Hi John - I agree that natural selection is the crux of evolution and that the random (or carefully selected in the case of GMOs for example) new information that is introduced into the mix and will go through this process of natural selection is not by itself evolution. Heredity perhaps, but not the complete process of evolution. It also seems quite clear to me that DNA is the main means by which hereditary information is both encoded and passed from one generation to the next; however I think the evidence is mounting that epigenetic mechanisms exist, which can pass down epigenetic changes across generations. That life has evolved a second overlaying encoding system is in itself quite interesting - IMO. Epigenetic processes seem most central during the process of embryogenesis when they seem to be very active. Perhaps this is why they evolved in the first instance to be able to rapidly control which DNA is being expressed and how it is getting transcribed during a rapidly changing phase of life when entire complexes of genes are getting switched on and off and getting "re-wired" via epigenetic mechanisms to mean something else for the organism. -Chris D
________________________________ From: John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2013 10:30 AM Subject: Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 , Chris de Morsella <cdemorse...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> John Epigenetic changes do not change the sequence of bases in DNA, and more >> important I see no evidence that the body has learned any lessons. I see no >> evidence that epigenetic changes are more likely to happen in the direction >> of greater adaptability rather than the reverse. All I see is the >> environment causing random changes in hereditary factors that, like all >> changes, are more likely to be harmful than helpful. > > Sure, but then neither do random mutations to an organisms DNA, imply that > the body has learned anything either. Obviously, otherwise they wouldn't be called RANDOM mutations. I rather doubt that epigenesis will turn out to be terribly important, at least not when compared with traditional genetics, but even if I'm wrong it would just mean that another chemical besides DNA is transferring genetic information to the next generation. And none of that would bother Darwin in the slightest because he knew nothing about either chemical and didn't need to and his idea of Natural Selection would still brilliantly explain how life got to be the way it is. > The introduction of some random change is either harmful, beneficial or of > little or no consequence And Darwin's Natural Selection will separate those things out regardless of if those random changes are made in DNA or in something else. > What you say about epigenetic changes: "environment causing random changes in > hereditary factors" applies as much to the classical hereditary mechanism of > DNA changes. > Yes but random mutation is only half of Darwin's idea and the least interesting half, the other half is Natural Selection. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to email@example.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.