TheBiologySpace.BioBlog

Man, when i first watched that little piece on Epigenetics i think i watched it mostly wide-eyed. I think that was my favorite part of this blog post; It provides such a ridiculous new perspective on genetics and, for me, was really interesting. It seems a pretty nascent science, but even so early there are already tons of discoveries being made–most notably the part about BPA. Just by adding a supplement of methyl donors to the mother’s diets, the affects of the BPA were offset; it is so profound, the inextricable link between environment and genetics.

Now, this could challenge. If changes were sudden and extreme. But they arn’t; changes are subtle and slow. Genes that switch off don’t *slightly* affect the outcome. No, a single missing gene can cause a disorder. This is not a science that will disprove evolution; it will only prove it more.
This science can show how exactly genes are lost; other then the mutation now and then appearing, with the gene missing.
Take chickens for example; they are descendants of dinosaurs. Yet, they have no long tail, much unlike their ancestors. But scientists have recently discovered that chickens still carry the gene for a long tail. It’s just deactivated. Infact, when in the embryo, the chick actually grows a long tail. But this tail grows no more as it continues to develop. As the gene is deactivated.

I think that epigenetics furthers diversity in the gene pool. In some environments where certain genes would become naturally selected out of the gene pool, they would just “turn off” instead. This would allow the genes to be expressed if the environment were to change, rather those traits being lost.

I think this is very interesting because, to me, it would seem like something lamarck would try to say, oh yes i was on my way to figuring something out like this kind of thing. Since it would be like if a parent was continuously exposed to a cold environment then maybe a dominant phenotype for light fur would be turned off. However this still supports Darwin in the fact that all the genes had to come from the parents and are hereditary.

I saw the examples of evolution and found the feathered dinosaur interesting. The profile shows how birds are the last vestiges of the dinosaur. These were not birds of flight, but had feathers used for insulation rather than aerodynamic purposes. The second set of jaws showed how the eel was able to adapt to a deleterious trait by having a second set of jaws able to swallow food. These insights show how animals can adapt to a harsh world in the most unlikely ways.

I think that this shows how every species including homosapiens have so many genes in their DNA yet very few actually do anything. It shows how species can have very similar DNA yet be completely different in appearance and behavior. Since certain genes are activated or deactivated or even respond differently to their environment then two species can be completely different even though their DNA is similar. This shows how evolution has selected these traits in different areas/conditions causing so many species to arise. It also helps show how species are related through their DNA even if they look like they have nothing in common. Epigenetics is more proof that evolution is real, how it works, and illuminates more information about DNA and how it functions.

I find Epigenetics extremely interesting because it refers to changes in phenotype caused by reasons other than alterations in DNA. I know identical twins who express different genes and actually look different and always wondered how this happened. Now I know that it is due to Epigenetics.

So if Epigenetics is viewed as heredity influenced by environment, what position does this take in the Nature Vs. Nurture debate? It seems like the two are more interconnected than ever with this new area of biology.

I am surprised about evolution after i clicked the link to http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/12/evolutionexampl.html. It shows how diverse animals are and how evolution takes place every day in life. I am glad there are people out there to study this but how about studying more about ourselves? Have we evolved over the past few thousand years? I am sure we have but what new things did we aquire to allow us to survive? It can’t be technology alone.

When our genes turn off and on, this also means this can stop tumors? There is a certain part where it causes cancer and if scientists learn a way to control the genes, then cancer is bascically cured. However there are factors that enable or disable that so it is very confusing. This is a great topic to read since this can influence the future of mankind.

Wow, that pretty ironic. For years people have argued why people act the way they are in the old argument of nature vs. nurture. Now Epigenetics seems like a compromise that the two factions can agree on; a set of genetics activated by environment.

Epigenetics create a new portal in which we can see genetics in general. The most contriversial part of genetics, cloning, may severely be hindered by the new rise of epigenetics. Flaws may be created by the environment if future clones are made, making cloning a more variated science. the fact that clones in the future could looks, sound and appear different, they are all living with the same genes activated by different factors.

I found this very interesting. The extreme number of genes and the miniscule details each gene is responsible for is hard for me to comprehend. It is so amazing and that genes can be turned off yet still present so they could possibly be passed on to offspring.

Epigenetics is amazing. I always thought of genetics as Punnett squares and probability. Apparently, it is much more than that if twin mice kept in the same environment look completely different.

After reading over the “12 Elegant Examples of Evolution” one major concept stood out: the fact that passion for scientific validity comes from first captivating minds and imaginations. This can be directly linked to science as a whole in the sense that imaginations lead to alternative theories as well as newly emerging ideas.

