

Parenting from before conception: Babies' health doesn't 'start from scratch' - pain_perdu
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/08/140814191347.htm

======
dang
We changed the URL from [1] so the thread can stop being about a
sensationalized and off-topic title [2].

1\. [http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-
australia/darwins-t...](http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-
australia/darwins-theory-of-evolution-challenged-by-university-of-adelaide-
genetic-memory-research-published-in-journal-science/story-
fni6uo1m-1227024901078?nk=54810754a37a8dbcab3eafc6656a09b9)

2 "Darwin's theory of evolution challenged"

------
tootie
It's called transgenerational epigenetics. It's been observed before. It's
nowhere near what Lamark proposed. For that matter, we are already way beyond
Darwin who never even conceived of DNA. This is just another nuance.

------
skywhopper
Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection is not challenged by this
research. All Darwin's original theory requires is that traits vary, are
passed down to offspring, and affect the reproductive success of those
children.

Darwin published "On the Origin of Species" before the scientific community
had recognized that such things as "genes" really existed. So on the face of
it, it's absurd to propose that the idea that genes (as in, specific sequences
of DNA base pairs at specific locations on specific chromosomes) are not the
entirety of the mechanism by which organisms acquire their traits challenges
the mechanism by which those traits are filtered.

Not to mention that there's never been any question that environmental input
affects gene expression. All this paper is basically saying is that the health
and lifestyle of the parents is an environmental factor in embryo development.
If you smoke crack while pregnant, that does cause predictable affects on gene
expression in the child. This paper may extend that to smoking crack before
you get pregnant, which, unsurprisingly, likely also affects the child.

The idea that this effect is anything like Lemarckianism or that the existence
of epigenetic effects refutes Darwin so greatly misunderstands both Lemarck
and Darwin that I don't know where to begin. If there are actual scientists
out there making these claims in such bold terms, they are either deluded or
they are BSing for political reasons.

------
vezzy-fnord
Uh, if anything, this challenges _tabula rasa_. But I don't see how it's such
a blow to Darwinian evolution. Or am I missing something?

------
leonatan
Silly sensational title. The theory has to be nuanced if anything, not
challenged.

------
tiatia
I have not read the paper. But looks to me these bozos just rediscovered DNA
methylation and the "grandmother-effect"

