> 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 ---