Let me start off by giving Charles Darwin an early Happy 200th Birthday! WOOT WOOT! You my boy Darweezy!
okay let’s be serious guys…
I personally have no idea how this is even possible. But I’m going to have to agree with Sir Bautista on this one… epigenetics clearly shows that evolution must be at least somewhat true. I am impressed as to how far this generation has come in revealing the many secrets DNA and genes are holding.

Epigenetics uses natural selection to help pick out what phenotypes it doesn’t want. The difference is, epigenetics states that the environment directly effects the genes to change them, rather than simply killing off organisms that show the negative phenotype and ending their gene line.

I don’t know how to explain how I am feeling right now, but it is a mix between perplexity and and astonishment. I viewed the video from NOVA scienceNOW etc etc, and i was astounded. It’s very interesting how a Methyl group attaches to parts of the DNA and turns them off. According to this blog it is because of certain environmental factors, but this shows how unique everyone is in this world, regardless of even having the same genome (this of course is the part of the story that causes my perplexity). What would really be fascinating is if some how we could control these methyl groups to turn on or shut down certain genes in our DNA.

I agree with Parker. I know a lot of people that are twins and are totally different. It is amazing. Epigenetics is very surreal for me. It is amazing that traits that are not usuable in an environment can be simply switched off and others can be brought out to ensure survival. And it isn’t like these traits are lost. They are just sleeping, well you know not is use. The traits will always be there if the are needed to be put to use if the evironment were to change. It is cool.

natural selection and genetic heredity are two strong columns supporting evolution proposed by Darwin. And he did it with no prior knowledge of genetics or the existence of DNA. Darwin was the einstein of Biology, what I mean is that his theories are so advanced and far sighted, that we are still finding pieces to the giant puzzle of evolution in the 21st century.

They (nature mag) should have included a picture of an old volkswagen beetle juxtaposed next to a picture of a toyota prius, showing the of evolution everywhere, without even changing our DNA or gene frequencies. In the future, people will look back and see the progression of technology from a simple wheel to a complex electric-gas automobile, from a single celled bacteria to a complex organism.

The youtube video of the eel with a second pair of jaws and teeth was so awkward and insane. Natural selection really screwed up when the poor eel ended up with two sets of jaws instead of just a modified jaw. And instead of being extinct, which it should have been, the eel actually is thriving and the second pair of jaw it possesses is very deadly to its preys. I wonder if there’s an animal with three pairs of jaws?

After watching the video about epigenetics, I am amazed. There is a whole other layer to genetics that has not been further investigated. I can see how this new information would complement natural selection. These epigenes could be turned on/off due to the factors in the environment. This could lead to more favorable offspring which in turn would slowly weed out the less favorable offspring. This accurately describes how the environment would affect all the organisms living in it.

This reminds me of the nature versus nurture dilemma. I believe that further experimentation with epigenetics will provide insight regarding the significance of the interaction between genes and the environment, maybe reinforcing the evidence that supports the nature side of the argument.

i agree with lloyd that some of this research should be aimed towards people. Even though it is very interesting about the animals i believe the uprising among people knowing more about our history would be incredible.

Like Parker said, without these epigentics, we would be unable to identify identical twins just soley on looks. Its always suprising to me how Darwin came up with this stuff over 200 years ago and is still looked at as a science genius

It is interesting to me to see taht these genes are affected by enviormental factors because when you think of phenotype’s I rarely think of the environment affecting what we look like, I seem to think what certain animals look like determines what kind of enviroment we will live in.

The idea of twins not posessing the exact set of genes is a bit startling to me even though I can readily accept that twins do not have the same fingerprints. Identical twins with the same genome but different sets of genes? That’s a bit staggering. This is quite similar to the old question of “Is a person who they are because of the way they were raised or because that’s who they were when they were born?”. I personally think that it’s a bit of both, concerning a person’s character and from personal experience I can say that each twin I’ve met in my life (I’d say about 8 in all) is very different from their look-alike counterpart. So different, in fact, that I could tell them apart immediatley, even the ones who were identical down to the last freckle and eyelash. It’s an interesting theory that gene sets may change due to exposure, but could that happen quickly enough to be a truly plausible theory in our rather short human life-span?

Without ever having done any research on the subject- except one Dicovery Channel episode on a study of several different sets of twins I saw once a very long time ago- of Nature vs. Nurture, I believe that a person does not have a set of genes that determines who they are and how they act. And this may be completely off the point of this article, but a person’s memories and experiences COMBINED with their genetic code, their inherited behavioral traits, makes a person who they are. Without memories, tangible flesh and blood experiences, a human is just a bag of bones wrapped in skin stuffed with DNA. Without the memories, a person simply does not exist, just a human.

