Epigenetics

[bipolarkooksoldlady]

thanks for the sources!

just reposting here something i just posted on inmendham's channel, bc it seems unfair just to pick on him:

"i actually think it's hilarious that you matt and 2bsirius think you all disagree. i mean, come on. there are people in the world who are INTO the idea of global warming bc they think christ is coming. your disagreement is negligible, and a failure to see this comes from a lack of clear thinking."

[patternsinchaos]

Cool stuff, thanks!

[2bsirius]

If you do nothing else, I hope you'll take a look at the first link in the sidebar. It's a link that CousinoMacul forwarded to me and its a great resource for understanding what epigenetics IS...Also, please pay attention to the work of Lenski. It has a lot to say about the fallacy of absolute genetic determinism. There is a very good Google video about Lenski's work...Thanks, CM, for the link! If we don't know about these things, then creationists can say what they like, and we can't rebut!

[2bsirius]

For exactly what I mean on this, take a look at this video about countering creationists. The video uses the work of Abigail Smith, the young research biologist in the clip first clip in the sidebar:

watch?v=4jqZ3yuDOj4

Again, it's technical, but important!

[2bsirius]

If you look at the comment section for this video, you will notice that my comment is one of the only ones which has a thumbs down...That's not because of what I said BTW. It's because a dedicated group of trolls and haters follow me around YT and thumbs down ANY comment I make. You have to love it!

[Bleuesoul89]

does epigenetics mean that we can change they way we look or we can change our physical apperance just by thinking a different way about ourselves and dr bruce lipton is saying somthing like that

[9macrina9]

I'm glad you take the time for your vids...even if you are half way out the door! I am learning ....I just hope the general public catches up on the research before monsanto designs all the seeds to be sterile such that farmers can't save seeds for next year's crops. Hooray for heirloom seeds! Hooray for looking through telescopes!

[2bsirius]

Yes, I'm obsessed by the problem of heirloom seeds. Here in the UK in West Sussex we have one of the major repositories for heirloom seeds. Agree about the telescope too. In fact, I wanted to make a video about telescopes and my history with them beginning when I was ten, but I always have my priorities backwards. I guess there's no hope for me. I suffer from terminal nerdy disease. What happened to the fawn BTW? Love your comment!

[9macrina9]

You are in no way a nerd!!! You are an articulate amazing lady and I hope you continue to post eclectic and educational vids. Do the telescopes! I will continue to film grass and dogs and horses, shyly of course:-)...re: the fawn; the mowing went into moratorium for two days, the doe came at dusk each night, and when little one found her feet, they both crossed the creek and live up in the woods on the plateau.

[cehbeach]

Or even worse seeds that will only grow with their custom fertilizer. Somebody needs to be severely beaten for even thinking of that monstrous idea.

[Mjhavok]

I have access to the online electronic version of this article because of my university :-D

[Mjhavok]

From the article that Karen mentions.

"What does Dawkins himself think? "The 'transgenerational' effects now being described are mildly interesting, but they cast no doubt whatsoever on the theory of the selfish gene," he says. He suggests, though, that the word "gene" should be replaced with "replicator". This selfish replicator, acting as the unit of selection, does not have to be a gene, but it does have to be replicated accurately, the occasional mutation aside.

[Mjhavok]

"Whether [epigenetic marks] will eventually be deemed to qualify as 'selfish replicators' will depend upon whether they are genuinely high-fidelity replicators with the capacity to go on for ever. This is important because otherwise there will be no interesting differences between those that are successful in natural selection and those that are not." If all the effects fade out within the first few generations, they cannot be said to be positively selected, Dawkins points out."

[2bsirius]

Excellent comment! BTW these quotes are in the section of the article entitled, "Rewriting Darwin and Dawkins" on page 31 of the article. Thanks for adding them. I would just add that although this is Dawkins evaluation of Epigenetics might be termed optimistic but guarded, many researcher who are actually doing work in the field take a far more sanguine view of epigenetic applications. Dawkins, although deservedly renowned, does not do first-hand research.

[Mjhavok]

Oh I know and although Dawkins might have learned a lot in his life he isn't a cell or molecular biologist or a geneticist. Did you get my PMs?

[CousinoMacul]

Eppur si muovo

[Mjhavok]

Everything else a side the title "Forget Genes" is just stupid.

[2bsirius]

Why? On what data do you base your evaluation? Have you actually reviewed the data? If not, maybe you should. For example, the data relating to epigenetic abnormalities which have been found in nearly every type of cancer and in other diseases. The onset of these diseases then are the result of environmental factors influencing the expression of genes. This data can change treatment modalities. Why is that stupid? READ THE RESEARCH!

