Your Environment May Change Your Genes

An anonymous reader writes "Recent experiments indicate that your environment alters your genes. The longer identical twins live apart, the more their "epigenomes" (genetic sequences that activate or suppress other genes) differ. This possibility could cause a radical shift in the assumptions of biological inheritance (namely that, with minor exceptions, an individual's genes do not change), and indicates the possibility of return of Larmarckian inheritance which had formerly been consigned to the dustbin of biology."

Comments

Re:Not actually genes are changed

[dannyitc]

I think it would be reasonable to assume the article was referring to DNA in somatic cells, as altered gene expression only has the capacity to change an organism in somatic cells, and thusly, would be the only type that would reasonably respond to envionmental pressures. My (somewhat educated) guess is that the gametes would remain untouched.

This really shouldn't come as a big surprise. Differential gene expression is one of the major unexplored areas of genomics, and we're just beginning to scratch the surface of how organisms as complex as humans can develop with a number of genes comparable to that of a roundworm. Changes in the environment controlling gene expression is something that's well documented in many different organisms.

Re:My problem with current evolutinary theory...

[narrowhouse]

I didn't say they were valid arguments. When I said "my problem", I fully acknowledged it was MY problem with evolution, not a grand theory refuting it. I think that many scientists would prefer to think that the reason some people don't accept evolution is religion. I have read what people have written about elvolution though clearly not as much as you. While agree that the majority do harp on the creationist view, I think there are some who have some concerns about the theory itself. How valid those concerns are obiously varies but I am sure the work of past critics has been used to improve our current understanding. As I have said in a previous post the theory of evolution has itself evolved extensively over time (Unless you think Darwin hit it on the nose with the first swing). Your professor's research is 25 years old at most, so it will take a few more years for its implications to to sink into the general populace's understanding of evolution. Your not-so-humble-opinion seems to be based in years of studying the subject, maybe you can see how those of us who have not devoted the same amount of time to the subject have a slightly fuzzier view.

Re:My problem with current evolutinary theory...

[TuringTest]

1 in 40,000,000,000 is all that is needed, since that special 1 is who will survive and replace the other 40,000,000,000. Useful features develop in paralel, and there weren't many before sexual reproduction (the history of life is mainly that of single cell bacteria for a long, long time).

Also natural selection does not explain evolution. Natural selection + variation does. Natural selection can't change a species if all the individual to select from are identical.

The fossil record has plenty of holes in it and can't explain ALL changes, but what remains does show enough clear transitions and failed combinations to support that theory.