It is incredible that even the most physicaly unsimilar organisms in fact have a very similar structure. Through modern technology we have been able to reconstruct how humans as well as other species formed pre-birth and it is simply amazing how related each is to the other.

Considering the time and the culture in which Darwin grew up, it is amazing that he was able to develop his theories on natural selection without any prior knowledge of heredity. The question must be asked though: if he had not stumbled on to that boat and made it into South America and the Glapagos Islands, would we still be stuck in the same unknowing rut we were 200 years ago?

After reading this I immediately thought of Lamarck. Perhaps it is just the way the article is phrased but it seems as though it gives some validity to his theory not to mention stir the feud of nature vs. nurture.

Epigenetics ceratinly chanllenges what we know about genetics because it credits traits not to DNA but to environmental factors. However it does compliment what we know about natural selection because it simply adds to the idea that those better suited for their environment will therefore survive longer, produce more offspring, and pass on their DNA.

Wow, a “new area of biology”, epigenetics. To think that biology already has a wide area of studies… Wow, genes can be altered by interacting with the environment and not by the changes in DNA, which can be proven by just observing living creatures in existence and their environment

I think that it is great that they included the thing that started dawins thinking in the article. Who knows who would have discovered, or even if we would think of evolution the way we do today if it wasn’t for the finches that Darwin noticed on his travels.

I have always wondered if fenetic heredity and natural selection could work against each other instead of with each other. I guess it has, maybe highly specilised animals like cheetas are examples of this happening. As you know cheeta’s mouths can only fit around the one type of antalope they eat. If the antalope go extienct the cheetas will too.

Hum, I wonder how sestive thes “switches” are. I mean if some one has the genes to be tall and they live in a building with low celings will they be short? I know that sounds silly, but it would be good to test how easy it is to turn them on or off. I would imagine that they living thisngs have to be in extremes to turn them on or off, because otherwise wouldn’t we have noticed it before?

Well I think it has the opprotinity to make living things more diverse. Livings things rearly rely on only one way to survive, why would something as complex as a creature stand only one evolution and natural seclection to give it the best method of survival. It doesn’t seem likely that it would. Also do all animals have the abbility to turn off genes?

Darwin is the founding father of evolution. His theories helped jump start a whole new forsight into the evolution of creatures and even human beings. I think that its amazing how celebrated this one man is and how famous and even infamous he is. Many scientists will do their lifework and not even get a passing glance, but Darwin was able to get almost 150 years of credit.

I am surprised that the platypus was not included in the 12 Elegant Examples of Evolution. It would only seem natural that an egg-laying mammal with a flattened tail, a duck’s bill, short powerful legs and webbed feet be somehow incorporated with that link.

I think that epigenetics helps support natural selection, but can also challenge what we know. For example, epigenetics is capable of going against natural selection. Certain traits can be passed on even though they are not favorable and be reactivated in later generations or even favorable traits disappear. This can cause genetic diseases to lay dormant and last through several generations spreading its potency to other gene pools instead of dying off in affected individuals. This would cause populations to be greatly affected by the disease resurfacing and killing large portions of the population that would have been highly favorable to the survival of the fittest theory. Epigenetics supports evolution, however it raises the question of whether or not old dormant traits in our DNA that we don’t use can reactivate and cause problems.

This article is addressing the issue that environment can change genes which almost seems possible with the various types of species we have on this planet. It contributes to the fact that genes determine how we look and act and this is not changed, the article is just saying how we can change those genes. This challenges us to figure out how different environments effect genes of different species.

I watched a documentary on PBS sometime ago and it presented identical twins (females) that were separated at the age of two. It pretty much compared their lives and directed the focus of the program to the controversy of “nature vs. nurturer”. I remember wondering how their genes could just appear and even disappear. I really find this “cause” of mutation exasperating. Is there anyway this could be pronounced in medicine, like turning off a potential gene for cancer?

Andrew makes a stupendous point! People have argued the nature vs. nurture point forever and now epigenetics incorporates both. I kinda think this is leaning more toward nurture though because the environment effects the genes. Like the experiment with the baby that was cared for and talked to was totally healthy while the baby that never interacted with anyone eventually became sick and died.

Darwin figured this out without any prior knowledge about genes and DNA, making him a very renowned scientist. Just by observing, he was able to figure out some mysteries about life in our world! If scientists today did that, we might not be too far off from a more advanced society, be it related to biology or not. We should definitely look for more creative ways to approach the mysteries of the world while applying logical analyses to support it just like Darwin.

