Thanks for the compliment. I will search for the correct literature and post it if you like. I have the articles on my computer some where. (Evolutionary mycologist here)---AlphaA 1113 4143
The gene is still altered. It gets methylated instead of having it's bases changed, but the gene is still the base unit. The differentiation between "genetics" and "epigenetics" is just a reflection of our historical biases in regarding "the genome" as a sequence of bases only.
Mod the parent up though, because it's an actual intelligent question and I'd like to see if Dr. (yes Soulskill, Dr, not Mr.) Dawkins agrees with me.
I would agree, but that methylation can be removed, resulting in the original genotype, thus the phenotype was selected for not the genotype. I think that it is aligned with the spirit with Dr. Dawkin's statement, if not the exact statement itself.
---AlphaA, 1113 4143
DNA methylation seems an interesting property that has been shown to be heritable in some instances (cannot remember citation, study involving desert plants in Arizona or New Mexico, USA), changing the phenotype without the genotype. If this is inheritable, this seems to break your assertion that the gene is always the level of selection. In this case a gene producing X phenotype is methylated to produce Y phenotype, which could be selected for against (either direction) phenotype X, phenotype Y individuals net result in my hypothetical is a increased fitness and fecundity relative to individuals with phenotype X. Do you view this as escaping your assertion or a mere special case as it is still the gene being methylated.
AlphaA
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for the compliment. I will search for the correct literature and post it if you like. I have the articles on my computer some where. (Evolutionary mycologist here)---AlphaA 1113 4143
The gene is still altered. It gets methylated instead of having it's bases changed, but the gene is still the base unit. The differentiation between "genetics" and "epigenetics" is just a reflection of our historical biases in regarding "the genome" as a sequence of bases only.
Mod the parent up though, because it's an actual intelligent question and I'd like to see if Dr. (yes Soulskill, Dr, not Mr.) Dawkins agrees with me.
I would agree, but that methylation can be removed, resulting in the original genotype, thus the phenotype was selected for not the genotype. I think that it is aligned with the spirit with Dr. Dawkin's statement, if not the exact statement itself. ---AlphaA, 1113 4143
DNA methylation seems an interesting property that has been shown to be heritable in some instances (cannot remember citation, study involving desert plants in Arizona or New Mexico, USA), changing the phenotype without the genotype. If this is inheritable, this seems to break your assertion that the gene is always the level of selection. In this case a gene producing X phenotype is methylated to produce Y phenotype, which could be selected for against (either direction) phenotype X, phenotype Y individuals net result in my hypothetical is a increased fitness and fecundity relative to individuals with phenotype X. Do you view this as escaping your assertion or a mere special case as it is still the gene being methylated. AlphaA