[Mjhavok]

1)If I disagree with you on anything please don't assume I am Inmendham. I read, ALOT.

2) I am simply saying I think the title on the front page is stupid. Forget Genes? Genes are now irrelevant? Surely you don't think this?

3) Did you get the PMs I sent. One with the whole New Scientist article and one stating I contacted a scientist of a paper the article mentioned and he sent me the paper. If you would like me to forward the paper send me an e-mail address in PM.

[2bsirius]

OK...Sorry...Yes, I meant to say in the vid that the cover didn't match the content of the article...I think the cover is just to move copy. Oh, and thanks so much for the article text. I very much appreciate it.

[HorridFroth]

Nicely done, as always. Interesting to see how much the main YouTube detractor of this content looks like a religious nut in his latest video.

:o)

[2bsirius]

;o)

[lazymornings]

You have a dog,wow,responability,well done you,I can't be assed!

My mother-in-law gets the new scientist as she a scientist of pathology!lol,she gets it among other stuff,lovely women,bright as you might expect(nearly as bright as me,lol;)-much more)

Pardon me(pm if u wish 2answer in pri)

What do you do as a job or at least what are you trained ^ as?),not that know much,don't just intrested.

[mistaspot1]

I think a lot of people forget that Charles Darwin actually lived and died before anyone even discovered DNA. It's illogical to assume that evolutionary biology starts and ends with a book written before the building blocks of live were even discovered. That's what I think.

[2bsirius]

Yes, I pointed that out in the video, but it is always good to say it yet again.

[slobomotion]

Is that Wooster, Ohio in your accent? Tee hee! I love my subscription. Have a fine day.

[2bsirius]

Why, no, hun....I'm from TEXAS and proud of it!

[deliciousonionsoup]

hey, 2b, what if it's the case that Darwin got it very right on heredity (well he didn't know how genetics worked but he sure seemed to put forward heredity very clearly indeed, etc) and that epigenetics is but another complicating feature to add on to Darwinism? Clearly Darwin did not speak of anything of this epigenetics - even by other names. But to me, if epigenetics is a factor then it will be an addition to Darwinism and certainly not a replacement.

[2bsirius]

I would like to agree, but there are some a few problems, deliciousonionsoup...For numerous reasons which you ideas doesn't work...But the crux of the argument revolves around the problem of heritablity....Take a fast at the blog about the New Scientist blog in the sidebar. It explains it in far more detail than I can in the limited space of this comment.

[2bsirius]

BTW the blog is the THIRD linked site in the sidebar. [Sorry there are typos in my comment...I'm trying to do about five things at the same time, and multi-tasking has never been my strong point...]

[deliciousonionsoup]

Still, I think Darwin has proven himself. I think epigenetics still has to do that.

[mistaspot1]

Background reading!? Pah! It's much more effective to just make an argument from ignorance! I'm not accusing anybody of making an argument from ignorance...

Noo....

[2bsirius]

You will get absolutely NO argument from me on your comment, mistaspot1.

[Formica45]

Awesome vid! A scud missile against armchair science.

[CitizenWorm]

I'm leading class later today on David Sloan Wilson's book Unto Others and he's actually coming to class on Tuesday to talk to us about the book. Apparently he lives only about 45 minutes away and his wife does research on crows here in town and they have a house here. I'm glad you guys are talking about this now.

[2bsirius]

GREAT!!!!! I wish I could be there! Ask him about the conference. I know he was invited. I hope he made it. I'm speechless...The book of his I probably enjoyed the most was 'Darwin's Cathedral'. You are SO lucky!

[thomasmatus]

Thank you and Matt for giving me a first glimmer of "For-Dummies" understanding of epigenetics. I'm interested in seeing how this bears on an evolutionary understanding of consciousness.

[cehbeach]

What I'm getting from this, to use an analogy, is that genes are like an artists palette. Using the same range of colors can produce profoundly different works of art when used in different combinations. Does Epigenetics include polygenetics in it's theory?

[Colston]

Thank you... ;-)

[LimpLoser]

Epigenetic: Something that affects a cell, organ or individual without directly affecting its DNA. An epigenetic change may indirectly influence the expression of the genome.

[ozjthomas]

Cool. Thx for the headsup, I'll go check it out.

[cozmikzen]

great stuff!!

[ballyboneman]

It's incredibly exciting research and thankfully we can at last get rid of, what I always thought was a ridiculous notion, the belief that 97.8% of the human genome was 'junk DNA'. Great stuff!