Do you think that Genetic Memory exists?

[shropshire 0]

Sorry, I implied selection not ID (for example) by using decision, I guess that I mean alternative action or option (the rock falls, or it does not fall, type thing).

'Because of this.... that happened' no need to imply intent... it just IS.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[rehmwa 2]

I think generic memory exists.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[shropshire 0]

Ask a simple question ..... get a simple answer. Thanks

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[pirana 0]

Quote

http://www.amazon.com/Genome-Autobiography-Species-Chapters-P-S/dp/0060894083/ref=pd_bbs_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205861942&

Thanks for that. It was fun just to go in and read a few pages. Can you do that with all books on Amazon?

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[jenfly00 0]

Quote

>So, each nesting bird works out on their own that they should build a
>nest and figure out how, when and where to do it?

Nope. Those behaviors are often programmed into them, just as some behaviors (fear of falling, the fight/flight response) are programmed into us. Since we get a survival benefit from being able to learn new responses (and unlearn old responses) we have very few programmed responses compared to, say, a bee.

For a longer explanation, see the post you replied to.

Hmmm, so you equate the construction of a structurally sound nest, in the right place at the right time to fear of falling (a rather simple stimulus-response reaction)???? That's not explanation, that's pontification (or as my mom calls your postings ...'vontifications').

As to bees, and others animals, (please see the remainder of my post you conveniently left out when replying) ...or try here:

http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~insrisg/nature/olio/honeycomb.html

Bees build comb for storage of honey to last them through the winter when the flowers they feed on are not available. The honeycomb is vertical with horizontal storage tubes, like a pile of unsharpened lead pencils carefully pressed together. (Social wasps and hornets build vertical tubes.) Honeycomb is two faced with different tubes on each side; thus an individual tube goes only half way through the comb. Two of the six sides of the tubes are always vertical and each tube slants slightly downward toward the middle of the comb, which helps prevent the honey from running out as the worker bees fill it.

Why did these honeybee engineers "choose" these six sided tubes? Why didn't they build cylinders or prisms with triangle or square or other cross sections? The answer is straightforward. Their hexagonal tubes use less wax for the volume of honey they hold. Each wall in the honeycomb serves two tubes which avoids the wasteful duplication of cylinders and most polygonal prisms. Only triangular or square tubes can also share all walls, but hexagonal tubes still use less wax for the amount of honey: 18% less than triangular tubes, 7% less than square tubes.

Even more remarkable is the way the tubes meet in the middle of the comb. If you removed the honey and the wax where the tubes meet and peered through the holes, you would see that the tubes on opposite sides are offset: the center of a tube on one side is at the corner of tubes from the opposite side. You can demonstrate this by constructing several comb units as suggested by the accompanying diagram.

And the wax that separates the opposite tubes is not a single flat wall. Instead each tube ends in three rhombuses that come to a point, like a pencil cut with only three knife strokes. (A rhombus is a four sided plane figure with all sides equal; it is like a tilted square.) The three end walls of one tube serve as single walls for three adjacent tubes from the opposite side of the comb.

In about 1720, Miraldi measured the corner angles of these end walls and found them to be about 70° and 110°. You can imagine the thrill mathematicians enjoyed when Koenig and Maclaurin used the then new techniques of the calculus to determine that these were the angles that would give the maximum volume for this configuration.

This result was scarcely tarnished when Toth showed in his 1964 paper that a more complicated set of four end walls would give slightly better results. His improvement was only about a third of a percent and the construction would be more difficult.

I doubt even those in your cheap seats would equate this with fear of falling, so you fall back on, 'uh, we're not like bees'.

You counter this with ...uh, we're not like bees.
There is a broad school of thought in Cultural Anthropology that thinks most of our more elaborate behaviors and higher intelligence are derivative of these simpler and historically antecedent forms of behavior you blow off as simple stimulus/response mechanisms.

There is a smaller school of thought that believes that some categorization of 'higher' forms of human behavior can be linked to classes of individuals (e.g.) 'warrior class' that retain a ...closer relationship with basic instinctual behavior.

To respond to the original question, Yes, genetic memory does exist ...in all animals.

-----------------------
"O brave new world that has such people in it".

[quade 4]

Quote

In about 1720, Miraldi measured the corner angles of these end walls and found them to be about 70° and 110°. You can imagine the thrill mathematicians enjoyed when Koenig and Maclaurin used the then new techniques of the calculus to determine that these were the angles that would give the maximum volume for this configuration.

