That is absolutely wrong. Google: epigenetic inheritance
We are all aware that race is a human social construct, not a genetically determined reality. Who is claiming otherwise? But affirming that fact is entirely different than denying that skin color (a physical trait) is an expression of genes, which you seem to be claiming.
Skin color is based on gene expression, not genetic mutations. T_aquaticus is claiming otherwise.
Genetics and epigenetics work together to determine traits. This is widely accepted. I know most of your posts today are related to defending epigenetics, but could you again reiterate the point you are working to make?
The term, āepigeneticā is being used somewhat broadly here. A more appropriate term is āregulatoryā. Gene expression is often under the control of regulatory mechanisms. Some regulatory mechanisms are transient. Regulation of the lac operon in bacteria is one of the earliest and best understood examples. Some non-DNA-sequence-based mechanisms are heritable or stable over multiple generations. It is the latter that are more accurately classified as āepigeneticā.
Epigenetic regulation can use most of the same biochemical mechanisms as transient or cyclical regulation which donāt persist to subsequent generations. Histone & DNA modification, chromatin rearrangement, and regulatory RNA can act epigenetically (heritable over generations) or not.
2 Likes
Correct. Gene sequences constitute a digital platform for other types of biological information. My point is to prove that within humans and other mammals, gene sequence alterations are errors that cause problems on genetic integrity and leads to gene suppressing and silenced genes (heterochromatin). Modern science is aware of 10 million genetic errors. Our genome is rapidly deteriorating. We know that the vast majority of human genetic mutations have occurred in the last 5000 years. This fact is in perfect harmony with Biblical scriptures, creation and the fall. We have no reason to make deals with evolutionary biology or other fields of secular sciences that try to demolish Biblical truths.
Agreed. I also use terms like āepigenetic control of transcriptionā.
There are many mechanisms that can regulate gene expression. Some are under DNA sequence control. That is, mutations in sequences can alter the expression of various genes.
So, while skin color is based on gene expression, that expression can be modulated by mutations. To suggest skin color is entirely determined by epigenetics either defines āepigeneticsā too broadly or states misinformation.
1 Like
Wrong. Disrupted epigenetic layers may trigger sequence mutations.
How does the existence of epigenetics support your point? Also, how would you support the claim that: [quote=āTomi_Aalto, post:26, topic:35836ā]
We know that the vast majority of human genetic mutations have occurred in the last 5000 years.
[/quote]
I would also disagree with your assertion that anyone here is trying to demolish Biblical truths. We may differ at certain points in our theology, but we agree on the theological points that matter the most.
1 Like
Epigenetic control of transcription also involves sequence-dependent components.For example, many transcriptional activators are modulated by specific sequences. You also canāt methylate a cytosine if there is no longer one in any particular position. So if that methyl-cytosine contributes to āepigeneticā regulation of expression, then you may see altered activity.
I donāt understand the reply. What was wrong? And what is the relevance of triggering mutations?
http://www.nature.com/news/past-5-000-years-prolific-for-changes-to-human-genome-1.11912#/b3
"Of 1.15 million single-nucleotide variants found among more than 15,000 protein-encoding genes, 73% in arose the past 5,000 years, the researchers report.
On average, 164,688 of the variants ā roughly 14% ā were potentially harmful, and of those, 86% arose in the past 5,000 years."
I have not found a single beneficial random genetic mutation. The evolutionary theory is a dangerous heresy.
http://biopublisher.ca/index.php/cge/article/html/2260/
Most genetic alterations are caused by disrupted methylation patterns. The most common type of substitution is 5mC>T, because glycosylase doesnāt repair that modification. For base pair pairing to be correct, it also leads to G>A substitution in the next replication procedure. But there are several other genetic mutations that are mostly caused by epigenetic reasons.
Thatās an interesting article summary, thank you for supplying the reference. Hereās another quote from the report:
"The human genome has been busy over the past 5,000 years. Human populations have grown exponentially, and new genetic mutations arise with each generation. "
The fact that a bottleneck occurred several thousand years ago is not disputed, regardless of views on creation or evolution. The same science that is used to āageā these mutations is the same science that traces common ancestry, etc. You may want to be careful what science you choose to believe and what science you choose to ignore.
Would you say that development of antibiotic resistance was beneficial to bacteria? Would you say that herbicide resistance was beneficial to a weed? What about the example you posted on a different thread regarding the rapid evolution of Samoan butterflies? Is the mutation reducing the impact of the bacterial infection beneficial? I donāt think Iām stepping out on a limb here to suggest that all of these are beneficial.[quote=āTomi_Aalto, post:33, topic:35836ā]
The evolutionary theory is a dangerous heresy.
[/quote]
How so? I believe that God in his infinite power and boundless creativity selected a tool that beautifully unfolds creation over a long period of time. I believe in sinful mankind and the need for the grace and forgiveness provided by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ and His triumphant victory over death by His resurrection. What do you find heretical?
Bacterial genetic changes are not random occurrences. Bacteria have a sense smell and quorum sensing. They are able to rapidly adapt to changing environment due to epigenetic mechanisms (adenine methylation), alternate reading frame and by shuffling with genetic information inside the population.
There are no beneficial random genetic errors within humans. I have studied every pseudoscientific claim.
I wrote: [quote=āArgon, post:28, topic:35836ā]
There are many mechanisms that can regulate gene expression. Some are under DNA sequence control. That is, mutations in sequences can alter the expression of various genes.
So, while skin color is based on gene expression, that expression can be modulated by mutations. To suggest skin color is entirely determined by epigenetics either defines āepigeneticsā too broadly or states misinformation.
[/quote]
I still donāt see how your original comment intersected with what I wrote. It remains true that gene expression may be modulated by mutations. Yes, cytosine methylation may increase a particular type of mutation but that applies to all methylated cytosines, not just ones that are aberrantly methylated.
The fact is, there are many mechanisms that affect gene expression. Itās not all āepigeneticsā. Often there are multiple factors working at the same time. We know mutations can be sufficient to alter expression in some cases because we can introduce specific mutations into cells and watch how expression changes. We can also identify the various components of the DNA transcriptional machinery and examine how they interact with the changes introduced. The same has been done for DNA-methylation base regulation. With regard to how genes are regulated, itās not an all or nothing thing, e.g. mutation vs. methylation, vs. chromatin structure. You can have mutations that have a profound effect on expression. Likewise for non-sequence changes. You can also have cases where both mutation and non-sequence effects can significantly affect expression.
Luria, Delbruck, and virtually all knowledgeable scientists would disagree with you.
I will persist with my last question though. What in the following statement do you find heretical?
The DNA replication and repair apparatuses do not work, or indeed, cannot work with 100% fidelity. One can compare the replication errors measured in vitro (e.g. in the test tube), with fidelity determined in live bacteria. Ballpark-wise, they tend to agree with the overall rates. Mutation rates can vary across parts of the bacterial chromosome and there are conditions that can increase mutation rates but the claim that genetic changes in bacteria are not random is not correct. We can follow mutations as they arise in bacterial populations and itās not realistic to make the case that all, or even most mutations are ādirectedā or specified.
Curtis Hendersonās mention of Luria & Delbruck is apropos. Iād add the replica plating based work of Lederberg and Lederberg as well. The Lederbergsā experiment is easier to comprehend.
1 Like
It drives me nuts when good and fine BioLogos supporters get sucked into arguing about randomnessā¦
Deception comes in many formsā¦ and this randomness bogeyman (along with Entropy) are the worstā¦