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?

[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?

[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?

[WarDog]

Wow... interesting topic of discussion.

I fear that even those people who believe in evolution don't fully understand Darwin's theories. The vast majority of those asked to explain it get it horribly wrong, including myself until about 10 years ago... and I grew up with a Zoologist father.

[TimT]

Originally Posted by sphelps

Tim are you a YEC?

I am neither a Darwinian Evolutionist nor a Young Earth Creationist as they both have issues/baggage caused by their respective belief systems. The DE and YEC labels also have a certain amount of baggage attached that may or may not apply to a person. I believe labels are never helpful and usually just the first step in trying to delegitimatize a person. Not saying that thats the case here. :-) I try to let the data speak for itself instead of trying to fit it into a pre conceived belief system.

Originally Posted by Wardog

I fear that even those people who believe in evolution don't fully understand Darwin's theories. The vast majority of those asked to explain it get it horribly wrong, including myself until about 10 years ago... and I grew up with a Zoologist father.

Good point Warren. It is important to qualify the definitions as different people interpret different things from the same words. To have a valid discussion all parties need to know there is commonality between definitions. That's why I clarified my definitions.

[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