And then later you wrote . . . as if this somehow "proved" something;

Quote

Yes, genetic memory does exist ...in all animals.

Exactly how much do you know about the number Phi and how often it occurs in nature?

If, as you are suggesting, that geometry is somehow "proof" of actual intelligence, then how "intelligent" for example is a sunflower?

The efficiency of the design is simply the result of millions of years of evolution and attempting to pack as much into an area while expending as little energy as possible in the form of materials. The reward for more successful packing is a slight advantage to the hive and therefore a slight advantage to survival. Lesser designs fall by the wayside and eventually, over the course of millions of years, better designs are hardwired into the limited amount of dna that is transfered down through the ages. All of that said, momma bee isn't giving her memories to her baby bees. The "memories" have nothing to do with it.

Wanna really blow your mind? Go google "Phi".

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[jenfly00 0]

Quote

Quote

In about 1720, Miraldi measured the corner angles of these end walls and found them to be about 70° and 110°. You can imagine the thrill mathematicians enjoyed when Koenig and Maclaurin used the then new techniques of the calculus to determine that these were the angles that would give the maximum volume for this configuration.

And then later you wrote . . . as if this somehow "proved" something;

Quote

Yes, genetic memory does exist ...in all animals.

Nope, I directly answered the question posed by the original poster.

Exactly how much do you know about the number Phi and how often it occurs in nature?

If, as you are suggesting, that geometry is somehow "proof" of actual intelligence, then how "intelligent" for example is a sunflower?

How did you come up with that?!?! Implicit in von's response was that the stimulus/response of flinching was pretty much the limit of genetic coding (that, and 'uh, we're not like bees). I sited an example of extremely detailed, exacting engineering information that was genetically coded and passed to succeeding generations. 'Instinctual' behavior does not imply the possesion of the intelligence to comprehend. Which may be a good thing http://books.google.com/books?id=wwAQAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA369&lpg=PA369&dq=elaborate+instincts&source=web&ots=PKu8RQec6H&sig=EAmn37mwsihua7Cuao4zfybp10w&hl=en

The efficiency of the design is simply the result of millions of years of evolution and attempting to pack as much into an area while expending as little energy as possible in the form of materials. The reward for more successful packing is a slight advantage to the hive and therefore a slight advantage to survival. Lesser designs fall by the wayside and eventually, over the course of millions of years, better designs are hardwired into the limited amount of dna that is transfered down through the ages.

absolutely!!!! ...and this information is passed through the process we are calling genetic memory!

reply]

-----------------------
"O brave new world that has such people in it".

• Quote

[philh 0]

Instinct does not require memory. Instict is according to wikipedia
"the inherent disposition of a living organism toward a particular behavior. Instincts are unlearned, inherited fixed action patterns of responses or reactions to certain kinds of stimuli."
For example you have an instinct to have sex becuase a mix of genetic mutations and natural selection has led to large number of nerve endings in your sexuals organs , so it becomes pleasurbale to have sex. You did not have to have any memory that you need to have sex. The two are not related. If you would like to understand how genes really work I would suggest a few books you could read:
DNA by James Watson
Genome by Matt Ridley
Genetics by Leland Hartwell
or why not simply go on Wikipedia and search "genetics"?

[jenfly00 0]

Quote

Instinct does not require memory. Instict is according to wikipedia
"the inherent disposition of a living organism toward a particular behavior. Instincts are unlearned, inherited fixed action patterns of responses or reactions to certain kinds of stimuli."
For example you have an instinct to have sex becuase a mix of genetic mutations and natural selection has led to large number of nerve endings in your sexuals organs , so it becomes pleasurbale to have sex. You did not have to have any memory that you need to have sex. The two are not related. If you would like to understand how genes really work I would suggest a few books you could read:
DNA by James Watson
Genome by Matt Ridley
Genetics by Leland Hartwell
or why not simply go on Wikipedia and search "genetics"?

If you call building a very complex geometric structure 'instinct' you might have a point.

Denying an "inherent fixed action pattern" as genetic memory is really splitting hairs, but you seem so certain, so have at it.

-----------------------
"O brave new world that has such people in it".

[billvon 3,120]

>Hmmm, so you equate the construction of a structurally sound nest, in
>the right place at the right time to fear of falling (a rather simple
>stimulus-response reaction)????

?? No, and I never claimed that they were equal. However, they ARE both examples of instincts.

