenetics doesn't it?

--
dale | http://www.dalekelly.org

[Mr. B1ack]

On Mon, 3 Apr 2017 12:17:47 -0700 (PDT), Eric <emci...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Metabolic comes up often. Some broad alterations in
brain chemistry too. Google "stress epigenetic".
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4214172/
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/339/6116/148
https://clinicalepigeneticsjournal.biomedcentral.com/

Climate tends to run in broad cycles ... warmer to cooler
and back, wetter to drier and back ... which affects the
food supply. If epigenetic responses to food deprivation
in one generation result in the next being somehow more
frugal with resources then it's easy to see why such
regulatory changes are useful and the ability to have
such changes persists. Actual DNA mutations may
not happen in a timely manner, or lead in a useful
direction. So a faster, semi-permanent environmental
response capability IS a plus.

Hmm ... say DNA changes are the gas pedal and
brake on your car. Epigenetics are then more like
the steering wheel, allowing you to maneuver
around little obstacles.

Alas epigenetic "fixes" aren't always very good. They
can have numerous side effects - so you can improve
"fitness" in one dimension but decrease it in others.
Perhaps what was good in the context of a 25
million year old relative may not be so good now.
"Nature" tries, but it's blind. The only measure that
counts is the "fitness" for the current environment,
does the organism survive to reproduce or not.

Over the years I expect we'll develop artificial
gene-expression regulators that are at least as
smart as we are. I wonder who'll be in charge
of that .... ?

[czeba...@gmail.com]

Dale, weren't you here a few months ago for the Georgia Kaplan threads? Part of his schtick was trying to make more of epigenetic changes than is valid, as well as misconstrueing the role of regulatory elements.

gregwrld

[Mr. B1ack]

Futile ?

No, not futile. Not always very useful - but generally
serve *some* useful purpose (or such environmental
responses wouldn't have been conserved over the
aeons).

DNA methylation is also a mechanism cells employ for
fine-tuning their more ordinary housekeeping fuctions.
It's a way to turn off a gene for awile - partially or
completely - if its product has become too plentiful.

Environmentally-induced methylation may be more of
an "accident", same intracellular mechanism triggered
out-of-sequence by external agents/stressors, of which
some eventually became entrenched, 'normal', when
they accidently served a useful purpose for the species
or individual.

Epi ultimately adds some "flexibility", "adaptability" outside
of actual DNA changes. Big dogs, little dogs ... but they
still have pretty much the same DNA code - it's the epi
that breeders are manipulating, alters the expression
of the underlying genome.