DNA changes in hatcheries, interesting.

[soapy]

A little read for you:

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-des021216.php

[TimT]

Interesting... looks like they found proof that epigenetics does indeed change the underlying DNA. So much for genetic change taking millions/billions of years... more data that doesn't support evolution.

[Zoaelite]

Originally Posted by TimT

Interesting... looks like they found proof that epigenetics does indeed change the underlying DNA. So much for genetic change taking millions/billions of years... more data that doesn't support evolution.

Without access to the actual study I'm inclined to believe another factor is in play that the researchers might not be accounting for.

Many fish species have been observed to undergo adaptive phenotypic gene plasticity. Pretty much a large word for "we have hidden genes you don't know about".

Under adverse or different conditions epigenetic factors cause the phenotypic expression of said genes, something that actually takes a generation or two to occur (very much like the posted study).

If you want to read about gene plasticity in fish here is a good article:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22673650

As far as epigenetics effecting the "code" of underlying DNA, I don't believe the authors show any link between the two. We know that epigenetics has a great effect on the overall phenotypic expression due to... well epigenetic factors (methylation of DNA or genetic "switches") but the ability to physically CHANGE the genetic code is... evolution and in this case its not rapid (punctated equilibrium) its just the emergence of an older gene pool through gene plasticity.

Originally Posted by TimT

So much for genetic change taking millions/billions of years... more data that doesn't support evolution.

Now your playing a really interesting card here Tim, I'm always open for a good discussion so if you would be so kind to elaborate your thoughts on this statement?

[somafish]

Originally Posted by Zoaelite

Without access to the actual study I'm inclined to believe another factor is in play that the researchers might not be accounting for.

Many fish species have been observed to undergo adaptive phenotypic gene plasticity. Pretty much a large word for "we have hidden genes you don't know about".

Under adverse or different conditions epigenetic factors cause the phenotypic expression of said genes, something that actually takes a generation or two to occur (very much like the posted study).

If you want to read about gene plasticity in fish here is a good article:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22673650

As far as epigenetics effecting the "code" of underlying DNA, I don't believe the authors show any link between the two. We know that epigenetics has a great effect on the overall phenotypic expression due to... well epigenetic factors (methylation of DNA or genetic "switches") but the ability to physically CHANGE the genetic code is... evolution and in this case its not rapid (punctated equilibrium) its just the emergence of an older gene pool through gene plasticity.



Now your playing a really interesting card here Tim, I'm always open for a good discussion so if you would be so kind to elaborate your thoughts on this statement?

I was gonna say the exact same thing. Word for word

[TimT]

From the press release.

"This new DNA evidence directly measured the activity of all genes in the offspring of hatchery and wild fish. It conclusively demonstrates that the genetic differences between hatchery and wild fish are large in scale and fully heritable."

Originally Posted by Zoaelite

Without access to the actual study I'm inclined to believe another factor is in play that the researchers might not be accounting for.

If the press release is accurate then this research poses some hard questions for people who have faith in Darwinian Macro Evolution(DME), by that I mean "From goo to you by way of the Zoo" and not the ability of our DNA to change based on environmental conditions. Press releases are usually prepared by the people directly involved with the project/research. I agree that it would be best to look directly at the article.

Originally Posted by Zoaelite

As far as epigenetics effecting the "code" of underlying DNA, I don't believe the authors show any link between the two.

Read the quote above. That's exactly what they show. Environmental hatchery conditions directly making large and heritable changes in the underlying DNA. It would be interesting to see if river hatched offspring(f2) of the hatchery fish(f1) had their DNA revert back to the same as the wild parents. Then Gene Plasticity could be said to exist. But without that info I tend to think your using gene plasticity as a bit of a, if I may... Red Herring? Isn't DME all about the strongest survive to recreate and spread their new improved DNA. How does carrying an old back up of useless DNA make one stronger and better able to reproduce? Counter DME in my books.

Originally Posted by Albert_dao

How does this not support evolution?

If genetic change does not take millions or billions of years to manifest then there is another problem with Darwin's assumptions upon which he based his theory of evolution. Since one of his main assumptions has been dis-proven by modern science then this could be the death knell for DME.

Based on DME some paleontologists believe that dinosaurs were alive millions of years ago and all died out before humans arrived. But then the data rears it's ugly head and provides fresh dinosaur bones. Fresh meaning bones that showed no signs of fossilization or even the precursor to fossilization, permineralization. This would be the same as if you stumbled upon a pile of moose bones while out for a hike. The fresh Hadrosaur bone article can be found in the Journal of Paleontology via Jstor. Happened in the early 60's.

Back to work for me :-)

[sphelps]

Tim are you a YEC?

[albert_dao]

Originally Posted by TimT

If genetic change does not take millions or billions of years to manifest then there is another problem with Darwin's assumptions upon which he based his theory of evolution. Since one of his main assumptions has been dis-proven by modern science then this could be the death knell for DME.

Based on DME some paleontologists believe that dinosaurs were alive millions of years ago and all died out before humans arrived. But then the data rears it's ugly head and provides fresh dinosaur bones. Fresh meaning bones that showed no signs of fossilization or even the precursor to fossilization, permineralization. This would be the same as if you stumbled upon a pile of moose bones while out for a hike. The fresh Hadrosaur bone article can be found in the Journal of Paleontology via Jstor. Happened in the early 60's.

Back to work for me :-)

Wait, I can debunk all of this...

1. No one said genetic change takes millions of years. It happens generation to generation (the flu is a common example). Hell, it happens within individuals under relatively short time frames.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/po...find-1.1053624

2. Darwin proposed evolution. But if he recanted on this deathbed (which he didn't), it wouldn't change its validity nor the expansion of the science that has occurred since his hypothesis became theory.

3. Dinosaur soft tissue discoveries can occur due to obscure preservation events.

http://www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html

Some more reading:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

https://www.newscientist.com/article...ft-in-the-lab/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_evolution

[albert_dao]

Originally Posted by TimT

Interesting... looks like they found proof that epigenetics does indeed change the underlying DNA. So much for genetic change taking millions/billions of years... more data that doesn't support evolution.

0___0

How does this not support evolution?

[squibege]

This is great! I do not know enough details to comment to the level you guys have, but I do see very valid points on both sides. Thank you for providing me with a lot of reading material while I wait for my damn tank to cycle!

[albert_dao]

Originally Posted by squibege

This is great! I do not know enough details to comment to the level you guys have, but I do see very valid points on both sides.

Of which counter points did you find intriguing and/or tangibly credible? Perhaps I can elucidate the point to show otherwise :P

Evolution is a theory, and a a damn fine one at that. For those who are not aware, when you say "theory" in science, it is not akin to a "throw away anecdote" as the word is generally used in common language. A scientific theory (via dictionary.com) [i]a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomen[/]. It is founded upon known laws and principles and is the highest level that an idea can be elevated in scientific context.

You'll find a lot of YEC tend to draw up points like "well this one example shows otherwise, checkmate evolutionist". And, given the benefit of the doubt that it does, the general followup well tend to be "for now". Science is additive and as the knowledge pool is expanded, contrarians will retreat further and further into obscurity. Eventually, those pockets will become explainable by newer science. These little pockets are often referred to as the "God of the Gaps", e.i. holes in our current knowledge = counterpoints = God or Intelligent Design = The CIA planned 9/11 = Global warming is a hoax to make you give your kids vaccines so that the future elite will rule empire over a population fraught with autism, wake up sheeple!!!!

Here's a more thorough and eloquent summary of the argument (worth a read ):

http://biologos.org/common-questions...od-of-the-gaps