I think you are making an error in assuming that the "fear of falling" is a simple stimulus-response. An example of a simple stimulus-response is a reflex, where sensory input causes an immediate reaction. A more complex stimulus-response is the guarding instinct, where an organism "folds up" around an injury to protect it.

What happens to cause a fear of falling?

First, the organism must accurately gauge height. He must have good depth perception (which is a whole other field) and coordinate that with his sense of gravity, which in turn comes both from proprioception and his vestibular canals. He must then react in a way that moves him AWAY from the danger, a reaction that is often not clear. (What do you do on a tree limb vs. on a cliff?) So we have a few basic reactions, including backing up (also complex) strengthening our hold (simple) and increasing our pulse/respiration (to allow us to hold on more strongly.)

Now take a slightly more complex instinct - a beaver building a dam. A beaver must hear running water (using hearing) locate it (using differential hearing and search behavior) and try to stop it. He has genetic programming that makes him seek sticks when he gets to the water and stick them in where the noise is loudest. It's about as complex as the fear of heights, but has very impressive results, as anyone who has seen a beaver dam can attest to.

Increase the complexity a bit more, and you have birds that can build nests without learning. Again, the drives are simple, but result in some pretty complex nests.

It's a continuum going from simple to complex. All instinctive behavior, all programmed into us genetically.

>or as my mom calls your postings ...'vontifications'

Your mom reads my posts too? I'm touched!

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

I was thinking (a rare and dangerous thing); Is instinct really Genetic Memory? and think that maybe it could be.

If it is, then could other information be passed from generation to generation? Could this be what some people describe as thoughts of being another (often long since dead) person?

My only problem with that would be that some people describe the death of that earlier person and that just does not follow the genetic transfer memory model, because the only time that memory could be passed to a later generation is at conception for male memories (actually, more likely at the time that the sperm was created) or birth (or egg creation, if that is the last time that genetic material is passed[?]) for female memories. Anything that occurred after that instant in time could not be passed down.

If it does exist, then why don't we all remember our parents (and grandparents etc..) early memories. What would be the point of such a phenomena?

Starting at the top … seems like a good place. You ask some questions that go to the heart of the cognitive neurosciences, a field which has seen tremendous leaps in the last 20 years due to the develop of new imaging tools like functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) and due to tremendous advances is genomics and proteomics.

Part of the question is defining what do you mean by “genetic memory”?

In neurosciences/cognitive sciences/biology, “memory” refers to a process by which connections are made between neurons (long term potentiation and plasticity through synapses). When you make new connections (form memories that are kept long term), those memories are written on the brain in the language of proteins, neurochemicals connections, and synapses. They aren’t written into your DNA or genes.

In order for you to pass along a trait, it has to be part of your DNA. Mutations do occur in DNA (like those that cause cancers or occasionally a mutation that enables a beneficial trait, e.g., opposable thumbs).

In short, no, you can’t genetically pass onto your children your ability to turn 16 points in 20 seconds anymore than you can pass along the ability to weave in a traditional Navajo design, translate ancient Sumerian, or play Led Zeppelin’s “Stairway to Heaven.” All of those ‘memories’ involve long-term potentiation in your brain not encoding on your DNA, which you recognized: “Anything that occurred after that instant in time [conception & first miosis] could not be passed down.” And it also answers why you don’t have the memories of your ancestors nor will your children have knowledge of what you did in your teens and twenties, perhaps a good thing, eh?

(NB: which is not to say that you will not be able to pass along genes that you inherited that convey aptitude in sports, language, handicrafts, or music – it’s the specific skill acquisition and memories that are learned.)

Otoh, instinct is behavior that one could describe as a result of DNA coding for the creation of certain proteins that generate certain neurochemicals &/or enzymes that have certain influences on certain, sometimes very specific, parts of the brain. (And that’s the simplified version.) There are clear examples where our genes (& every other creature of the planet’s genes) code for proteins that create chemicals that influence behavior, e.g., fear and adrenaline; maternal love and oxytocin. There are others where our brains appear to be ‘wired’ to be pre-disposed/influence-able (instinct) to learning certain behaviors (learned behavior) that elicit release of specific neurochemicals: love, language structure, creativity.

