My theory (copyright, 2011) is that epigenomes can be influenced by people and attitudes (memes) we're exposed to as much as physical environments. New science.
@benthemiester There's not enough mass popular science educators to fulfill each field, therefore the need for people like Degrasse, Sagan, Nye, Feynman, Bronowski, Dawkins, attenborough, kaku, and hawking. Small amount of mpse divided by amount of possible fields = overlap. Your heart probelm question is null as you dont go to science information shows to answer questions, you go to gain them; it brings the questions to you.
@skydome29 If u think that going to a dentist to ask about a heart problem is null,
then you didn't get the analogy. So carry on, but personally I find that science shows in many respects are filled with just as much politics and dogmas as anything else. If I want to better understand epigenetic, I will try to learn from specialist in that field, such as evo devo's, geneticist & bioinformatics etc. & especially not from someone who is just as qualified as I or anyone else is on the subject.
@benthemiester Ask how many people in your LA area know what epigenetics are, do a street poll as these are the most entertaining. You will soon realize why these popularizers iof science are so necessary, because a massive percentage of people have no clue to begin with and these guys bring them that information to be able to ask those in the field. It's preliminary education and awareness of a field or multiple fields done by scientifically literate person(s).
@skydome29 "Ask how many people in your LA area know what epigenetics are"
I seriously doubt even Tyson understands the finer details of what epigenetics encompasses. This is not his field. He is reading from a script & is just as qualified to speak on the subject as any other lay person. And on this particular subject, that is just exactly what he is. In fact I have spoken to college professors who are devout neo Darwinist & even refuse to believe that epigenetics is anything substantial.
@benthemiester scientifically literate does not equal layperson. The "script" he read was with help from experts in the field, a few professors unnamed and from "nowhere" does not equal any consensus.
@skydome29 I'm not going to repeat myself. If you do not understand that he is a lay person outside of his field of expertise as is all scientist who are out of there field, then this is not my problem. Again if you think an astrophysicist is more qualified to speak on epigenetics, then more power to you. This is the watered down version. What you didn't hear was that epigenetics is a challenged to many of the central dogmas of biology as well as the modern synthesis of evolution itself.
@benthemiester Just because you dont read doesnt mean you get to repeat yourself. "Again if you think an astrophysicist..." more qualified than who? Name a epigeneticist whos also a popularizer? Neils script is written by such biological experts, its not his words, hes just the scientifically literate "newsman" (See equation). "epigenetics is a challenged to many of the central dogmas of biology" With this comment you've shown what little understanding of the principles of science you have.
@skydome29 cont... As I said before, even the limitations and abilities of natural selection and random mutations are being questioned by these men who are without question, evolutionist and not creationist. In particle the Altenberg 16. The gene centric view is also another orthodox tenant that has been found to be false and this has been known for even longer. The concept of the gene centrism as we have been taught for all these years is being redefined as we speak,
@skydome29 cont... as well as the regulatory role of transposons and other underlying emergent systems. In another article of the same, concerning evolutionary development biology, it speaks of those in the field who are challenging the central dogmas of evolutionary biology. Although un cited I will be working on that soon. Francis Cricks central dogma that information only flows one way is another one of the many monoliths to bite the dust.
@skydome29 cont..... article indicating that this view set us back several decades scientifically speaking. We now know that much of what was referred to, as in the words of Kenneth Miller, "useless mindless scribble" is extremely important in the gene regulation, transcribing RNA, the critical role of ERV's in embryological development,
@skydome29 In the last short few years we have discovered that this whole junk DNA paradigm which was for many years the poster child for the neo Darwinism/modern evolutionary synthesis, is just false. Even wikipedia has published an........
@skydome29 cont...."Entitled Will the real theory of evolution please stand up?" Whats even more interesting is why organizations who support neo Darwinism such as Eugenie Scott & the NCSE do not support these same evolutionary development biologist who publicly challenging the limitations some of the major tenants of the neo Darwinian synthesis are trying to extend the evolutionary synthesis based on current data.
@skydome29 "Name a epigeneticist whos also a popularizer" Your using the word in the sense of a noun. When used as a verb, as to (popularize), anyone who can read from a script is qualified. If you want to get a less watered down version of epigenetics which includes gene placidity, self organization models and a challenge to the orthodoxy of some of the central dogmas of evolutionary biology then you should watch my posted interview with evo devo Stuart Newman,.......
@benthemiester No, that is called a politician. Tyson Neil is just doing a show akin to cosmos, which gives people an expansed view on science, a reflection of its entirety. Will check them out.
@skydome29 So your saying that evolutionary biologist who actually study epigenetics & who are trying to extend the the modern synthesis based on current data are being politicians, yet in your own words a (populariser) who popularizes something to the general public, has nothing to do with politics? I would bet that you never even heard of Stuart Newman or the Austrian summit.
The findings are printed in MIT press which is anything but a political org. You have a great sense of humor man.
cont.... yet most people are never told about these things in these popularized videos you speak of. I also included the Prion Challenge paper with others.
Epigenetics: A Challenge for Genetics, Evolution, and Development?