This raises many more questions for scientists to solve. Epigenetics proves that all humans/animals are different even if only a little in their genetics structure. This in turn leads to some animals being more advantageous in certain areas. This is just another branch to the understanding of life on earth, and could potentially bring about new theories and ideas. While epigenetics can be applied to animals, it can also be applied to plants, determining their color or appearance based on environmental factors (temperature, rainfall, etc.)

Epigenetics complicates what we already know about evolution; now we have to factor in that some organisms of a species are better equipped in certain environments than others within the same species. The question no longer is “Which set of genes causes the most organisms to survive?” It’s now “Which set of genes causes the most organisms to survive under certain environmental conditions?” I believe that we as humans will never be able to figure out why epigenetics happens nor be able to find its true extent on both the organism and its environment.

I believe that the chances that there are animals with three pairs of jaws are possible. Because even today many different species are being uncovered in rain forests and deep into the ocean. There is still that can be learned about what lives or used to live on our planet.

If Nadeem’s beliefs were to be true than would that allow humans to manipulate our own genes to create “better” humans. Or could this cause us to reach a new level in science.

Epigenetics has enabled Darwin’s theories to be openly criticized. Like andrew said cloning can be the next epidemic if scientists are able to discover how to use epigenetics to their advantage

Epigenetics is a very cool new development that can challenege everything we know about evolution, natural selection, and genetics. I think it is sweet how twins who are thought to be exactly the same, are completely different. Depending on what they experience in their environments, determines their genetics.

Epigenetics is an extremely interesting topic that can change what we thought we knew about evolution. Environmental factors could have effected the evolution of different species, and not just genetic makeup and DNA sequences.

I wonder if it would be possible to turn off undesirable genes synthetically. This, I believe, would fall under the category of genetic engineering, but would hopefully be considered more ethical to those who oppose genetic engineering. It would have to potential to help a lot of people with genetic disorders.

Epigenetics supports natural selection in that the environment can modify a creature’s genes without really affecting the DNA makeup. This also seems to support nurture in the argument of nature vs. nurture. The things that are in the environment influence the phenotype, instead of it having been changed from birth.

I agree with Rachel that epigenetics gives the environment a more direct role in evolution. Where in natural selection the environment serves as kind of a test (survival of the fittest), epigenetics states it actually causes a change in genes, which is a pretty revolutionary idea.

Its absolutely ridiculous how far science has come in the past thirty years, in the field of genetics. The aspects of epigenetics can help explain how stem cells form into almost every other cell in the human body. If we could get a greater grasp of this part of genetics maybe we can find cures for certain disease that stem from genetic malfunctions.

Genetics and human anatomy is amazing. It will adapt to its surroundings — survival of the fittest. But what epigenetics challenges what we currently know about evolution is that, genetics can change and adapt into new species much quickly than we thought before. I think this further supports sudden change in evolution. It also supports more variety for species. What I found out is, well science is no where near perfected and keeps changing.

Charles Darwin is obviously the visionary during his time, and natural selection and genetic heredity are two key factors for diversity within species. What is difficult for us now is that we still have to understand the processes why we, as humans, pass certain types of our DNA and not others

Epigenetics obviously seems to prove natural selection in order to prove the survival rate of a species, but I’m still skeptical that it will change according to the environment. (If we wanted to get an apple from a ridiculously tall tree, we won’t pass on genes that will make our children jump like Lebron James.)

Epigenetic challenges our current view of thinking basically through its own definition. The passing of our DNA can be almost directly effected because of our environment. It enhances natural selection by helping us to understand that our genes will be passed on to better suit our offspring in their particular environment.

It is really flabbergasting to see the picture with dinosaur with feathers. Natural selection obviously caused changes with different species, and it is great to see that we are learning one of the many principles that Charles Darwin has given to the scientific community through his years of dedication for scientific research.

Yeah Andrea that’s exactly what came to my mind too! Yup the good old nature vs. nurture debate. I find this interesting because both of my aunts are twins where they look completely alike as children where looking in pictures I have to say I can’t tell them apart at all, but now they are completely opposite personality-wise and appearance-wise. The epigenome is way cool as it can turn of and on certain genes.

I wonder if cloned animals can be physically different as well? Like if a mouse with a certain fur pattern was cloned, could its clone have a different color fur? I think this would be an interesting experiment to try. This could also support epigenetics where two animals that have identical gene sequences could appear extremely different.