Historically, there’s a connected fascinating (im-ever-ho) example of how political dogma inhibited lack of scientific progress. Joseph Stalin was opposed to genetics and evolution – it challenged Marxist tendencies. A form of Lamarckism, (“genetic memory,” which was mentioned previously by [jakee]) -- known as Lysenkoism named after its chief proponent and Stalin sycophant Trofim Lysenko -- was institutionalized (in a “Stalinist” way) in 1930s Soviet Union. Ideology trumped science and Lysenkoism influenced Soviet agricultural policy, which led to crop failures and famine that likely killed more Russians and others under Soviet rule than WWII. So while the USSR was ideologically trying to challenge genetics because it didn’t fit with Stalin’s ideology, the western world was rapidly unraveling the structure of DNA, understanding the role of gene, and eventually transgenics (aka genetic engineering). It was ultimately beneficial to the US and western world that the Soviet dogma enforced such a mistaken belief, because otherwise the Soviet offense biological weapons program would have been even farther along than they were.

If you’re interested in reading more: my favorite neuroscience text, Principles of Neural Science, which is known just by its initials known as “KJS” for the initials of its 3 principles editors, somewhat akin to what we mean when we talk about “BSRs”. It’s a fabulously written volume, considered authoritative, and the most recent edition is only 1400 pages.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[crozby 0]

Quote

In order for you to pass along a trait, it has to be part of your DNA.

Not strictly true. Like I said earlier, go google "Epigenetics famine".

Here's an extract from an article describing it:

Quote

EPIGENETICS EXPLAINED This type of inheritance, the transmission of non-DNA sequence information through either meiosis or mitosis, is known as epigenetic inheritance. From the Greek prefix epi, which means "on" or "over", epigenetic information modulates gene expression without modifying actual DNA sequence. DNA methylation patterns are the longest-studied and best-understood epigenetic markers, although ethyl, acetyl, phosphoryl, and other modifications of histones, the protein spools around which DNA winds, are another important source of epigenetic regulation. The latter presumably influence gene expression by changing chromatin structure, making it either easier or more difficult for genes to be activated.

Because a genome can pick up or shed a methyl group much more readily than it can change its DNA sequence, Jirtle says epigenetic inheritance provides a "rapid mechanism by which [an organism] can respond to the environment without having to change its hardware." Epigenetic patterns are so sensitive to environmental change that, in the case of the agouti mice, they can dramatically and heritably alter a phenotype in a single generation.

https://notes.utk.edu/bio/greenberg.nsf/0/b360905554fdb7d985256ec5006a7755?OpenDocument

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Quote

In order for you to pass along a trait, it has to be part of your DNA.

Not strictly true. Like I said earlier, go google "Epigenetics famine".

Yes & no …
And generically true.
It also depends on how precisely define DNA.

Epigenetics is also/more commonly known as functional genomics. The word “epigenetic” literally means “in addition to the genetic sequence.”

What molecule is (most commonly) altered in epigenetic changes? DNA. Second most commonly altered molecule is RNA.

For those who don’t remember their high school biology, natural DNA (& RNA) is a long strand of nucleotides. Nucleotides are made of 3 parts: a nitrogenous base, a sugar, and phosphate groups. In DNA, the bases are adenine, cytosine, guanine, thymine (ACGT). (To be precisely correct, in RNA, uracil replaces thymine.)

Epigenetics is adding other chemicals onto the DNA (or RNA) that produce a mutation on the genome. The classic example is adding a methyl group (-CH3) onto cytosine-containing nucleotide that occurs next to a guanine-containing nucleotide in DNA (called a “CpG site”). It's the bases that are the most common targets, which are along the inside of the DNA helix somewhat akin to rungs on a latter. So it's sticking a extra hydrophobic (i.e., doesn't like water) piece off of that rung. That change may, or may not, impact how the cellular genetic material transcribes a protein.

When folks talk about changes in DNA structure, it’s most commonly, but not always, a shorthand for changes to the bases, e.g., a single nucleotide polymorphism (or “SNP” pronounced “snip”); or a Insertion/Deletion (“InDel”) of a number of nucleotides.

In order for an epigenetic change to be passed along it has to occur on the DNA of the eggs or the sperm. You can’t pass along epigenetic changes that occur after, which may be beneficial, as mutations (generally) increase as we age. Altho’ to touch on one area of epigenetics that is controversial and has significant implications considering changing demographics of developed world’s populations: there is significant evidence that autism is associated with epigenetic changes in the DNA in sperm of men over 40.

*More importantly,* within the context of the original poster's question, no one is proposing “epigenetics;” or “junk” DNA; or RNAi; or any of the other cutting edge work being done is proposing that it accounts for assertions of past life memory.