New york academy of sciences
Developmental Dynamics: Toward a Biologically Plausible Evolutionary Psychology.
The Prion Challenge to the ‘Central Dogma' of Molecular Biology, 1965–1991: Part I: Prelude to Prions
ahhh gosh so interesting! - if we can master the epigenome, over time ( probably around 7 years, as it takes that long to regenerate all cells in our body) we could drastically change our appearance, traits, everything! WOAH! :D
I'm no biologist, but are you sure about that? Stem cells that produce red blood cells have a nucleus, but do they actually produce red blood cells with a nucleus that then gets ejected?
"In the process of maturation a basophilic pronormoblast is converted from a cell with a large nucleus and a volume of 900 fL to an enucleated disc with a volume of 95 fL. By the reticulocyte stage, the cell has extruded its nucleus, but is still capable of producing hemoglobin." - Wikipedia: Erythropoiesis
so it's technically not a "red blood cell with a nucleus" but the cell that becomes the RBC is still the same cell, so it did at one stage have a nucleus.
OK, I bow to your greater knowledge. Nevertheless, my original point still stands. I have a lot of cells that do not have a nucleus. They had one in their early stages but do not have one now.
"All our cells have identical genomes" is wrong. "... started out with..." works.
couldn't this video of been summed up with that last sentence? still neat to see i guess.
Reinpret 1 month ago
I have to say after watching this segment on Nova a few years ago I fell in love with genetics!
mxzysptlik 2 months ago
Fattest mouse is cutest mouse
migduh 4 months ago
I wonder if Tyson agreed to do this to fill in a few of his own shortcomings in biology. good stuff. thanks
rpm297 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rpm297 "I wonder if Tyson agreed to do this to fill in a few of his own shortcomings in biology."
Ummm... what?
frightenedsoul 4 months ago
I still say it beats rushton or jensen talking about genetics. :P
Donatellangelo 5 months ago
My theory (copyright, 2011) is that epigenomes can be influenced by people and attitudes (memes) we're exposed to as much as physical environments. New science.
2tim149 9 months ago
I wonder if Randy has a skinny identical twin.
Crackhouts 1 year ago
Stick to your own field Neil.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester why?
skydome29 6 months ago
@skydome29 The same reason you dont go to a Dentist if you have a question about a heart problem.
benthemiester 6 months ago
@benthemiester There's not enough mass popular science educators to fulfill each field, therefore the need for people like Degrasse, Sagan, Nye, Feynman, Bronowski, Dawkins, attenborough, kaku, and hawking. Small amount of mpse divided by amount of possible fields = overlap. Your heart probelm question is null as you dont go to science information shows to answer questions, you go to gain them; it brings the questions to you.
skydome29 6 months ago
@skydome29 If u think that going to a dentist to ask about a heart problem is null,
then you didn't get the analogy. So carry on, but personally I find that science shows in many respects are filled with just as much politics and dogmas as anything else. If I want to better understand epigenetic, I will try to learn from specialist in that field, such as evo devo's, geneticist & bioinformatics etc. & especially not from someone who is just as qualified as I or anyone else is on the subject.
benthemiester 6 months ago
@benthemiester Ask how many people in your LA area know what epigenetics are, do a street poll as these are the most entertaining. You will soon realize why these popularizers iof science are so necessary, because a massive percentage of people have no clue to begin with and these guys bring them that information to be able to ask those in the field. It's preliminary education and awareness of a field or multiple fields done by scientifically literate person(s).
skydome29 6 months ago
@skydome29 "Ask how many people in your LA area know what epigenetics are"
I seriously doubt even Tyson understands the finer details of what epigenetics encompasses. This is not his field. He is reading from a script & is just as qualified to speak on the subject as any other lay person. And on this particular subject, that is just exactly what he is. In fact I have spoken to college professors who are devout neo Darwinist & even refuse to believe that epigenetics is anything substantial.
benthemiester 6 months ago
@benthemiester scientifically literate does not equal layperson. The "script" he read was with help from experts in the field, a few professors unnamed and from "nowhere" does not equal any consensus.
skydome29 6 months ago
@skydome29 I'm not going to repeat myself. If you do not understand that he is a lay person outside of his field of expertise as is all scientist who are out of there field, then this is not my problem. Again if you think an astrophysicist is more qualified to speak on epigenetics, then more power to you. This is the watered down version. What you didn't hear was that epigenetics is a challenged to many of the central dogmas of biology as well as the modern synthesis of evolution itself.
benthemiester 6 months ago
@benthemiester Just because you dont read doesnt mean you get to repeat yourself. "Again if you think an astrophysicist..." more qualified than who? Name a epigeneticist whos also a popularizer? Neils script is written by such biological experts, its not his words, hes just the scientifically literate "newsman" (See equation). "epigenetics is a challenged to many of the central dogmas of biology" With this comment you've shown what little understanding of the principles of science you have.
