https://aeon.co/essays/on-epigenetics-we...s-theories
EXCERPT: [...] But this explanation for evolution turns out to be incomplete, suggesting that other molecular mechanisms also play a role in how species evolve. One problem with Darwin’s theory is that, while species do evolve more adaptive traits (called phenotypes by biologists), the rate of random DNA sequence mutation turns out to be too slow to explain many of the changes observed. Scientists, well-aware of the issue, have proposed a variety of genetic mechanisms to compensate [...] Yet even with such mechanisms in play, genetic mutation rates for complex organisms such as humans are dramatically lower than the frequency of change for a host of traits, from adjustments in metabolism to resistance to disease. [...] And the problems with Darwin’s theory extend out of evolutionary science into other areas of biology and biomedicine.
[...] Lamarck’s theory, long relegated to the dustbin of science, held, among other things, ‘that the environment can directly alter traits, which are then inherited by generations to come’.
[...] Neo-Darwinian and neo-Lamarckian mechanisms both drive evolution, and they appear to be intertwined. [...] The unified theory of evolution has many skeptics, especially in light of the genetic determinism paradigm that has influenced the biological sciences for more than 100 years. [...] Generations of scientists and the public have been taught genetics, but few have been exposed to the relatively new science of epigenetics – in fact, inclusion of epigenetics into the molecular elements of biology and evolution has been met with opposition.
[...] It was Thomas Kuhn who suggested that when a current paradigm reveals anomalies then new science needs to be considered – that is how scientific revolutions are born [...] Despite the pushback, I’m convinced that we have reached the point where a paradigm shift is due.
Accepting that epigenetics plays a role in evolution does not topple the science of genetics; embracing neo-Lamarckian ideas does nothing to challenge classic neo-Darwinian theory. The accepted sciences are essential and accurate, but part of a bigger, more nuanced story that expands our understanding and integrates all our observations into a cohesive whole. The unified theory explains how the environment can both act to directly influence phenotypic variation and directly facilitate natural selection...
EXCERPT: [...] But this explanation for evolution turns out to be incomplete, suggesting that other molecular mechanisms also play a role in how species evolve. One problem with Darwin’s theory is that, while species do evolve more adaptive traits (called phenotypes by biologists), the rate of random DNA sequence mutation turns out to be too slow to explain many of the changes observed. Scientists, well-aware of the issue, have proposed a variety of genetic mechanisms to compensate [...] Yet even with such mechanisms in play, genetic mutation rates for complex organisms such as humans are dramatically lower than the frequency of change for a host of traits, from adjustments in metabolism to resistance to disease. [...] And the problems with Darwin’s theory extend out of evolutionary science into other areas of biology and biomedicine.
[...] Lamarck’s theory, long relegated to the dustbin of science, held, among other things, ‘that the environment can directly alter traits, which are then inherited by generations to come’.
[...] Neo-Darwinian and neo-Lamarckian mechanisms both drive evolution, and they appear to be intertwined. [...] The unified theory of evolution has many skeptics, especially in light of the genetic determinism paradigm that has influenced the biological sciences for more than 100 years. [...] Generations of scientists and the public have been taught genetics, but few have been exposed to the relatively new science of epigenetics – in fact, inclusion of epigenetics into the molecular elements of biology and evolution has been met with opposition.
[...] It was Thomas Kuhn who suggested that when a current paradigm reveals anomalies then new science needs to be considered – that is how scientific revolutions are born [...] Despite the pushback, I’m convinced that we have reached the point where a paradigm shift is due.
Accepting that epigenetics plays a role in evolution does not topple the science of genetics; embracing neo-Lamarckian ideas does nothing to challenge classic neo-Darwinian theory. The accepted sciences are essential and accurate, but part of a bigger, more nuanced story that expands our understanding and integrates all our observations into a cohesive whole. The unified theory explains how the environment can both act to directly influence phenotypic variation and directly facilitate natural selection...