VR/Marg ... who was a Viking princess in a former lifetime!

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

I think you are making an error in assuming that the "fear of falling" is a simple stimulus-response.

I am not sure a fear of falling is as ingrained as you say it is. Both my kids never displayed this fear at an early age. They have since learned that falling hurts and voila......

[pirana 0]

Quote

Quote

I think you are making an error in assuming that the "fear of falling" is a simple stimulus-response.

I am not sure a fear of falling is as ingrained as you say it is. Both my kids never displayed this fear at an early age. They have since learned that falling hurts and voila......

Yes indeed. Our sport is proof that it can even be unlearned.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[pirana 0]

Sounds very much like something I read about incidence of homosexuality. (The epigenetic influence). Can't remember where I read it, but there is a very high correlation to homosexuality and birth order.

I believe the incidence of being gay rises, and not just arithmetically, as a woman has more children. Something about carrying boys in the womb that causes future boys coming from the same womb to be much more likely to be gay - - and the more the merrier.

Possible epigentic influence on eggs?

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[jenfly00 0]

Quote

Your mom reads my posts too? I'm touched!

Don't play all modest. You are a source of amusement for many.

-----------------------
"O brave new world that has such people in it".

[wmw999 2,589]

Quote

Your mom reads my posts too? I'm touched!

Quote

Don't play all modest. You are a source of amusement for many.

I'm sure glad you enjoy Billvon's posts. I often learn something from them.
Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[jenfly00 0]

Quote

Quote

Your mom reads my posts too? I'm touched!

Quote

Don't play all modest. You are a source of amusement for many.

I'm sure glad you enjoy Billvon's posts. I often learn something from them.
Wendy W.

OK, informative and amusing.

Your point?

-----------------------
"O brave new world that has such people in it".

[AMax 0]

Quote

Epigenetics is adding other chemicals onto the DNA (or RNA) that produce a mutation on the genome. The classic example is adding a methyl group (-CH3) onto cytosine-containing nucleotide that occurs next to a guanine-containing nucleotide in DNA (called a “CpG site”).

Methylation is a reversible mechanism, that regulates transcriptional activity. Mutations (deletions, insertions or single nucleotide exchange) are irreversible ...

[shropshire 0]

Woooosssh... [proud - sniff] My baby thread has out-grown me (actually happened on the first page

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Quote

Epigenetics is adding other chemicals onto the DNA (or RNA) that produce a mutation on the genome. The classic example is adding a methyl group (-CH3) onto cytosine-containing nucleotide that occurs next to a guanine-containing nucleotide in DNA (called a “CpG site”).

Methylation is a reversible mechanism, that regulates transcriptional activity. Mutations (deletions, insertions or single nucleotide exchange) are irreversible ...

Yes, sometimes it is … as you probably know, most biological modifications are reversible, e.g., protein phosphorylation, oxygen binding to hemoglobin & myoglobin (moving oxygen from lungs to blood and storing it), cytochrome P-450 function (eliminating alcohol via the liver -- very important in the skydiving community). They have to be: reversibility is essential for functioning as biological signals that can respond to changing physiological cues.

DNA methylation, specifically histone methylation, was considered to be an exception (i.e., to be irreversible) because removal of a methyl group from DNA must involve a cleavage of a carbon–carbon bond, which from an energy and sterics perspective was considered an unlikely reaction. Now it’s understood to not be.

Diverging from the original question in this thread as you may also likely know, the majority of functional genomics (epigenetics) research is not toward hereditary but is being directed at exploring mechanisms involved in aging and disease and therapeutics, e.g., the potential reversibility is being exploited as a route to chemotherapeutics for tumor suppression.

Of greater interest to me has been some of the work looking at alkylation of (& thereby potential prevention of the irreversible mutation of) Guanine (one of the DNA bases) and proteins (thereby potentially providing diagnostic markers) by sulfur mustard (aka “mustard gas,” tho’ its *not* a gas at any human physiological temps & pressures) and nitrogen mustard. It’s such an effective irreversible alkylating agent (among other reasons) that while the DoD can use live VX and GB (sarin) for live indoor training at the CDTF at Fort Leonard Wood, to do live training with sulfur mustard one has to go up to Suffield Canada.

Otoh, sometimes DNA methylation is irreversible; protein methylation is irreversible, e.g., arginine is the classic example; sometimes it leads to other chemical changes that are irreversible; & sometimes the change is passed along to offspring.

