> When science stops "constantly rewriting itself"
> it stops being science.

This is very true, but the "rewrites" don't tend
to be major rewrites.  They tend to be "tweaks".

The lay public has a hard time getting a perspective
on how "major" or "minor" a change is, as every single
new thing tends to be hyped by the popular press as
"The Next Big Thing".  Even highly technical accounts
written for researchers in other fields tend to give
less-than excellent perspective.  At some point, one
has to hit the books, read the actual papers, and
invest some time and energy.  It is all hard work to
do, so it should be expected to be hard to understand.  :)

In the case of "Epigenetics", we must take care to
notice that no one is claiming that the chemical
modifications of DNA that affect expression (phenotype)
are changing the genetic code itself (genotype).

I think Bill was very much on target when he compared
"epigenetic" changes to overt damage caused by radiation.

None of this resurrects Lamarckism ("acquired traits"),
so none of it undermines the existing understanding of
inherited traits.  The clear proof is that we, having
enjoyed a childhood with "all the advantages" western
civilization and medicine can bestow, have not enjoyed
any POSITIVE "epigenetic" changes due to our exceptionally
well-fed and well-cared-for embryonic and fetal development
periods.  I myself am excellent proof that even the best
upbringing can't make a better human being.  :)

So, "epigenetic" changes simply mean "damage".  Just like
Bill's example of radiation exposure.  And of course it has
the potential to cause problems for the offspring.  That's
a no-brainer.

> To many scientists, epigenetics amounts to a heresy

Who are these "many scientists"?

I'd like a list please, as "epigenetic" changes are not the
subject of much current debate, nor are they particularly
upsetting to any aspect of current genetic understanding.

You want something freaky, something scary, something that
DID change aspects of our understanding of basic biology, go look
up "prions", which forced drafting of a "special case" exception
to the generally true statement that all living organisms use
nucleic acids to reproduce.

> When I find myself slipping into a debate about a scientific
> issue with someone, I take a sidestep and ask,
> "Is it conceivable that your "fixed idea" is wrong?

This sort of loaded question is tantamount to asking the
scientist to stand upon the shoulders of the giants that
came before him only to pull the hair and tweak the ears of
the aforementioned giants.  While many scientists find
themselves re-combing the hair and trimming the beards of the
giants, few want to be accused of trying to pull out their
hair in handfuls.  Such attempts are not only in poor taste,
they are almost always doomed to failure.

Some discoveries, like prions, can put a whole new part in the
hair of the giants.  Very very seldom do we find anything that
would cause the giants any pain, let alone topple the giants.

The cool thing about beekeeping is that one can attend meetings
and sit beside some of the giants upon whose shoulders we stand.  :)




                jim

-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and  other info ---