skydome29 6 months ago
@skydome29 cont... As I said before, even the limitations and abilities of natural selection and random mutations are being questioned by these men who are without question, evolutionist and not creationist. In particle the Altenberg 16. The gene centric view is also another orthodox tenant that has been found to be false and this has been known for even longer. The concept of the gene centrism as we have been taught for all these years is being redefined as we speak,
benthemiester 6 months ago
@skydome29 cont... as well as the regulatory role of transposons and other underlying emergent systems. In another article of the same, concerning evolutionary development biology, it speaks of those in the field who are challenging the central dogmas of evolutionary biology. Although un cited I will be working on that soon. Francis Cricks central dogma that information only flows one way is another one of the many monoliths to bite the dust.
benthemiester 6 months ago
@skydome29 cont..... article indicating that this view set us back several decades scientifically speaking. We now know that much of what was referred to, as in the words of Kenneth Miller, "useless mindless scribble" is extremely important in the gene regulation, transcribing RNA, the critical role of ERV's in embryological development,
benthemiester 6 months ago
@skydome29 In the last short few years we have discovered that this whole junk DNA paradigm which was for many years the poster child for the neo Darwinism/modern evolutionary synthesis, is just false. Even wikipedia has published an........
benthemiester 6 months ago
@skydome29 cont...."Entitled Will the real theory of evolution please stand up?" Whats even more interesting is why organizations who support neo Darwinism such as Eugenie Scott & the NCSE do not support these same evolutionary development biologist who publicly challenging the limitations some of the major tenants of the neo Darwinian synthesis are trying to extend the evolutionary synthesis based on current data.
benthemiester 6 months ago
@skydome29 "Name a epigeneticist whos also a popularizer" Your using the word in the sense of a noun. When used as a verb, as to (popularize), anyone who can read from a script is qualified. If you want to get a less watered down version of epigenetics which includes gene placidity, self organization models and a challenge to the orthodoxy of some of the central dogmas of evolutionary biology then you should watch my posted interview with evo devo Stuart Newman,.......
benthemiester 6 months ago
@benthemiester No, that is called a politician. Tyson Neil is just doing a show akin to cosmos, which gives people an expansed view on science, a reflection of its entirety. Will check them out.
skydome29 6 months ago
@skydome29 So your saying that evolutionary biologist who actually study epigenetics & who are trying to extend the the modern synthesis based on current data are being politicians, yet in your own words a (populariser) who popularizes something to the general public, has nothing to do with politics? I would bet that you never even heard of Stuart Newman or the Austrian summit.
The findings are printed in MIT press which is anything but a political org. You have a great sense of humor man.
benthemiester 6 months ago
@skydome29
cont.... yet most people are never told about these things in these popularized videos you speak of. I also included the Prion Challenge paper with others.
Epigenetics: A Challenge for Genetics, Evolution, and Development?
New york academy of sciences
Developmental Dynamics: Toward a Biologically Plausible Evolutionary Psychology.
The Prion Challenge to the ‘Central Dogma' of Molecular Biology, 1965–1991: Part I: Prelude to Prions
benthemiester 6 months ago
Thank you... most interesting and enlightening.
4EMF 1 year ago
estella is hot.
lucirz 2 years ago
I didn't know Borat was a scientist?!
macharius188 2 years ago
On an episode of "Family Guy" I heard Quagmire say while he was looking at Brian, "Epigenetigiggity giggity goo."
lambent77777 2 years ago
@lambent77777 easter egg
pawppy 1 year ago
ahhh gosh so interesting! - if we can master the epigenome, over time ( probably around 7 years, as it takes that long to regenerate all cells in our body) we could drastically change our appearance, traits, everything! WOAH! :D
foreverconnected 2 years ago
Sigh.
"All of our cells have identical genes."
Except for red blood cells, which lack a nucleus.
bdf2718 2 years ago
well, they had a nucleus. but they lose it.
twiistaaa 2 years ago
I'm no biologist, but are you sure about that? Stem cells that produce red blood cells have a nucleus, but do they actually produce red blood cells with a nucleus that then gets ejected?
bdf2718 2 years ago
"In the process of maturation a basophilic pronormoblast is converted from a cell with a large nucleus and a volume of 900 fL to an enucleated disc with a volume of 95 fL. By the reticulocyte stage, the cell has extruded its nucleus, but is still capable of producing hemoglobin." - Wikipedia: Erythropoiesis
so it's technically not a "red blood cell with a nucleus" but the cell that becomes the RBC is still the same cell, so it did at one stage have a nucleus.
twiistaaa 2 years ago
OK, I bow to your greater knowledge. Nevertheless, my original point still stands. I have a lot of cells that do not have a nucleus. They had one in their early stages but do not have one now.
"All our cells have identical genomes" is wrong. "... started out with..." works.
bdf2718 2 years ago
weird to hear tyson talk about biology :)
sheepwshotguns 2 years ago 18
@sheepwshotguns he knows about everything)
funduk89 7 months ago
@sheepwshotguns It would be also very interesting if we hear Richard Dawkins talking about astronomy. They are all brilliant.
goldmonkey77 1 month ago
amazing stuff, what program is this from?
mazdaplz 2 years ago
Nova Science Now. Great PBS program that Dr. Tyson hosts.
thesilvernymph 2 years ago 10