Darwinism being random mutation and natural selection.

For those who don't know, epigenetics is the study of changes in organisms caused by modification of gene expression rather than alteration of the genetic code itself.

It appears on the surface that this will directly question the notion of random mutation of the genetic code within Darwinism as the main force in evolutionary change.

Thoughts?

Why do you suppose them to be mutually exclusive?

Source: not a biologist.

I don't, and they might not be. It could be both. One of the major discoveries of the last 20 years in epigenetics is that the human genome is 8% ancient viral DNA.

Source?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endogenous_retrovirus

I'm not understanding your point about ancient viral DNA and how this relates to Darwinism or what your assertion or conjecture is in general. Any elaboration? Or just wait for a biologist?

I guess its surprising that a virus invading your DNA and mucking about is more likely to be a part of evolution than just purely accidental and otherwise random mutations?
Especially given that our DNA is resistant to changes, so a virus can speed up the process of mutation.

After all, more and more cancer can be linked to viruses, which today seems sort of obvious, but was unheard of for a very long time.

Disclaimer: not a biologist.

So we are the evolutionary playthings of the real dominant life form on the planet, viruses.


PairTheBoard

So the point may be related but wasn't my initial point. The point is that epigenetics is discovering that there is more genetic flexibility in pre-existing genetic information than was thought before. Behavioral and dietary choices by parents can alter future generations body forms, etc. The old pre-darwinian theory about giraffes ancestors stretching their necks and having offspring with longer necks is turning out to be not such a crazy idea after all (maybe not a good example, but similar).

There was a study done on the Dutch Famine of 1944 where Nazis basically blockaded the Netherlands. Women who were pregnant in the first three months of the blockade had children who were more prone to being obese. The pregnant women in the last part of the blockade had lower than average birth weight babies whose body weights persisted below average throughout life. The really weird part is that both sets of grandchildren have been shown to have the same effects.

This directly contradicts the theory that random mutations over long periods of time are what is responsible for most morphology changes. Epigenetics is showing the precise opposite to be true, namely, large changes over extremely short periods of time. It doesn't mean random mutation doesn't happen and contribute, but it is challenging it as the major driver in evolution.

This seems to offer some slight evidence for the idea of the will, as a creative kind of force in the world. E.g. The world as will and representation - Schopenhauer; the will to power - Nietzsche.

I suggested in a thread here years ago that intelligence might play a part in evolution in a natural, rather than supernatural, way. It was pointed out that mate selection could be such an evolutionary vehicle. Maybe epigenetics is as well. Once a nervous system gets started, feedback loops abound and things take off.



PairTheBoard

Once we became bipedal meat eaters with oversized brains, I would say the thoughts became the driving force. We are strangely paranoid yet overconfident enough to adapt to any environment. We are, as as been suggested pejoratively, the world’s viral species.