pangloss

Superpseudoscientist mbjturner posted this at ARN:

******************************************
FYI: Epigenetic inheritance (as per EAM)

excerpt:

---'Programmed Obesity' Handed Down To Next Generation----

"Consuming a milk formula high in carbohydrates during the critical early weeks of postnatal life causes permanent changes in pancreatic islets and leads to overproduction of insulin and development of obesity in adulthood, University at Buffalo biochemists, working with rats, have found.
Furthermore, this "metabolic programming" carries through to the next generation. Offspring of first-generation high-carbohydrate-fed (HC) female rats developed hyperinsulinemia (high insulin levels) and obesity without any dietary modification.

Mulchand Patel, Ph.D., UB professor of biochemistry and senior author on the study, presented results of his research in New Orleans Tuesday (April 23) at the Experimental Biology 2002 meeting."


unisci.com/stories/20022/0424022.htm
******************************************


I implore anyone to read the article and see if they honestly think that it supports 'EAM'. Brauer wrote a reply to one of the overabundant 'nobody' posts in which he wondered whether certain IDists simply do searches for specific words and when they find an article that has the words, say, "programmed" or "design", they plaseter it all over their favorite site without bothering to read or understand the gist of the article. It looks like this is what mbjturner does on a regular basis.

Environmental - and yes, diet is considered environmental - changes can affect genotpye which can affect phenotype. That altered phenpotype can influence the phenotype of offspring. Not too big a leap, not anti-Darwinian.

Unless, of course, you are an ideologue with a belief to push and an admitted dearth of scientific knowledge. Then, it becomes yet another example of EAM.

hezekiah jones

What on earth is "EAM" anyway. I can't say I've ever paid that much attention to mturner's turgidly obfuscatory verbiage.

lpetrich

"Epigenetic inheritance" seems like a form of Lamarckism -- but one that is consistent with the "Central Dogma" of genetics. I remember trying to think of mechanism for Lamarckian inheritance that is consistent with it, and it would be interesting to see if programmed-obesity inheritance happens by this mechanism.

Here is the mechanism:

Normally, a gene product, usually a protein, slows down the transcription of that gene as its abundance increases, eventually stopping it -- which is thermostat-like negative feedback.

However, if the presence of that product is also necessary to start transcription of that gene, then the resulting system will be a two-state one: either no product or full concentration of the product.

This system could be toggled by some other molecules, one that switches on by starting transcription of that gene, and one that switches off by stopping transcription and somehow inducing degradation of that gene product.

I wonder if anyone has ever found any direct evidence of such a mechanism; I'm not sure where one might look in the genetics literature.

pangloss

Endogenous adaptive mutagenesis.

Basically, turner believes that organisms can sort of 'want' to adapt and that the phenotypic adaptation occurs first with the corresponding change in genotype happening later. His main line of evidence seems to be the already debunked notion of Directed Mutation.

If that is incorrect, we will have no way of knowing, since mturner 'don't wanna talk to me'....

Richiyaado

Actually, Pangloss, I don't think mturner could talk to you here, even if he wanted to, as I believe he's been banned from Infidels. (Unfairly, in my opinion).

[ May 08, 2002: Message edited by: Richiyaado ]</p>

pangloss

Thats essentiually irrelevant. I posted this same thing at the Gynne Joynte, and it has been totally ignored. Indeed, 'matty' implied in another thread there that folks at that other venue don't even like looking at such posts.

But it really doesn't matter. Mturner has ignored EAM-damning evidence from day 1. And not just that posted by me. He's a zealot, and a victim of his own pseudocertainty. He doesn't want to hear anything damaging to his pet belief.

katerina

LOL! Which is why, Scott, you look a little silly posting that stuff there!

Now if you want to contribute some disgusting observations about your body falling into decrepitude, you are perfectly welcome!

pangloss

Yes, it is silly. Pearls before swine and all that.

I thought you were leaving?