Was Darwin wrong about evolution?

[m42]

Some water fleas sport a spiny helmet that deters predators; others, with identical DNA sequences, have bare heads. What differs between the two is not their genes but their mothers' experiences. If mom had a run-in with predators, her offspring have helmets, an effect one wag called "bite the mother, fight the daughter." If mom lived her life unthreatened, her offspring have no helmets. Same DNA, different traits. Somehow, the experience of the mother, not only her DNA sequences, has been transmitted to her offspring.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/180103?gt1=43002

[kerrin]

This doesn't sound that ground breaking. After all we've known for quite awhile now that excessive consumption of alcohole during pregancy leads to Fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS).

Could this not also be a result of evolution itself? Through natural selection DNA could have become more agile and quicker to adapt.

[John A Roark]

There are so many holes in Darwinian theory that sponges are jealous.
The broad outline of adaptive change in response to environment hits the mark, in a broad sense... but if you research the developments in biological science over the last fifteen years, the specifics are WAY off.

[m42]

This doesn't sound that ground breaking. After all we've known for quite awhile now that excessive consumption of alcohole during pregancy leads to Fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS).

Could this not also be a result of evolution itself? Through natural selection DNA could have become more agile and quicker to adapt.

I consider it groundbreaking because until somewhat recently, epigenetic studies revolved primarily around theory and less around practical identification/experimentation.

It's nice to understand the mechanics behind the action. :)

[kerrin]

I consider it groundbreaking because until somewhat recently, epigenetic studies revolved primarily around theory and less around practical identification/experimentation.

It's nice to understand the mechanics behind the action. :)
Good point! You are right it is cool to see this for sure!


There are so many holes in Darwinian theory that sponges are jealous.
Most geneticists would say their DNA research confirms Darwinian's broad theory in a specific way. What knowledge do you possess that differs here?

[m42]

Could this not also be a result of evolution itself? Through natural selection DNA could have become more agile and quicker to adapt.

Quite possibly! I can't imagine its much different than any other complex adaptive system. :)

[John A Roark]

Didja notice that I said that Darwin's theory of adaptive change to environment fits, in a broad way?
Yes, some research tends to confirm--other research tends to question.

[Anenome]

Sounds to me like just an expression of an existing gene that either gets triggered or not.

I read an interesting article recently about why we've not gleaned more advances from having now sequenced the whole genome.

The answer was that the genome is like a data structure embedded into an executable. Just about the worst nightmarish structure you could imagine in programming, especially when you don't know where the executable necessarily ends and the data begins.

Back to the OP, womb-life is another often-ignored topic, as we know chemical exposure at that stage in life can have dramatic effects, as was mentioned with fetal-alcohol syndrome. And, though this will be controversial, some think increasing incidence of homosexuality in society may be a result of exposure to chemicals during gestation.