Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Paper Discussion: Epigenesis and Complexity: The Coming Revolution in Biology
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 4 of 12 (441839)
12-18-2007 10:04 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by mobioevo
12-17-2007 7:14 PM


I agree with moose that -- if you want to discuss the paper -- quotes pertinent to the issues you want to discuss will help focus the discussion, like:
quote:
Conflicts within genetic determinism
Genetic determinism is in trouble for the following reasons. Anomalous findings, the first signs of a Kuhnian revolt, are showing up almost weekly in major journals of molecular and cell biology. Among the disturbing findings coming from the Human Genome Project and elsewhere are:
(i) That genome complexity found in humans and mice, for example, is not correlated with the differences of form and function found between them3. ... Most biologists, when pushed, do agree that there is not enough information in any genome capable of mapping out the details by which morphological structures arise in organisms4.
(ii) there is a striking lack of correspondence between genetic and evolutionary change. Neo-Darwinian theory predicts a steady, slow continuous accumulation of mutations (micro evolution) that produces a progresisve change in morphology leading to new species, genera, and so on (macro evolution). But macro evolution now appears to be full of discontinuities (punctuated evolution) so we have a mismatch of some importance.
If you just want to discuss epigenesis, then perhaps some oppositional papers might help.
Epigenesis (biology) - Wikipedia
quote:
In biology, epigenesis has at least two distinct meanings:
  • the unfolding development of an organism, and in particular the development of a plant or animal from an egg or spore through a sequence of steps in which cells differentiate and organs form;
  • the theory that plants and animals develop in this way, in contrast to theories of preformation.
    ... Although both traditions tried to explain developmental organization, religious and metaphysical arguments on the conception of embryonic matter as either active or passive determined the scope of their respective explanations. ...
  • Sounds a little like Elmer and IamJoseph.
    Are we getting into evo/devo or staying more narrowly focussed?
    Thanks.
    Edited by RAZD, : added (ii)

    Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

    we are limited in our ability to understand
    by our ability to understand
    RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
    ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
    to share.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by mobioevo, posted 12-17-2007 7:14 PM mobioevo has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 5 by mobioevo, posted 12-18-2007 10:50 PM RAZD has replied

      
    RAZD
    Member (Idle past 1404 days)
    Posts: 20714
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004


    Message 8 of 12 (442002)
    12-19-2007 3:51 PM
    Reply to: Message 5 by mobioevo
    12-18-2007 10:50 PM


    I didn't add any quotes from the paper because I wanted others to read the paper and not just the quotes that I would write. You are probably right so I will do so in my next posts. Right now I wanted to define some of what the paper is concerned.
    The problem for me is that whenever anyone wants to claim that new studies have either invalidated or replaced evolution, that this doesn't affect all the cases where evolution has been validated. One of the others to make similar claims to this paper is Jeffery H Schwartz in "Missimg Links and "Sudden Origins" (see threads)
    My answers to the authors critique of genetic determinism is, so what. Evolution needs to act on hereditary information. Whether this hereditary information is genetic, protein, RNA, methylation patterns, or cell membranes, it does not change the fact that they all are hereditary.
    This is also why I use "hereditary traits" rather than "frequency of alleles" in discussing evolution. If it's hereditary and it contributes to selection then it is part of evolution.
    The author's argument for the paper being discussed is since there is more evidence that their are other forms of non-genetic inheritance will genetic determinism still survive. In the author's opinion no. He feels a more fully theory of the cell will develop out of epigenetic phenomenon.
    All this does in my mind is add to the theories involved in evolution, but doesn't take any away.
    Thus when we define the "theory of evolution" as the ∑(all theories) of how changes in hereditary traits occur in populations and are passed from generation to generation, we just have ∑n+1 = ∑n + 1 ... not very stunning when n = large.
    Thanks.
    Edited by RAZD, : last quote

    Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

    we are limited in our ability to understand
    by our ability to understand
    RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
    ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
    to share.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 5 by mobioevo, posted 12-18-2007 10:50 PM mobioevo has not replied

      
    RAZD
    Member (Idle past 1404 days)
    Posts: 20714
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004


    Message 10 of 12 (442021)
    12-19-2007 5:31 PM
    Reply to: Message 9 by Elmer
    12-19-2007 4:54 PM


    tips for newbies
    Go to Proposed New Topics to post new topics.
    You fill it out just like a regular post, but it won't be accessible until it is promoted by an admin. Usually you need to say which forum, but this would be biological evolution.
    You can use peek or edit on your old post to copy it with coding and you can also use links to the original if you want.
    I'd ask mobioevo if he thinks it is off-topic as he seemed pretty open to me. Not that both threads couldn't go in different directions (evolve )
    Enjoy.

    Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

    we are limited in our ability to understand
    by our ability to understand
    RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
    ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
    to share.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 9 by Elmer, posted 12-19-2007 4:54 PM Elmer has not replied

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024