It’s cool, it’s complicated, and eventually takes us back to my original notation: “In order for you to pass along a trait, it has to be part of your DNA” as opposed to long-term potentiation between neurons (memory).

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[crozby 0]

The problem with your statement “In order for you to pass along a trait, it has to be part of your DNA” is that for the masses brought up on the idea that a childs traits are "half mum plus half dad plus a bit of mutation" it hides what is really going on.

It obscures the recent discoveries that instead of your kids traits all being 'genetic' and in a way insolated from your environment, actually what you eat or drink or smoke, where you live and what you do with your life not ony affects you, but also affects your children and your grand children and so on.

Thats a huge conceptual difference from the kind of genetic inheritance that mine and other generations have been brought up on.

[AMax 0]

Quote

It’s cool, it’s complicated, and eventually takes us back to my original notation: “In order for you to pass along a trait, it has to be part of your DNA” as opposed to long-term potentiation between neurons (memory).

yes indeed ... i am surprised that nobody has mentioned microRNAs yet ...

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

The problem with your statement “In order for you to pass along a trait, it has to be part of your DNA” is that for the masses brought up on the idea that a childs traits are "half mum plus half dad plus a bit of mutation" it hides what is really going on.

It obscures the recent discoveries that instead of your kids traits all being 'genetic' and in a way insolated from your environment, actually what you eat or drink or smoke, where you live and what you do with your life not ony affects you, but also affects your children and your grand children and so on.

Thats a huge conceptual difference from the kind of genetic inheritance that mine and other generations have been brought up on.

Respectfully, I disagree. Functional genomics (epigenetics) isn’t challenging the concept of DNA as fundamental molecular of transfer of genetic information and inheritance; it’s further expanding the understanding of it. Somewhat akin to the difference & level of knowledge one has about skydiving on one’s fifth jump to what one knows about rigs, packing, flying your body, formations, spotting (hopefully!), launching exits, etc. on one’s 1000th jump. It's part of molecular biology. To be explicit: No one is asserting functional genomics doesn’t exist nor is anyone (technically competant) asserting that it's going to replace nuclear DNA as the long-term storage molecule of genetic information. They are very interesting concepts.

The problem is there’s no evidence of the *degree of causality* that you seem to imply. It’s just not there. And it’s not brand new either: Prof Barbara McClintock’s painstaking & tedious work on maize from the 1950s, for which she was awarded the Nobel Prize, showed the role that epi-mutations can have on phenotype. (She also showed that they weren’t usually stable.) The interest and discoveries in functional genomics (epigenetics) over the last 10-15 years have focused on disease incidence and suppression and have largely been do to the availability of new & automated instrumentation & techniques.

If it’s not genetic, by what mechanism do you think information is being passed along from parent to child? You almost sound like you’re implying a non-DNA-based method? ‘Epigentic inheritance’ still refers to changes to/on the genome.

What percentage of information (genetic material) comes via the backbone/nuclear DNA inherited from the mother and father? (One metaphorical ‘back of the envelope’ approach to calculating would be to subtract the overlap w/our nearest genetic ancestor.)

Epigenetic changes are not always stable, i.e., may last for one/couple/few generations, such as seen in corn and mouse phenotypes (appearance/coloring) that were subsequently lost. What happened in the 3rd & 4th generations of offspring of those from the Dutch WWII famine? If a changes results in a significant abnormality, it may be tremendously important to those individuals and their families. Very small changes can have large effects … a small effect … or no effect (more likely scenario).

Stepping back I’m wondering is it the science that’s driving your hypotheses or environmentalism/environmental politics?

For sake of argument, let’s assume (momentarily) that the scenario you are portraying is accurate. If the epigenetic rate of change that you are implying occurred, what would be the impact on the ability of humans to successfully reproduce with humans who have been isolated from each other for 40,000 years (the major human migration to Australia & South Pacific)?

It wouldn’t be positive.

The genome (all portions) has to be fairly stable over long periods of time or Europeans and Australian aboriginals would not be able to have children together. There have been lots of natural environmental factors over the last 40,000 years. You sited the Dutch famine of WWII; even more impacting was European exposure to smallpox, measles, typhus, and tuberculosis, since the disease-organisms crossed the species boundary from their zoonotic origin.

One speculative hypothesis is that epigenetics suggests that the human genome (& all others by implication) are more robust/resilient & temporarily adaptable -- improvisation on the genome level -- to environmental challenges than might be previously expected.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying